Free Markets, Free People

Handicapping the 2012 election

Two folks I respect and enjoy reading when it comes to election analysis are Nate Silver and Larry Sabato.  Both have a lot of experience, seem to have their heads on pretty straight and explain their methodology and reasoning fairly well.  Both are also a rare breed in that they don’t seem to let whatever political biases they have interfere with their analysis.

Recommended reading today from both of them.

Silver talks about how he has come to do his analysis of presidential races.  It’s a very interesting read for the political junkie and even for those who are less involved but want some way to do their own analysis of the goings on.  Probably the most controversial aspect of his analysis is what he calls the “the ideological positioning of the Republican candidate” (note: obviously, if it was a Republican in the White House, he would be talking about the ideological positioning of the Democratic candidate).  As he notes, it’s a bit of an intangible, but I think he has a point.  He also has “extreme” ratings for each of the current candidates and explains what that means in the big scheme of things.  

Interesting stuff which I’m sure will make for a good discussion.

Sabato, on the other hand, talks about how it is way too early to draw the curtain down on the GOP nominating process, even though (and I’m as guilty as anyone) many of us want to call it “over”.  Much of that is just wanting to get the process over with in what seems to be an eternal campaign.  But, as he points out, history says “not yet”.  The primaries are the crucible and surprises can and do happen.

Anyway, good stuff for political junkies.  A couple of sources for some fun discussion.  Don’t hesitate to weigh in.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

5 Responses to Handicapping the 2012 election

  • I prefer Jay Cost. Two reasons, he’s humble about his predictions and he’s one of us.
    His approach is very data driven and he explains his conclusions in straightforward declarative sentences.

  • I guess I’ll have to email Reince Priebus to announce that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A RINO, and I WILL NOT DONATE TO THE GOP IF IT NOMINATES A RINO.
    The Powers-That-Be among the Republican elite are hell-bent on getting Dem-lite Mitt Romney into the White House.    But  *I*  am hell-bent AGAINST Romney, McCain, and all the other semi-liberal, hands-across-the-aisle appeasers.  There are still  fossils among the Repubs who believe that Democrats “just have a different view on how to make this Great Nation even greater”.  That may have been true, way-back-when.  But now, the Democrat Party has been co-opted by steely-eyed, militant, uber-Progressives who want to turn the USA into a lackey of the UN and the EU.  Cooperation, appeasement, or compromise with such pseudo-“Democrats” has got to STOP.  Recall Ayn Rand’s “In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit…” We can’t go any further down this road to statism and still be a free America.

  • I’m a little surprised that the Democrats and their minions in the MSM have been so early to use their “guns” by going after candidates so early rather than letting the Republicans burn lots of cash in a real heated primary season.
    As it stands now, they seem to want Romney to face Obama.  There have been stories on Cain and Perry (and a few Romney), but what is really odd is that they are taking shots at the VP field with stories on Rubio and Cantor.