Oops, I take back what I said upthread. I didn’t realize that Brainglutton was a tea partier!
Well, he’s threatening/implying violence if he doesn’t get his way.
I had nothing in mind involving firearms. I’m a lawyer. There’s plenty of nonviolent ways to make trouble.
This doesn’t seem to make sense. The electoral votes for Obama and Romney have to add up to 538, so if there’s a narrow range of outcomes for one candidate, there has to be an equally narrow range of outcomes for the other. Or am I misreading you?
Or I’m mis-remembering the article. I think the point was that likely+probable+possible states for any Republican candidate in 2012 give a narrow range of electoral votes. The scenarios for Obama have a wider range. If Romney has a winning scenario, obviously Obama loses, and vice-versa. But If Romney only gets his likely minimum, Obama wins big in EVs. Whereas Romney’s best projection is not far above a minimum victory. Another way to think about it: if Obama keeps all his 2008 states, he wins again. If he flips additional states he gets into landslide territory. Romney must keep all of McCain’s 2008 states and flip some more to him. It’s not quite that simple - there are some states that are already considered likely to flip this year.
The larger point is it’s still anyone’s election.
When I first read Typo Knig’s post, I thought he said Obama could win or lose big, which suggests that Romney could win or lose big. But on re-read, I think he was saying that Obama could win or lose narrowly, or win big. That means that Romney could win or lose narrowly, or lose big. Is that a correct summary? so there is symmetry there, but it doesn’t mean that both have the same range of outcomes.
That does make sense. The issue I was getting at is that even though there are two numbers being reported in the electoral vote totals, we know their sum has to be 538, and so there’s really only one. As a result, every possible outcome for Mitt Romney corresponds to a unique possible outcome for Barack Obama, and it’s impossible for there to be more variability in one set of outcomes than the other, which is what I thought was being claimed.
I agree with the more general point that it’s still an open election.
FWIW (absolutely nothing), I used the RealClearPolitics map toss-up data to set the 270towin map as if the toss up states would be won by whichever candidate currently has a lead in that state, no matter how small. The RCP map is a bit more conservative, with more toss-ups than 270towin. Obama wins by a comfortable margin of 313-225.
Toss-ups for Obama from RCP: NV, CO, WI, IA, MO, NH, OH, VA
Toss-ups for Romney from RCP: AZ, FL, NC
Heh.
Three pollsters go hunting. A deer runs through a clearing nearby. One pollster shoots just ahead of it, one shoots just behind it, and the third shouts, “We got it!”
“Republican Party candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election” is offered today at Intrade.com for a whopping $45.60. The price is even higher at University of Iowa’s Electronic Market. (I’ve lost the bookmark to see the odds at various Sportsbooks.)
Why the recent surge? Jobs report or Wisconsin election?
In any event, the news is depressing.
Yeah. 54+ plus 45+ = 99.9. It balances.
Obama is the favorite but only slightly so. The “only slightly” part depresses me. (It only matters only slightly but I check Demo/Repub not Obama/Romney. Accidents do happen.)
BTW, the Repub graph shows that that contract was selling, briefly, above $50 some months ago.