Silver's model has a little bit more variation than that, but he also doesn't have very many swing states to deal with. Lets figure five states, where the challenger has to pick off three to win. If he's 50% in every state, he has a 22% chance of winning. If that changes to 70%, his odds are still only 27%. But if the states all move in unison, he's 70% likely to pick up all the states and win handily. So the same numbers can make him 70% likely to win or 70% likely to lose, depending on how you treat correlation between states.

But neither of these is correct. States are not hermetically sealed off from each other, but neither are they uniform. Silver adjusts cross-correlation between states based on demographic factors - as he said, South Carolina and North Carolina tend to swing together more, as do Ohio and Michigan, less so Massachusetts and Kentucky. I think this better than the alternatives, but it's still quite rough and introduces a lot of complex variables. This is not a math problem. It's a quantitative social science problem, and the best model is the one that is based on the best understanding of the underlying nature of the electorate and the state of public opinion research.

I agree that modeling the interrelation of the states is complex.

However, you were earlier talking about the divergence between the state polling and the national polling, and this is mostly not a question of modelling swing and error. It's about aggregation. The state polls and the national polls disagree by a couple points. We don't know which is a correct measurement.

If Scarborough really believes it's 50/50, he should have no problem with that bet.
(Assuming he doesn't mind the gambling part.)

Would you accept a bet if someone offered it to you based on a coin flip? From a financial perspective, Joe should have no problem with the bet if he believes Romney better than 50/50 to win. If he thinks it's 50/50, and Nate thinks it's 75/25, then Nate should be offering odds here.

I don't get this from Silver's perspective. What could this prove? All it does is make him look like an ass.

Makes him look like MGL. For some people here the three letters might be equivalent, though I have no problem with MGL. Nate is definitely borrowing his schtick here though.

Yes, but if the vote is close enough that faithless electors can play a role, it is virtually a tie.

If enough faithless electors exist in an election that clearly isn't a tie, then there is probably a good reason. Say Obama wins and in the next month we discover a) he actually is a Muslim plant* and b) he is personally responsbile for Benghazi and has been funnelling weapons and cash to Muslim extremists**. In that case, I would be glad for the electors to switch their vote.

This is basically assuming away the problem. I argued "A is possible," you responded, "I assume not-A."

My argument is precisely that we shouldn't count on norms constraining electors for all time, when so much power is at stake. My argument is precisely that there could quite possibly be a bad reason for faithless electors - seeking to change the arrangement of power in the country to serve their personal or political interests. And we don't have laws in place to deal with this possible breaking of norms.

Thanks, Mike.
Also, I'm enjoying this thread - thanks guys.

In 2004, John Edwards actually got an EC vote by a 'faithless elector'... it's just one more reason why I'd prefer to just get rid of the whole thing, but the wasteland states -- who already get tons of over-representation as it is -- would never give up any power.

I never understood why the overrepresentation of the flyover states is an argument against the EC. To me, it's no different than leveraging the 14th amendment to create special protections for "protected classes". Rural states are a significant minority, in terms of political power, and it's easy for the rich/populated urban areas to use their power at the expense of the rural area (there are examples of this in pretty much every country without a US style system; see, e.g, the provinces in many of the European countries, in the third world, etc.) I guess there are arguments that concentrating resources in the urban power centers is a feature, not a bug, but you can generate a provincial underclass without disproportionate representation.

I wasn't talking about an electoral vote tie. Obviously in the case of a true tie, there's no "fair" tie-breaker. The "House votes by delegation" thing isn't the tie-breaker I'd choose (I'd choose "House votes by majority", on thirty seconds of reflection), but it's probably close enough for government work.

I agree and would add that by tie what I mean is if the popular vote is within the margin or error for an election. In recent MN recounts it was pretty obvious that the difference in the vote totals was lower than the number of votes that were screwed up and recouting was fine and all but there really was no way to "know" what the "will of the people" really was.

The legacy crap that over represents small states (Senate, Electoral College, picking a president in case of Electoral College tie) just annoys me. The case of tie is the worst, because the electoral college already over represents small states, and then we again over represent them in the tie breaker. Oh well.

I agree with several of 'Zop's criticisms of Silver. I would also add that there is a growing lack of transparency in his model. In 2010, all the pollster inputs were clearly given. In 2012, that is no longer the case. It's all been "black boxed." At a certain level, that is understandable, since the model is Nate's livelihood, but it does reduce my confidence in the work.

The faithless electors is fascinating since obviously the Constitution was set up on the premise that electors would be faithless, in the sense of guided by their own views.

Beyond the problem of faithless electors, the issue it illuminates is a missing part of the Constitution that would determine when an election is undecided. The faithless electors or disputed votes scenarios all come from this issue. The Senate counts the votes. The House decides undecided elections. Fine. Maybe not always fair but transparent. But who decides when an election is undecided? That's entirely unaddressed, and any time there's a close 2-way election there's always the chance a la winter 1876 for the Senate to call an election decided and the House to call it undecided. Then what?

However, you were earlier talking about the divergence between the state polling and the national polling, and this is mostly not a question of modelling swing and error. It's about aggregation. The state polls and the national polls disagree by a couple points. We don't know which is a correct measurement.

I apologize if I was unclear. My interest is in how best to calculate the likelihood of either side winning. The issue of weighting state results vs national results is mainly interesting to me in the sense that focusing on the states too closely can lock you into an unrealistically static view of the race.

Silver: @JoeNBC: Every bookmaker from Las Vegas to London stands with our assessment of the odds.

Silver: @JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?

Back before fivethirtyeight.com, I used to discuss polls a lot with "Poblano" on Daily Kos. One point of contention we had was over the usefulness of trends and momentum in polling data. I was arguing that though Clinton's support in South Carolina had eroded some, the totality of the polls still had her well ahead. Silver was arguing that the trends were clearly in Obama's favor, and that he was poised to pass her. This was back in November 2007.

After I accused him of cherry picking endpoints to make his "momentum" argument, he challenged me to a bet: If the next public poll of South Carolina had Obama within single digits of Clinton, I would have to put a link to Obama's fundraising page in my signature for the next 72 hours. If Clinton was 10 points or more ahead of Obama, Silver would have to put a link to Clinton's web site in his signature for 3 days.

The next poll of South Carolina had Clinton up 24 points, and Silver graciously honored the bet. Of course, Obama went on to crush Clinton in South Carolina after winning Iowa...but I was pretty happy at Poblano's coming out party to learn I had won a bet against Nate Silver.

My argument is precisely that we shouldn't count on norms constraining electors for all time, when so much power is at stake. My argument is precisely that there could quite possibly be a bad reason for faithless electors - seeking to change the arrangement of power in the country to serve their personal or political interests. And we don't have laws in place to deal with this possible breaking of norms.

Fortunately, though -- the EC math does work against it... it would take an awfully whacky result for a single faithless elector to be able to do anything except ensure s/he never gets anywhere near a ballot again.

Even in 2000 - you'd have needed three schemers on the same page to swing things.

I don't suppose anyone has a link to the list of state permutations where 268-268-1 might matter... Just glancing - and taking into account that ME and NE allocate by district - the 2000 alignment actually looks to be the best shot, but we'd have needed either the single relatively swingy NE district or one of the ME districts to have voted against norms.

Fortunately, though -- the EC math does work against it... it would take an awfully whacky result for a single faithless elector to be able to do anything except ensure s/he never gets anywhere near a ballot again.

Even in 2000 - you'd have needed three schemers on the same page to swing things.

Yes, obviously I'm talking about organized faithless electors.

Would you accept a bet if someone offered it to you based on a coin flip? From a financial perspective, Joe should have no problem with the bet if he believes Romney better than 50/50 to win. If he thinks it's 50/50, and Nate thinks it's 75/25, then Nate should be offering odds here.

If someone says to me "There is almost NO chance that the Miami Heat will win the NBA title this year. I say there is a 10% chance of it happening.", and I say "Really? I think you are wrong. I'll bet $10 and you bet $90, and we'll see what happens."

If my friend turns to me and says "Oh, that's not fair. You have to give me better odds than that!", then I've proven my point that I don't think he really believes it's only a 10% chance of the Heat winning.

The requested odds of the bet is a refutation of the original person's belief.

That's what Nate has done. He's called out Scarborough's "It's a coin flip." description of the race, and says "If you really think that, then bet that way." If Scarborough were to have asked for better odds on the bet, then he's basically saying that his "coin flip" description wasn't true.

Yup, it's an internet game. I play it a lot.

I'm just some jackass on the internet. Nate Silver is now a public figure. Different norms should constrain us.

Would you accept a bet if someone offered it to you based on a coin flip?

Is that someone Anton Chiguhr?

I never understood why the overrepresentation of the flyover states is an argument against the EC.

Strictly speaking it is small versus large, not flyover but whatever. For me a couple things. First it is undemocratic. Sure I can sort of see the argument for the Senate since in theory it is counterbalancing the more democratic House. But what is the EC counterbalancing? It just seems to be a legacy of a bygone era when the nation was still trying to figure out hoe to make a nation out of disperate colonies and was a fig leaf for the small states.

I think urban vesus rural is a different and more interesting discussion to have.

NOTE: and I really am not trying to rag on 'zop. It just seems that way. Feel free to put out some mouse traps to show me the what for.

I really am not trying to rag on 'zop. It just seems that way. Feel free to put out some mouse traps to show me the what for.

I don't mind the ragging; that's the point of having a discussion, to poke holes in each other's ####. IMO, much better than either the screaming-past-each-other-GOTCHA crap or the circle-jerk, each of which is awful in its own special way.

This is crazy. you win a case against a lender but you still lose the house.

Legal win means little after foreclosure

But what is the EC counterbalancing? It just seems to be a legacy of a bygone era when the nation was still trying to figure out hoe to make a nation out of disperate colonies and was a fig leaf for the small states.

Well, it requires Presidents to disproportionately look out for the interests of small (primarily rural) states. Given that wealth and political power traditionally concentrate in the most populous states, I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Compare Wyoming, for example, to the Auvergne. Despite being much larger and more geographically heterogenenous than other developed nations, the US generally has much more "regional" mobility, IMO, than its peers and less social stigma associated with being from the sticks.

I never understood why the overrepresentation of the flyover states is an argument against the EC. To me, it's no different than leveraging the 14th amendment to create special protections for "protected classes". Rural states are a significant minority, in terms of political power, and it's easy for the rich/populated urban areas to use their power at the expense of the rural area (there are examples of this in pretty much every country without a US style system; see, e.g, the provinces in many of the European countries, in the third world, etc.) I guess there are arguments that concentrating resources in the urban power centers is a feature, not a bug, but you can generate a provincial underclass without disproportionate representation.

Well, I suppose it's not -- at least so far as the EC goes. The best case I guess I would make is that it least it gives us a 'tiebreaker' of sorts where for once, actual population mass means the most...

However, I wholeheartedly disagree that rural states/rural areas have a 'minority' of political power - in fact, I think it tends towards the opposite.

Both at the state and federal level, the income/outlays to federal and state kitties don't reflect this. There might very well be exceptions - but the annual federal dollars in vs. federal dollars out regularly tilts, and tilts pretty noticeably towards rural states... California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc generally get about $0.75 or so back in federal spending for every $1 of revenue from those states that go in -- while Alaska, Wyoming, Mississippi, etc generally get $1+ back (Alaska generally more like $2-3 back).

Even at the state level -- roughly 2/3 of Illinois revenue comes from the Chicago area (OK, technically I'm cheating a bit by including 'suburban Cook County' in with Chicago... but let's face - those burbs only exist because Chicago exists) but state allocations are only about 1/3 towards the same.

In essence, rural infrastructure and services are heavily subsidized by urban areas, while urban tax rates are higher because those urban areas have to fund more of their of their own infrastructure and services at the local level.

Of course - yes - I can move... and I choose to live in a urban area, even with the higher COL because I prefer it... but it just doesn't sit right with me, especially given most of the rhetoric that gets heaped on the Chicagos, the Los Angeles, the NYCs, and the San Frans of the country.

There was a downstate Illinois State Rep who tried to introduce a bill splitting Illinois into two states this past session - essentially separating Chicago from the rest of the state - and frankly, my response was "Great. Fine already... just give me an address to send the bill for past payments rendered so we can settle accounts first."

The suit didn't make them lose the house and the suit wasn't about keeping the house. They can still keep the house if they go out and get a loan to buy the house. They didn't pay their mortgage for something like 3 years. That should be one hell of a nut amassed for a new down payment.

I am OK with the urban helping out the rural. it is a legacy of days gone by when the farm and in general "the land" really was the straw that stirred the drink, but whatever farm folk should have electricity and the internet too, as well as educated kids, healthcare and so on.

The economy is not nearly as land based as it once was and the engines of growth really are urban, but still the transfer of payments does not bother me all that much. What makes me crazy is the vilification of the city and the glorification of the farm. What a load of horse-pucky that is and it is so freaking annoying.

The requested odds of the bet is a refutation of the original person's belief.

That's what Nate has done. He's called out Scarborough's "It's a coin flip." description of the race, and says "If you really think that, then bet that way." If Scarborough were to have asked for better odds on the bet, then he's basically saying that his "coin flip" description wasn't true.

Nope. Joe has no expected gain from Nate's offer. Now if Nate offered odds that were consistent with a 60/40 chance, then both parties would have incentive if they held to their beliefs.

Let's turn this around. Say Joe offers a bet, saying he'll donate $250 if Nate's right, and Nate donates $750 if he's wrong. If Nate turned that down does that mean he's refuting his model? I don't think so.

I am OK with the urban helping out the rural. it is a legacy of days gone by when the farm and in general "the land" really was the straw that stirred the drink, but whatever farm folk should have electricity and the internet too, as well as educated kids, healthcare and so on.

The economy is not nearly as land based as it once was and the engines of growth really are urban, but still the transfer of payments does not bother me all that much. What makes me crazy is the vilification of the city and the glorification of the farm. What a load of horse-pucky that is and it is so freaking annoying.

I'd be less cranky about it, too, except for two things...

1) The rural areas tend to then stymie urban preferences on social issues - even though by and large, an end to such opposition wouldn't really have much impact on those rural areas (it's not like the Boystown area or Planned Parenthood is suddenly going to move to downstate to Vandalia or somesuch).

2) It does rub me very much the wrong way the way certain cities tend to become political slurs...

I've actually spent almost exactly half my life in an rural, one stoplight Indiana farm town -- and the other half in Chicago. I can appreciate both lifestyles and absolutely, am more than willing to 'help' provide rural infrastructure, services, etc.

What makes me crazy is the vilification of the city and the glorification of the farm. What a load of horse-pucky that is and it is so freaking annoying.

True, that is annoying when it is done in either direction.

I would point out that when the EC was created and the House/Senate compromise developed it was not imagined how powerful the presidency would become nor how much money the federal government would both take in and shell out. IOW, the level of political power at the federal level and, thus, the imbalances we see, weren't imagined or desired.

Being from a small state, I completely agree that small states have more power than they should in the current system. However, moving everything to a straight democratic vote would create an imbalance in the other direction. I wouldn't argue against tweaks and compromise. I would argue against a complete scrapping of the system - especially given the cost of doing so.

1) The rural areas tend to then stymie urban preferences on social issues - even though by and large, an end to such opposition wouldn't really have much impact on those rural areas (it's not like the Boystown area or Planned Parenthood is suddenly going to move to downstate to Vandalia or somesuch).

The idea that city-folk don't hope to enforce their views on social issues on rural areas is absurd. I mostly agree with the urban views on these matters. But changing the social fabrics to suit urban voters would, and does, have a huge effect on rural folks.

2) It does rub me very much the wrong way the way certain cities tend to become political slurs...

"The sticks" "flyover country" "white trash" "what's wrong with Kansas"

No, no urbanite ever insulted rural America.

People don't like the "other". It isn't attractive. But it also isn't unique to one demographic.

This entire discussion highlights why I am for very limited federal government. Who holds power at the federal level is of vital importance to everyone in a way it wouldn't be if power were pushed further to states and cities. Yes, that might mean there are some towns and counties with policies that offend you. But the result of the current system is that you can't afford to lose out at the federal level.

124/zonk: it cuts the other way for environmental issues; many environmental protections are supported by urban dwellers who are not directly affected by the results one way or the other, and that stymies rural preferences for looser environmental protection that favors resource-exploiting economic activity; urban opposition to logging and fracking are both examples of this.

The problems I have with the EC overrepresentation are:

1) The issue of rural representation is already taken care of in the Senate which ensures rural states get more than their per capita share
2) governments represent people not acreage so fairness among people is more important than fairness among geographic entities since people can and do move
3) in many areas we are constrained by the terms of the country's founding with pre-existing states but the particular configuration we have is purely a result of partisan maneuvering in the late 19th century when Republicans carved the west into a bunch of states and admitted them before they came close to crossing then accepted thresholds of size in order to hold their Electoral College majority as the success of white disfranchisement (first informal then formal) made the South "solid" for Democrats, and eastern states threatened to flip as urban, working-class populations grew (and continued to vote Democratic.) The territorial borders are confusing and changed all the time, but let's say you had a State of Dakota on 1861 borders (both Dakotas plus much of Montana and part of Wyoming) and a State of Idaho of say 2 million (with Idaho's 1.5 plus slivers of Montana and Wyoming), you'd have one state that is about 30th in population and another that is about 36th or 37th, so still on the small size.

Currently Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana have 10 US Senators and 11 House members (Idaho has two) for 21 Electoral Votes.

In the system that seemed plausible in 1861, these two states would have 4 Senators and maybe 8 House reps for 12 Electoral Votes.

Not the biggest deal in the world, but it shows how manmade the issue is. They are overrepresented not because the Constitution foreordained it but because Republican congresses (which did a lot of other good things!) started rushing states in during the latter part of the 19th century in a way that never happened before or since (Montana, both Dakotas--split off from each other purely for partisan purposes (though it turned out not to be so clearcut in practice), Wyoming, Washington, and Idaho were rushed in within 9 months, not coincidentally after the Republicans won the 1888 election without winning a majority of the popular vote.) Add in the slide of Colorado in time for the 1876 election and Nevada in time for 1864 (though both are now biggish states and Colorado did not behave as expected), and you get fully 8 states in that period brought in purely to stack the EC.

We're stuck with this, I guess, but not because it fulfilled any constitutional or theoretical vision but because it was an outcome of one party's congressional power.

I believe in Democracy. Urban areas have more people and should have more influence. They are also where the economic growth comes from and where a huge percentage of progress (esp. Technological) comes from.

"The sticks" "flyover country" "white trash" "what's wrong with Kansas"

No, no urbanite ever insulted rural America.

Sure there are insults both ways. In volume and significance if you think they are even remotely equal then you must not be a San Francisco Liberal, you must come from the heartland with values gained from growing up on the family farm (and drive a pickup, like Scott Brown).

Re 127: Not to mention oil drilling. No offshore or in the arctic. No windmills within sight of my beach house. But we can put a well every 10 feet in flyover country. Who cares about those folks?

And I don't mean any of my posts to be read as highly critical of urban dwellers. Conditions vary considerably place to place and time to time. Which is why there shouldn't be any over-arching power that dictates how people live beyond whatever broader principles unite us.

Sure there are insults both ways. In volume and significance if you think they are even remotely equal then you must not be a San Francisco Liberal, you must come from the heartland with values gained from growing up on the family farm (and drive a pickup, like Scott Brown).

Of course they aren't equal. More urbanites = more insults aimed at the "heartland". You don't see a whole lot of modern media celebrating the sticks. Hell, if you don't live in the right zip code in an urban area you don't really matter.

I hate the term "heartland", by the way. The US doesn't work without all its parts. No one is indispensible. What I learned growing up in Oklahoma is that there a whole lot of sons of ####### in Oklahoma. That has held true for everywhere I've been. But the idea that any one of our parts doesn't matter, or doesn't have anything to contribute is a disturbing one.

In volume and significance if you think they are even remotely equal then you must not be a San Francisco Liberal, you must come from the heartland with values gained from growing up on the family farm (and drive a pickup, like Scott Brown).

Give me a break. Rural folks insult city dwellers. City folks look down upon rural folks (if they acknowledge them at all). And you all make fun of us suburban types. The idea that any one is more a victim of such insidiousness is patently absurd.

Has any major urban candidate ever asserted that cities were the only places that were "real America" and the "pro America parts of this great nation"?

You don't see a whole lot of modern media celebrating the sticks.

Not to get into who insults whom more frequently, but the media routinely celebrates the virtues of the "heartland" (I hate that expression too, almost as much as homeland and for the same reasons).

Has any major urban candidate ever asserted that cities were the only places that were "real America" and the "pro America parts of this great nation"?

Probably.

So what? I'm sure I can find dozens of examples of insults directed at rural folk that were never heaved at city denizens.

The idea that there's a monopoly, or even some kind of imbalance one way or the other, is ridiculous.

Let's turn this around. Say Joe offers a bet, saying he'll donate $250 if Nate's right, and Nate donates $750 if he's wrong. If Nate turned that down does that mean he's refuting his model? I don't think so.

I do. If Nate thinks it's 75/25 Obama, and gets a bet like that, what's the harm in backing up his predictive model?
If anything, it shows that he has confidence in his model.

If I establish odds (50/50) for an event (coin flip), and the amount of money is trivial ($5), and someone wants to challenge me on that, then I don't mind making that bet.

I wouldn't do it for a LOT of money (only bet what you can afford!) and I wouldn't make the same bet (and taking the same side) with a lot of people (essentially splitting a huge bet among lots of people).

You don't see a whole lot of modern media celebrating the sticks. Hell, if you don't live in the right zip code in an urban area you don't really matter.

Most of the truck ads I've seen are celebrating the hard working folks on farms and mines. They show the dirt covered truck hauling wood/rocks across dusty roads and through the mountain passes.

Not to get all "media bias" on it, but in my opinion politicians in their talking points are much more pro rural than pro urban. If we are talking general populace than I don't have an opinion (and it probably tracks with total population), but politically I don't think it is even close.

EDIT: But whatever, I guess I am sorry we went down this path I guess.

So what? I'm sure I can find dozens of examples of insults directed at rural folk that were never heaved at city denizens.

In terms of politics, not hurt feelings, we have an imbalance. One party and not-infrequently parts of the other party, explicitly state that cities are less American than the heartland. That arises not from personal failings but from the fact that the political calculus rewards it because of the legacy costs of the way we've constructed our system. Those legacy costs also build gorgeous highways through less-inhabited regions while train lines in the megalopolis crumble.

If rural land cost as much as urban land then they wouldn't have drills in their backyard but that point is a moot point anyway since most of these rural areas outside of Vermont want the drills.

This entire discussion highlights why I am for very limited federal government. Who holds power at the federal level is of vital importance to everyone in a way it wouldn't be if power were pushed further to states and cities. Yes, that might mean there are some towns and counties with policies that offend you. But the result of the current system is that you can't afford to lose out at the federal level.

But this was the basic argument for Jim Crow. Why should those northerners come down and tell us Southerners how to live?

The other part of the EC equation is that because every state is guaranteed one representative and the size of the House of Representatives is capped at 435, the small states are overrepresented on a per capita basis in both the House and Senate.

I would address that by computing electoral votes as if there were no cap on the size of the House of Representatives with DC being considered as part of Maryland for electoral purposes, and Puerto Rico, Guam, et. al. being considered as the "51st state" for electoral purposes.

-- MWE

Most of the truck ads I've seen are celebrating the hard working folks on farms and mines. They show the dirt covered truck hauling wood/rocks across dusty roads and through the mountain passes.

So you'd like to sell trucks by showing them taking up space and having trouble fitting into crowded parking lots?


In terms of politics, not hurt feelings, we have an imbalance. One party and not-infrequently parts of the other party, explicitly state that cities are less American than the heartland. That arises not from personal failings but from the fact that the political calculus rewards it because of the legacy costs of the way we've constructed our system. Those legacy costs also build gorgeous highways through less-inhabited regions while train lines in the megalopolis crumble.

All true.

I think a lot of it also comes down to the feelings of those regions. City-dwellers know they're an increasingly important and vital part of the economy. Rural folks know their power is waning. Rural folks, in my experience, have a bit of inferiority complex. Thus, the national politician doesn't need to convince urban folks that he thinks they're important; they obviously are. But he does need to convince rural folks he still values what they bring.


The political stuff - where money flows and who votes for what is imbalanced. If city-folks were as powerful and smart as they think they are, they'd figure something out in this regard.

Mike in 142 has a good idea.


But this was the basic argument for Jim Crow. Why should those northerners come down and tell us Southerners how to live?

Sure. So you have broad principles outlined in the constitution and the feds enforce it. I'm not saying states should be able to do anything they want.

Nate's model missed the House by a bunch of seats in 2010 - though I believe he beat RCP and Pollster - but he predicted a large Republican wave in the House, just not quite as large as the wave that happened. He was pretty much spot-on in the Senate. "Didn't pick it up" is not a good description.

Nate didn't "predict" the GOP wave in 2010 until every other pollster had done so first. As late as Oct. 2010, Nate was giving higher odds to the Dems holding the House than he's currently giving Romney to win the White House.

***

It reminds voters that Romney wanted to drastically scale back federal responsibility for disaster relief, and that the last time his party held the presidency we had Katrina and Brownie and got a preview of this policy in action.

The beauty is that this particularly loopy part of Romney's agenda was almost certainly forced on him by the Tea Party crazies. It's hard to believe that anyone with Romney's undoubted overall intelligence would ever come to such a position independently, but this is what you get when the most vocal part of your party's base is absolutely deranged.

FEMA declarations during Reagan ...... 28 per year
FEMA declarations during Bush 41 ..... 44 per year
FEMA declarations during Clinton ...... 90 per year
FEMA declarations during Bush 43 .... 130 per year
FEMA declarations during Obama ...... 153 per year

— source

FEMA has become way overused. It's become a way for the states to get other people to pay for their own problems. There's simply no reason that taxpayers in Kansas should have to pay every time a hurricane hits Florida, or taxpayers in New Mexico should have to pay every time a major blizzard hits Connecticut.

***

[Obama isn't] up in North Carolina by much, if at all; the recent polls have been showing the race as a statistical tie, more or less.

RCP has Romney +3.8 in North Carolina in polls taken over the past five days. This becomes Romney +5.0 if the absurd PPP poll, which shows a tie if the electorate is D+9, is removed from the average.

There's simply no reason that taxpayers in Kansas should have to pay every time a hurricane hits Florida, or taxpayers in New Mexico should have to pay every time a major blizzard hits Connecticut.

Would you be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting states from collecting more money from the federal government then they send?

Most of the truck ads I've seen are celebrating the hard working folks on farms and mines. They show the dirt covered truck hauling wood/rocks across dusty roads and through the mountain passes.

Most people who live in cities don't need trucks (there are exceptions, obviously, but it's a pretty decent rule of thumb).

In terms of politics, not hurt feelings, we have an imbalance.

And in other areas of life, there is a pro-urban slant (for example, in entertainment vehicles, the depiction of rural folks vs. urban types is decidedly not positive toward the hicks. Which shouldn't be surprising, since virtually all of it is written and produced by people living in urban areas, either by birth or by choice). Of course, some city folks might not notice this imbalance because they'd see the negative depictions as "accurate," and thus not insulting.*

* Which obviously is equally true in the other direction. I suspect it's the main reason why whatever group you belong to seems to be the most victimized.

There's simply no reason that taxpayers in Kansas should have to pay every time a hurricane hits Florida, or taxpayers in New Mexico should have to pay every time a major blizzard hits Connecticut.

What about tornadoes and wildfires, which hit Kansas and the Moutain States far more often than they're devouring Florida or Connecticut?

Is there any area of the country that's truly immune from these types of disasters?

There's simply no reason that taxpayers in Kansas should have to pay every time a hurricane hits Florida, or taxpayers in New Mexico should have to pay every time a major blizzard hits Connecticut.

Well we are one nation. We have a federal government and the world wide trend is for stronger central governments doing more. And from your numbers it looks like the trend, for FEMA anyway, is a real trend and not a GOP vs. Dem construct.

(a) The political stuff - where money flows and who votes for what is imbalanced. (b) If city-folks were as powerful and smart as they think they are, they'd figure something out in this regard.

(b) is a really silly point-scoring response to (a).

The original question at hand was about whether we need institutional correctors in place to protect the interests of rural dwellers against the interests of city dwellers. I would argue, based on (a), that we certainly don't need more institutional protections for rural folks, and we could probably do with fewer.

EDIT: To add, I think the "hurt feelings" urban/suburban/rural discussion is dumb and should stop. We all have feelings, we have our feelings hurt when people like us are depicted in negative ways. I officially validate everyone's feelings. The "who suffered more" game has no winners, only losers. Stop playing.

Would you be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting states from collecting more money from the federal government then they send?

This is right up there with the whole Libertarian argument about how some tax payers pay in more than they recieve (the unfairness of it all!) - very reductionist and wrongheaded. Not that I am accusing you of that at all, I am poking at the idea. I don't think the tax/spend dynamic is zero sum when value from the money spent comes into play and I don't think it should be restricted to some sort of bizarre zero sum construct. We are a nation after all and not just a collection of autonomous people/states.