Nate Silver: 2016 is a tossup; most conventional wisdom analysis is flimsy

[bobloblaw]

While Ive thought that Hillary would win, Ive also thought the final results will be closer than 2012.

Hillary isnt going to run for Obama's third term and greatly improve among white and blue collar voters. That would imply those voters liked the Obama message, just not Obama (which polling shows the opposite has mostly been true). 

[bobloblaw]

He's wrong. go look at Jonathan Chait's column from today.

Obama will be the 5th term limited president but the parties have diverged ideologically; there are much fewer swing voters today than 15 let alone 55 years ago. Also, Silver should know better than to consider midterm electorates as relevant for whether or not there's a Democratic majority in presidential elections. In the latter, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the demographic make-up of presidential electorates has been trending more Democratic still. He also dismisses the D electoral college advantage by arguing there is no "firewall".  Silver is smarter than that. Republicans can win but they have to sweep the swing states to do so. Democrats only need to stop a GOP sweep.

He's right that the economy is unpredictable and that Bush or Walker won't change the race much but calling it a toss-up is arbitrary. Silver is better at analyzing polls a month before election day than predicting with hunches (like when he gave Hillary only an 80% chance to be the nominee 2 months ago or whatever).

As I said 2 years ago, Hillary has the easiest path of any non-incumbent in modern times. I'd say she's close to 70% to be the next president, incredibly high for someone on the day they announce.

Nate Silver hasnt been wrong yet.

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

[bobloblaw]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/

A clear level headed analysis

[bobloblaw]

This analysis is pure wishful thinking. He doesn't even try to add any data to this beyond a graph that shows she's already more popular than the entire field, but says "eh, don't pay attention to that" for no reason.

"Yea, Obama's approval ratings are middling and have been for years but you know but they could decline more... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, the economy is supposed to matter but I'd warn against that... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, Democrats have this advantage with non-whites, but maybe they don't we'll see... (, no reasoning given)"

"Yea, Romney got completely tarnished by a bunch of crazies in the primary last time, but it won't happen this time... (, no reasoning given)"

"Jeb Bush is just moderate enough to be more popular than Clinton (, lmao)"

boboblaw, stop complaining! Who cares about "statistics" or "facts" when it comes to Hillary? She is invincible!

If you actually read the article, you'd see Nate didn't bother to compile any statistics or facts and is just op-eding using his name as a reason to trust it.

Joke article.

No, not at all. You obviously dont understand story telling. He is laying out the premise of his case which will expand as the campaign progresses.

As for not using stats, he is using his past statistical evidence in compiling this article.

[bobloblaw]

Nate, you Republican hack! How dare you suggest that the election will be "competitive"? Hillary is inevitable, get over it, right-wingers!

2000, was a Lean GOP, and young latinos and blacks made it close, in FL. All she needs is that same enthusiam from those to close the deal in CO, NV and Pa, NH.

ahhhh....no the Jewish vote and Leibermann made it close in FL. GW Bush did worse among Jews in 2000, than Dole did in 1996. The only demographic group to move away from the GOP. Had Bush done as well as Dole among Jews, he would have won FL by 60,000 votes. (Bush got 22% of the Jewish vote in 2000, versus Dole at 26% in Florida).

[bobloblaw]

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

When is a Republican going to get to 52% though? Fact of the matter is that a Democrat can probably lose the PV by around a percentage point yet still win the EC. That by no means indicates that a Democrat is a shoo-in but rather that any Democrat starts the electoral race with a headstart independent of the various "fundamentals."

But that isnt a "Blue Wall" Blue Wall implies states that are Dem regardless of how well the GOP does in the PV. That somehow if the GOP candidate got 51% or more, these states are so inelastic and independent of national trends, they remain in the Dem column. They dont.

When will the GOP get 52% of the vote. Very easily. When the Dem President takes the oath of office with 5% unemployment and runs for re-election with 7% unemployment. When the Dem party tears itself apart over how to deal with a recession.

In fact I can see that coming in 2017-2020. A recession with 8% unemployment. Pres Clinton and a GOP Congress. Liberals Dems want a $2 trillion stimulus plan with no tax cuts. GOP wants tax cuts only and maybe a little stimulus spending. Prez Hillary concerned about re-election just wants the economy to recover and moves towards the GOP plan, splitting the party for 2020.

[bobloblaw]

He's wrong. go look at Jonathan Chait's column from today.

Obama will be the 5th term limited president but the parties have diverged ideologically; there are much fewer swing voters today than 15 let alone 55 years ago. Also, Silver should know better than to consider midterm electorates as relevant for whether or not there's a Democratic majority in presidential elections. In the latter, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the demographic make-up of presidential electorates has been trending more Democratic still. He also dismisses the D electoral college advantage by arguing there is no "firewall".  Silver is smarter than that. Republicans can win but they have to sweep the swing states to do so. Democrats only need to stop a GOP sweep.

He's right that the economy is unpredictable and that Bush or Walker won't change the race much but calling it a toss-up is arbitrary. Silver is better at analyzing polls a month before election day than predicting with hunches (like when he gave Hillary only an 80% chance to be the nominee 2 months ago or whatever).

As I said 2 years ago, Hillary has the easiest path of any non-incumbent in modern times. I'd say she's close to 70% to be the next president, incredibly high for someone on the day they announce.

Nate Silver hasnt been wrong yet.

There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

Yes he has been,  he was awfully off about his 2014 predictions.

Where was he awfully off?

[bobloblaw]

Nate Silver hasnt been wrong yet.

Nate Silver can't ever be wrong: when are people going to understand probabilities?

He might be wrong on one or two states, but his overall macro assessments are correct.

BTW nothing sadder than a GA Dem. Even the IL-GOP is more successful than a GA Dem

[bobloblaw]

Nate, you Republican hack! How dare you suggest that the election will be "competitive"? Hillary is inevitable, get over it, right-wingers!

2000, was a Lean GOP, and young latinos and blacks made it close, in FL. All she needs is that same enthusiam from those to close the deal in CO, NV and Pa, NH.

Uh, no. 2000 was a pure Toss-up. George W. Bush almost blew it because he ran a god awful campaign and took FL for granted. Only a joke like Bush could have lost the election. McCain would have crushed Gore.

Bush had an epic lead at this point in 1999. He turned that lead into a 0.51 point loss.

.49 but who is counting. Dukakis had an epic lead too and lost. Polling in nonincumbnet elections is very fluid. But is Hillary an incumbent?

[bobloblaw]

I don't see how it's a toss up when all the Democrats need are the Kerry states + VA, NM, NV.  

New Mexico and Nevada are practically freebies at this point.   That just leaves Virginia, which is probably one of the most obvious trending states in the country.    Even if the national vote shifts 3% toward the GOP from 2012, Virginia would still be winnable.  

It's just not a workable map for the Republicans.   They NEEEEEED a realignment.

Again youre assuming that states are some how fixed in their voting patterns independent of the national popular vote.

The realignment will come when one of three things happens
1. Dems preside over a recession
2. Dems preside over a foreign policy debacle
3. Demographics result in more whites voting GOP and states flipping. Older white states like MI, PA, WI, IA become solid GOP and AZ, GA, NC become Dem.

As whites decline as a % of the population, white will give a larger and larger % to the GOP. In fact it is already happening albeit slowly. By 2030-2040, I could see the GOP getting 70-75% of the white vote.