Originally posted by no1marauder
Nate Silver made that comparison on 538, as well as pointing out that similar controversies have caused, on average, a ten point swing: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/akin-comments-could-swing-missouri-senate-race/#more-33430
Yeah, I figured he would (Nate posted that only an hour after my post above). Nate characterizes races and scandals in terms of macaca. If a candidate trails by a significant amount but still could win with the help of a good scandal, Nate will refer to the candidate as being within "macaca range." One of the great Nate-isms.
That macaca moment might very well have cost Allen a chance to be President one day. If he had cruised to a 6 or 8 point win in 2006 in a Dem wave election in a purple state, he would have been a very attractive presidential candidate in '08 or '12. It's amazing how one word can ruin a career.