Likeminded people sense the same thing at the same time so they can switch on a dime. I've seen it countless times. The models and percentages make sense until it happens. Then zoom. I can't figure it out. It's like exhibition season in the NFL.
The mistake is to assume that general elections are even remotely similar. For example, when Lamont overcame the massive deficit to win the primary against Lieberman, there were assertions here and elsewhere that there would be no problem doing the same thing in the general election, once cowardly Lieberman announced he could not allow the primary result to stand.
Polling had Lieberman well ahead in the general election but nobody wanted to believe it, or that it would last. Keep in mind this was pre-Nate Silver. My life was much simpler pre-Nate Silver. I know darn well that if Nate had already been making political forecasts based on numbers then Lieberman would have properly been an overwhelming favorite. The percentage would have been 80+. The ideological numbers and independent numbers were going to thwart Lamont at every turn. The Republican was a farce candidate so no chance he would steal anything significant.
Since we were still in a fragile primitive subjective political wagering world, the odds on Lieberman opened at a comical 5-7 (140 to win 100) and briefly actually dropped to 5/6 (120 to win 100).
It was impossible not to laugh. I was posting the betting link on MyDD while describing it as free money on Lieberman. As so often is the case, what I want to happen politically is exactly the opposite of the proper way to wager. I cleaned up on that race. I'm not sure it isn't the single greatest political wager I have ever seen. It felt like zero chance to lose. The margin ended up being roughly 10 points, which is where it figured all along based on rigid general election realities.
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
= new reply since forum marked as read
