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 hasn't been wrong yet.Making detailed predictions based upon a fluid reality is reckless. One might as well cast natal horoscopes to decide that the stars and planets work out best for some obscure politician in West Dakota. But some realities are rigid.
In the last twenty years (six Presidential elections), Republican nominees for President have won Iowa and New Hampshire only once and none of the other states. Ronald Reagan won big in the transitional years between the South being heavily Democratic and the Midwest and Far West being largely Republican to the time in which the Midwest and West had become heavily Democratic and the South had become increasingly Republican. Such is a long-term trend that nobody seems to be breaking yet.
Can a Republican nominee win? Sure -- if he can make convincing promises to solve most economic distress with plutocratic oligarchy (because such is the Republican mainstream) or succeed at intimidating people of the sort who haven't voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992 to vote Republican "if you care about having a job next month and food on the table for your kids". Sure -- if there is another economic meltdown that looks as ominous as those beginning in 1929 or 2007. Sure -- if there is a diplomatic disaster analogous to the Iranian hostage crisis or a military calamity. Sure -- if all of a sudden we have a right-wing religious revival that convinces a new batch of voters to have faith in biblical literalism, plutocracy, and American military strength because the only happiness that matters is in Heaven and delights in this world are suspect. Sure -- if we start to experience a nasty wave of inflation with stagnant pay.
There is much that we don't know. I see little evidence that the same sorts of people who voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I see no evidence so far of the reduction of political polarization. Quality of politicians seems not to matter; turnout matters far more. Change in voting patterns for President implies that the disparate Parties are successfully poaching what used to be shaky or even reliable voters for the Other Side. I see no reason to believe that.
It is reasonable to assume that the next election begins as a 50-50 proposition in electoral and popular vote. But eventually the polls show something.
