A little icing on the cake.
http://www.bradenton.com/2012/11/08/4271001/romney-campaign-we-lost-florida.html
I feel like it’s really bad news for republicans that in a very close election, Florida went so narrowly to the Democrat. Florida is usually pretty republican-leaning relative to the rest of the country, right? Didn’t Obama only win it by like 2% in 2008 even though he won nationally by over 7%?
Definitely not good news for republicans if Romney really lost Florida.
Secret fact: This election was not, in fact, remotely close, in spite of all the talking heads telling us that it would be. 
Certainly not in the electoral college, and even in the popular vote it was a 2.5% spread which is about the same size as Bush II’s 2004 margin.
Florida went Democratic five times since 1960 or 33% of the time. Twice for Obama, once for Clinton, once for Carter and once for Johnson.
It’s considered a swing state but it doesn’t seem remarkably swingy. I suppose for the EVs, it’s the best bet out of the larger states that you could potentially flip (as opposed to GOP battling for NY/CA or Democrats battling for Texas).
I wonder how many of the conservative pundits who predicted a 330 EV landslide for Romney will now say that Obama narrowly won and has no mandate.
Didn’t they say that after the LAST election?
I think Charles Krauthammer has already had that tattooed on his forehead. It was his big consolation point on Fox ‘News’ about ten minutes after they called the whole shootin’ match for Obama.
I consider the 2004 election to be pretty close too. Obama got just over 50% of the vote this time… that’s pretty close. I admit it’s not razor-thin close… but anyway, it’s just my subjective definition of a “close election.”
I just think that with demographics going the way that they are, Florida is going to become even less swingier than it already is and more and more reliably democratic.
Obama carried Travis county (pdf) quite handily so there is hope.
Somebody here paged Dick Morris?
“I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.”
That’s hysterical. His Romney landslide prediction was: 325 EV’s.
Obama’s squeaker of a win: 332 EV’s.
That is quite entertaining.
300+ EV is only a landslide if a republican wins it. For a Democrat, that just barely passes muster. In fact, we should probably amend the constitution to require at least 330 EV for a democrat to get elected.
So do I, but it’s fairly “run of the mill” as US presidential elections seem to go when there’s no third party. IIRC intrade was referring to the possibility of a 10% spread in the popular vote as a “landslide”.
I also recall some prominent righties referring to Bush II’s margins as “huge” in 2004.
I frankly doubt we will ever see a 10% spread in the popular vote again, in the hyper-partisan, very distinct two parties we have now.
In the past, a 10% spread was rare enough. Nowadays I think it’s impossible. I say that 7% or so counts as a landslide, as we had in 2008.
If just two states had switched from Obama to Romney, we’d have President Mitt being inaugurated in January. You’re going to tell me that’s not close?
And so what if Romney lost California by 20 points. That’s still one state!!1!
Exactly, and given that, I say that 2.5%, or “more than a third of a landslide” counts as a “none too shabby”.
Fair enough. I see your point.
I obviously disagree that the 2012 election was a “squeaker”. I think Obama won by a close, but comfortable margin.
I admit I’m being kind of inconsistent, hehe.
The point I was making about Florida stands, I think. Maybe not though. I guess if it were closer than it was, it would have gone to Romney.
The difference between “squeaker” and “landslide” has nothing to do with numbers people. It’s all about parties. A Democratic win is a squeaker, and a Republican win is a landslide.
Don’t you guys know anything?
And with that, Nate Silver’s state-by-state projection turns out to have been 100% accurate.
I guess facts and data really are more reliable than gut feelings.