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

[Nyvin]

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.

[Nyvin]

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.

[Nyvin]

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.

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.

Or...maybe...

4.  The GOP is no longer competitive in national elections and simply has to alter it's party's policy stances in order to appeal to a broader base. 

Of the four,   I would say 4 has the best chance of actually happening.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They pretty much have been for the past 30-35 years now, at least since 1980.    The 90's elections were kind of wonky due to Perot but other then that it's been the same ol'red state/blue state we've seen over and over.