You seem to be saying that the census gave 18 more electoral votes to the states McCain won. By my calculations it’s 7. Four in Texas, one each in SC, GA, NE, UT and AZ. MO and LA are down one each. That makes an 90 vote gap. Indiana has switched so that leaves 79. (That’s probably what you meant, but didn’t actually say.) Which means as I said that’s still a minimum of six additional states that have to swing, all but one of which are leaning Obama. That’s according to RealClearPolitics, not Nate Silver, so you don’t get to discount the numbers.
Everything has to go right for Romney to win. He has to win every toss-up state. If, say, Florida stays Democratic that cancels out Michigan and Wisconsin and requires Romney to get an additional four states, plus NC and OH. An eight-state swing in states he’s losing.
I don’t believe in political scenarios that require the person down in the polls to win every single close race. Do you have any evidence for this position other than wishful thinking?
Nate Silver is a liberal, but his methodology is sound. He’s not out to game things for his side, he wants to predict the actual results. The closer he is to being correct, the better things are for Nate Silver in the future.
His predictions aren’t just based on polling. The polls are just one data point in addition to many others including economic indicators, that his model uses to spit out its results. Nobody knows stats like this guy.
The problem with just looking at polls on RCP is that they don’t look at which ways the different polls lean, they just give you a straight average. Polls are pretty worthless when looked at that way. And believe me, if the polls were showing a narrow Obama lead but Silver was saying Romney was going to win - I’d still trust Silver and not be hanging my my hat on the RCP polls.
My “191 + FL + OH + NC + 17 other electoral votes” scenario was in response to Hentor the Barbarian saying “it is somewhat difficult to see what the Romney campaign sees as its path through the electoral college.” Now, I have no particular insight into what the Romney campaign’s internal discussions, but that seems like one of the more likely scenarios.
I never gave a particular number of swing states that Romney has to win, but for the record, you’re wrong, he could do it with just 4: FL, OH, NC, and MI would put him at 269 electoral college votes, and in this case, a tie goes to Romney. There are multiple combinations of 5 swing states that would result in a Romney victory as well. Where are you getting this “minimum of six” business from?
I’m somewhat familiar with Nate Silver’s methodology, and while I don’t think he’s out to “game things for his side”, I think his model tilts towards the Democrats a bit.
Also, the RCP crew is well aware of the “house effect” of various polling outfits, even though it’s not reflected in their polling averages, and I’m aware of it too and take it into consideration when reviewing the latest polls. For example, in OH I tend to discount* the latest PPP poll that shows Obama +5.
by “discount” I mean “deduct a couple of points or so” not “completely disregard”
Obama is running a skillful campaign against amateurs.
Obama is very careful not to peak too early. He has crafted a near underdog position all the way into the Convention and emerges far ahead of his competition. The Vegas odds are now around 65% probability for Obama against 35% for Romney. That’s close to 2:1 probability in favor of Obama. And, it’s real money on the line, not just some pundits blog.
The Republicans are offering a pitiful Clown act. It is the laughing stock of Europe (according to friends) and an insult to the United States.
We desperately need a viable Republican Party to participate responsibly in the governance of our nation. I do not see one in the midst of this freak show or in anything on the horizon.
Crane
Isn’t every election won because “everything (or almost everything) went right” for the winner (and/or wrong for the loser) in the homestretch? It’s fully plausible for Romney to nonmiraculously assemble 270+ in 8 weeks’ time, especially if economic indicators go even worse.
Re: ad buys in swing states. Like I wrote in another post, it could be the Romney side and its backing SuperPACs may be operating from the premise that they can give the voters a breather, hold their fire a little longer, and then unleash an overwhelming barrage too close to the election for the Dems to counter effectively. Chancy strategy, if it’s so.
The difference is that Rassmussen et al are reporting polls while Nate Silver is managing a computer model and openingly discussing it’s inner workings.
Well, considering that I don’t know of a poll (and I would love to be enlightened here) that shows “numbers [that] point to a [r]omney win,” least of all any polls that show a 4-5 point convention bounce for Romney, I felt safe in assuming that he was talking about more than the PPP polls.
I agree with this, and have another reason. There don’t seem to be a lot of young moderates entering Republican politics, with the possible exception of Brown. (And he may be gone in November.) As we’ve seen, for him to get any traction nationally he’d have to swing right. Colin Powell, if he had decided to run, might have been the last hope for a moderate Republican candidate.
Demographics is going to kill them.Even Bush realized that, and he got nowhere. Insulting Hispanics and women is not the path to future victory, but seems to be part of the right’s core belief system.
I also agree that a hero moderate who can tell the Tea Party faction to drop dead and still win primaries is their only hope.
HurricaneDitka: Here’s part of my problem: the statements by the advisor imply, to me, more than a single poll, but a totality of numbers, a bigger picture, and I simply don’t know of any information that backs that up.
That’s why I’m more inclined to respect to your cite on the convention bounce, as Nate Silver gives a wide variety of polls. However, even there, I’d point out that he says “Mr. Romney’s bounce registers as being about two and a half points rather than three,” going back to what I said above about a single poll versus a totality.
Do you think that your cited poll (your first link) accurately represents the overall picture of what the election in general is like? If so, why do you go with it over any other? Why should this single poll be accurate?
Now, I’m sure you could cite other individual polls, but I think a more compelling case could be made with some sort of analysis that takes a grouping of polls, so that any outliers either way don’t affect the results too much. Do you know of any that would support what the Romney advisor is implying?