A nice person would say “Your forecast is over-optimistic.” Or, perhaps, “is biased.” But, you said my forecast was “nuts,” as though my forecast didn’t come from me but came from out of thin air and, so, can be judged as “nuts” without reflecting on whether I’m nuts.
Then, after arguing that a person can say things that are nuts and not be himself nuts, you say I’m thinking this is a wave election. Like, 2006 and 2008 were with respect to the Senate when the Democrats won all the close ones.
Wave elections happen. We will know whether or not this is a wave election on Tuesday night. The possibility that this will be a wave election is the premise of this conversation, based on the lack of ticket-splitting. The lack of ticket splitting will enable a lot of Republicans to win the close ones (that is, close ones in the Red States and close ones in the Battleground states if Romney wins them).
If you would return to my original post, you will notice that I qualified the forecast for the states in which the Republican was counting on ticket-splitting in Blue states. It seems to me that the lack of ticket-splitting nowadays cuts both ways, helping Republicans in Red states and in Battleground states should Romney win, and making it tougher on them in Blue states.
Great, great prediction on all those Senate seat pickups there, pal. You were so close! And your reasoning and methodology to back it up were so sound, I don’t know how anyone could ever have possibly doubted your prognosticating brilliance.