It looks like I'm not the only one pointing out electoral vote reality regarding the election next year. Byers points out a few key points that folks seem to be missing.
Here's the problem with Silver's piece: It's 1,500 words long, and not one of those words is "economy."
Silver's article also didn't include the words "Ross Perot." While Perot took votes from both Bush and Clinton, he likely delivered additional anti-Bush voters to Clinton after he dropped out of the race. No, Perot didn't cost Bush the election, but he did shake up the popular vote.
It's odd that Silver is going against his own models. Look for him to instantly put that 247 on the board right when the general starts next year.
Neither Byers or Silver note that all of the states in the 247 base have gone Democrat in the last six elections. The only exception was New Hampshire in 2000 went for Bush but New Mexico went for Gore so it was more or less a wash. Add in that the Republicans are bound and determined to nominate a "real" conservative this time around and even Bernie Sanders might have a shot at getting to 270. Now if they decided to nominate a moderate like Jon Huntsman, things would obviously change.
So, the next time you are engaging someone who think Republicans have a chance at winning in 2016, have them explain to you how a Marco Rubio or a Scott Walker wins California, Illinois and New York.
Because that's 104 electoral votes right there.