Stay updated with breaking news from Isnt calculus. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
obama 17%. fascinating. in his second scenario, the opponent is romney but the economy in america is improving. the probability of winning in these circumstances, romney, 40%, obama's probability of winning, 60%. in the third scenario, obama's opponent is rick perry, and the economy is improving. in this case, the probability of winning the popular vote is perry, 17%, obama, 83%. in the fourth scenario, fascinating, the most fascinating, the opponent is perry and the economy is stagnant. perry, probability of him winning, 59%, probability of the president getting re-elected, 41%. mike feldman, fascinating stuff. it basically is saying if you distill through all the numbers, the economy will drive the results of this election, regardless of who the republicans nominee. your thought on that? >> i think presidential politics isn't calculus. if you average out all those scenarios, we basically say there's a 50/50 chance of
president obama getting re-elected, i think we're probably pretty close to that. but at the end of the day, presidential campaigns are dynamic. we're a year out. there's a lot we don't know now and nate silver doesn't know now. and if he does know, i want to know who will win the eagles/bears game on monday. >> nice diversion. do you think the president can win re-election in a stagnant economy, yes or no? >> absolutely. >> as bad as it is now? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay. john, feehery, can the president -- can your party blow it if the economy is this bad? >> chris, the reason why this is a brilliant analysis is also because it's blindingly obvious. if the economy is still stagnant, the president's going to lose. if the economy comes back, he's probably going to win. there's really not much more you can do about it. i think that silver's probably right. >> i'm with you on this one, although i don't know who's going to win. i think the probability's leaning your direction. the president could pull a rabbit out of his hat. he is the luckiest man in politics i've ever known. when you get to run against alan keyes and john mccain who's past his political prime, you are a
terms of redistricting. at least in this cycle. what isn't new is that politics is inserted into this process. redistricting is one of the most political processes out there. >> what would be a fair assessment? how many seats did arizona have? it had, what, eight? >> yes. and now it has nine. >> what would be a fair delineation, a division, if you do it by, say, voter turnout or voter registration. what would be a fair thing, a breakout of the two parties? >> well, i like to say, there's no such thing as fair in redistricting. it all depends who can draw the line, who holds the pen. there should probably be more democratic seats than republican seats. there are a lot of competitive districts in this seat. and that means parties are going to have to spend a lot of money over the course of the next couple cycles defending these seats and fighting for these seats. and i think that makes republicans mad, because they technically backtracked from the current map. >> it just seems much ado about nothing, if you say roughly splitting the nine new numbers of seating, and it's 5-4 republican, how could this
scenarios, we basically say there's a 50/50 chance of president obama getting re-elected, i think we're probably pretty close to that. but at the end of the day, presidential campaigns are dynamic. we're a year out. there's a lot we don't know now and nate silver doesn't know now. and if he does know, i want to know who will win the eagles/bears game on monday. >> nice diversion. do you think the president can win re-election in a stagnant economy, yes or no? >> absolutely. >> as bad as it is now? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay. john, feehery, can the president -- can your party blow it if the economy is this bad? >> chris, the reason why this is a brilliant analysis is also because it's blindingly obvious. if the economy is still stagnant, the president's going to lose. if the economy comes back, he's probably going to win. there's really not much more you can do about it. i think that silver's probably right. >> i'm with you on this one, although i don't know who's going to win. i think the probability's leaning your direction. the president could pull a rabbit out of his hat. he is the luckiest man in politics i've ever known. when you get to run against alan
its interest rate a quarter of a point, sending the euro on a roller coaster ride. on stocks, a broad-based rally, four gaining for every one declining. we had solid earnings from qualcomm and kraft foods. and after the closing bell, robust results from starbucks as it expands into instant coffee and "k" cups. and directv posted its best quarter ever, adding more than 900 subscribers in north and south america. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." out in arizona, the new census figures mean the state gets a new congressional district for the state. and back in 2000, arizonians voted to take the politics out of redistricting and have it done by an independent commission.
i cover redistricting around the country, chris, and i haven't seen anything like this, where a governor of any party has gone in and tried to take over an independent commissions process. that's where this is really new and unchartered territory in terms of redistricting. at least in this cycle. what isn't new is that politics is inserted into this process. redistricting is one of the most political processes out there. >> what would be a fair assessment? how many seats did arizona have? it had, what, eight? >> yes. and now it has nine. >> what would be a fair delineation, a division, if you do it by, say, voter turnout or voter registration. what would be a fair thing, a breakout of the two parties? >> well, i like to say, there's no such thing as fair in redistricting. it all depends who can draw the line, who holds the pen. there should probably be more democratic seats than republican seats. there are a lot of competitive districts in this seat. and that means parties are going to have to spend a lot of money over the course of the next couple cycles defending these seats and fighting for these seats. and i think that makes
economy is stagnant. in nate's calculation, the probability of winning the popular vote under these circumstances is romney 83%, obama 17%. fascinating. in his second scenario, the opponent is romney but the economy in america is improving. the probability of winning in these circumstances, romney, 40%, obama's probability of winning, 60%. in the third scenario, obama's opponent is rick perry, and the economy is improving. in this case, the probability of winning the popular vote is perry, 17%, obama, 83%. in the fourth scenario, fascinating, the most fascinating, the opponent is perry and the economy is stagnant. perry, probability of him winning, 59%, probability of the president getting re-elected, 41%. mike feldman, fascinating stuff. it basically is saying if you distill through all the numbers, the economy will drive the results of this election, regardless of who the republicans nominee. your thought on that? >> i think presidential politics isn't calculus. if you average out all those scenarios, we basically say there's a 50/50 chance of
president obama getting re-elected, i think we're probably pretty close to that. but at the end of the day, presidential campaigns are dynamic. we're a year out. there's a lot we don't know now and nate silver doesn't know now. and if he does know, i want to know who will win the eagles/bears game on monday. >> nice diversion. do you think the president can win re-election in a stagnant economy, yes or no? >> absolutely. >> as bad as it is now? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay. john, feehery, can the president -- can your party blow it if the economy is this bad? >> chris, the reason why this is a brilliant analysis is also because it's blindingly obvious. if the economy is still stagnant, the president's going to lose. if the economy comes back, he's probably going to win. there's really not much more you can do about it. i think that silver's probably right. >> i'm with you on this one, although i don't know who's going to win. i think the probability's leaning your direction. the president could pull a rabbit out of his hat. he is the luckiest man in politics i've ever known. when you get to run against alan keyes and john mccain who's past
we're america's natural gas. the smarter power, today. learn more at anga.us. back to "hardball." now for the sideshow. first up, this morning i stopped by abc's "the view" to discuss my new book, "jack kennedy: elusive hero." our conversation centered less on politics and more on jack kennedy's personal relationship with his wife, jacqueline.
governor technically has a right to impeach the head of the redistricting committee, but this is really unprecedented. i cover redistricting around the country, chris, and i haven't seen anything like this, where a governor of any party has gone in and tried to take over an independent commissions process. that's where this is really new and unchartered territory in terms of redistricting. what isn't new is that politics is inserted into this process. redistricting is one of the most political processes out there. >> what would be a fair assessment? how many seats did arizona have? it had, what, eight? >> yes. and now it has nine. >> what would be a fair delineation, a division, if you do it by, say, voter turnout or voter registration. what would be a fair thing, a breakout of the two parties? >> well, i like to say, there's no such thing as fair and redistricting. it all depends who can draw the line, who holds the pen. there should probably be more democratic seats than republican seats.