Comments

1
I love when a supposed bellwether gets debunked. This election, let's start with Lichtman and follow it with Ohio.
2
@1 The Ohio thing only applies to Republicans. Republicans can't win without Ohio. When it comes to Democrats the Ohio as a bellwether thing doesn't work.

As for Lichtman I could look back at a dozen presidential elections and come up with some BS about peanut butter and claim it is a predictive model.
3
@2 I was referring to Ohio picking the winner for over fifty years:

And it was all for good reason: No candidate of either party has won the White House without carrying Ohio since John F. Kennedy in 1960.


Since the 538 Polls-plus forecast has Trump up ~+9% over Secretary Clinton right now, I'm thinking it's feasible that he takes the state while losing and shatters the 52โ€“year streak.
4
Oh dear lord in heaven make it all stop.
5
Like they say, you could lay all the statisticians end to end and they wouldn't reach a conclusion. And just so I can brag on it later, and maybe even quote myself in a future comment, I've been saying since the primaries that the brilliant and ruthless Clinton political machine would make gibbering orange goo out of the Donald, even if he hadn't so spectacularly done it to himself anyway, and that Clinton will demolish him in the general election (7%+ in the popular vote; 375ish electoral votes), with or without Ohio.
6
@3 Right, that is what I was referring too. It is only the Republicans who have never won the presidency without Ohio, ever. As you point out the Democrats have. Thank you for explaining myself to me.

Now if you excuse me I need to get started on peanut butter being a factor in predicting presidential election outcomes. I'm sure it will prove as valid as Lichtman's.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.