Also, even if Romney does win, barring some really extraordinary events, it won’t be an easy victory.
Granting the assumption in the OP, the smart move for the GOP would be to move toward the center, away from the Tea Party/fringe. They can win without taking a hard line on social issues that tend to galvanize the opposition. Of course, I’ve been urging them to do that for years, and they don’t seem to be listening…
You fail to address the paradox that arises from the fact that it is unacceptable for America to ever again have a Republican as President.
All the predictions that Nate Silver makes are statistical. Right now it’s a 70 electoral vote margin. Perhaps more importantly, he gives Obama’s chances of victory at 72% and that number has been trending slightly upward for a while. (By comparison Intrade has the betting at 57.4%, in a slightly downward pattern.)
The underlying point is the same one I keep repeating (and try not to do it so often it gets boring). Everything, absolutely everything, has to go right for Romney to make up that huge 192 electorate vote gap. Every tiny missed opportunity makes that much harder. The convention is an example. Ratings were way down from 2008 on every channel but Fox and even Fox dipped by 2%. That’s probably due more to the hurricane than anything intrinsic but the Romney campaign has to be gnashing its teeth. Luck is part of the game and Romney has had none.
A 70 electoral vote loss is about equal to Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado, all of which are labeled leaning Obama by 538. The GOP will bombard them all with money but nothing indicates that they ever expected that Romney could take them all. Or anybody else running this time. Since Silver’s computer projections puts the two most likely scenarios at Obama winning 330 or 350 electorate votes, a mere 303 would be to Romney’s credit.
Easy victory? Intrade puts the odds of a Romney victory at 43%. It seems that you believe it to be 90%+. If you truly believe that, you should dig into your savings and make some easy money. Personally, I’d say that Romney’s odds are closer to a respectable 35%.
The Democrats took a walk in the wilderness after Mondale’s 2004 blowout. Only a Democratic landslide can bring the Republican moderate back from the dead. Demographics are trending in the Democratic direction: as I see it the inevitable can only be postponed if the Republicans make inroads into the Hispanic community. That means ignoring the yahoos on immigration. That could happen, though Romney declared during the primaries that he wanted illegal immigrants to “Self-deport”. It’s the Arizona approach: make it so miserable for Latinos that they want to leave the country.
The most likely outcome is that the Republicans will have forgotten about Romney in 2016, just as they’ve forgotten about GWBush, Bob Dole and the actual policies of Ronald Reagan.
Can’t beliece nobody’s suggested Jeb Bush yet.
I can’t be bothered to find the thread but this has already been shown to be total bullshit. The professors have never used this model to predict anything. Ever.
The methodology is completely flawed. It is basically the equivalent of predicting 9/11 but not making your prediction until September 12, 2001.
You should dig a little deeper than The Daily Caller.
The model hasn’t predicted a single presidential election, correctly or incorrectly, ever, because it has just been developed. This year is the first year it has made a prediction.
It has also been roundly trashed by pollsters.
Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Also, it’s false advertising to claim CU model has predicted the last 8 elections right. It’s a new model. Hasn’t predicted anything yet.
22 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
If you want a “fundamentals” model that shows Romney winning, the Hibbs model is a lot more sensible. http://bit.ly/SqgfnH (5/5)
22 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
The Colo. model also assumes huge effects from unemployment if incumbent is a Dem., but none if he’s GOP. Hard claim to defend. (4/5)
22 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
The U. of Colo. model fits the equivalent of 7 unknowns to 8 elections. That’s not a good idea. (3/5)
22 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
It’s late, so I’ll be blunt: I saw their paper and I think there are glaring problems with their methodology. (2/5)
22 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
A Denver Post reporter asked me (http://bit.ly/MNOF1C ) about this U. of Colorado election model (Analysis of election factors points to Romney win in U.S. election | ScienceDaily ). (1/5)
Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
It’s surprising how often studies that fail a sanity check can pass peer review.
24 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
So, for example, the U. Colo. model has Obama’s vote dropping off MORE in Ohio because its economy is relatively good.
24 Aug Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Another huge flaw with that U. Colorado election model: it actually assumes a Dem incumbent does WORSE when state income growth is higher.
Fixed.
Listing one guys name nine times doesn’t count as multiple people.
Anyway, what if Republicans hold the House, pick up the Senate and lose the presidency? What then? Would it cause Democrats to reevaluate their standings? Probably not, since losing by such a wide margin during midterms didn’t cause them to try to “reach out”. I never understand the point of these threads because they inevitably degenerate into a partisan hackfest.
Anyway, fwiw, according to this, Romney is actually winning among independents. Of course, the way demographics are skewed, Obama could conceivably win without winning the independent vote whereas Romney cannot. So, hypothetically speaking, if Romney wins independents yet loses the election, what then?
I guess Republicans will have to Blame the women.
Interesting. Wold you care to offer up a serious response?
It was serious, from your link:
Voter fraud? Chicago machine politics? Surely it can’t be the Republican Party’s ideas.
I know what my link says. And again I ask, would you care to offer up a serious response? Republicans aren’t going to blame women if Romney loses anymore than Democrats would blame men if Obama loses.
God help me for ever having agreed with Omg a Black Conservative, but tweets aren’t a really strong reference here. I’d like to have the guy go into detail on how and why the methodology is flawed. He’s giving us some good headlines, but we need the column-inches to back it up.
For me, the prediction seems off, given that it contradicts what everyone else in the blogosphere is saying: Obama has some strong polling numbers, and Romney would have to make one hell of a sweep of the swing states to put together a victory.
(I personally think Romney can only win on a significant Obama flub, or by some extremely dirty campaigning. We haven’t seen the real Swift-Boat or Willie Horton ad campaign yet.)
Considering that the OP is dealing with a close election (very likely) ending in favor of Obama, I would say that it would be the result of the women seeing things like the extreme positions against any abortion and with no exceptions from the Republicans, Ryan says that he will follow Romney on this, but his record and the official position of of the party is turning off enough women to make them one of the items that will make the difference in the election.
And enough independents are also noticing too, what is interesting is that even a majority of Republicans do not follow what Ryan and the mostly extreme republicans of today are telling us that we should forbid an abortion in the cases of rape and incest and put many blocks even when in cases where the health of the woman is at stake.
Without turning this into a partisan hackfest, what sort of things should Democrats have done that you would consider to be reaching out?
Depends on how they do in Congress. If the GOP takes the Senate and holds the House, then the idea that they were too conservative for America kinda gets debunked. Then it’s obvious that they just had a weak Presidential candidate.
If the GOP takes a general shellacking, then changes will have to be made. Not so much on economic policy, but they do need to be more inclusive and that’s true even if they win. There’s just no excuse to lose ANY group by 50 points or more.
When I say 60, I mean 60 EV above the 270 you need to win. The real margin of victory for Obama (if he wins 332 EV) would be about 126 EV.
The site 538 has Obama winning all the same states he won in 2008 as the most probable outcome, except Indiana and North Carolina (both of which were razor thin victories in 2008).