Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 08/22/2012 6:01:28 PM PDT by nhwingut
Three reasons why: Economy, economy, economy.
Supposedly, the model’s been accurate to within 20 or so electoral votes in every election since 1980. Dude?
Using a state-by-state analysis of unemployment and per-capita income, academics Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry of the University of Colorado project that Romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote and 320 electoral votes. The political scientists discuss their findings here.
Their forecast suggests that President Obama will lose in almost all of the swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida…
Bickers said much of the polling thus far means relatively little, with much of the electorate still not focused on the race. The academics said their model focuses on the preeminent issue of the economy. Applied retrospectively, the model predicts the correct winner in every presidential contest going back to 1980, they said.
I’m highly skeptical that Romney’s going to come back to take Pennsylvania, even though O’s lead there right now isn’t prohibitive. But like the man says, the model’s usually off by 20 or so EVs. Number of electoral votes Pennsylvania has this year: 20. Golden.
Meanwhile, in the poll of polls…
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
That would be awesome.
I find it hard to believe that Zero would lose Minnesota. Too many Kool Aid drinkers, and a Secretary of State that is a poster boy for election fraud.
Thanks nhwingut.
Not to throw cold water on those encouraged by this, but I think that sentence just said that when the election is over, this model is very good at picking the right outcome.
I can do that too.
It is possbile.. Got a reminder Wisconsin recall, almost all polls under counted republicans as they were using bad models. They had it stastical dead heat and Walker won by 5 or 6 points.. I think it will be same in Presidential electiion.
The statement obviously means that the economic data of the past election years has been fed through the model as though those elections had not yet occurred.
Social attitudes change, but the way that voters react to a crappy economy and high unemployment numbers seems to be very consistent through the years.
I don’t understand how Obama could win more than 5 states or more than 40% of the popular vote.
absolutely
When people are fat and happy, they are content with the status quo. When people are suffering, they want incumbents out.
Economic models employ various independent variables to predict the outcome. If the model, without any adjustment beyond year dummy, is applied to the data for those exact variables and give similar outcome as the actual (allowing some statistical errors) then I’d say it’s a good model. I’d still like to know how far their predicted values from the actual values are.
If you are right -- and not saying you aren't -- that sentence makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems to be saying they apply the model after the fact.
Any way you can return to Europe and cast out the infidels? :>)
That's called "back testing". Frequently done with investment strategies. Also frequently convinces people they're smarter than they really are...
There is no way Obama loses Minnesota. I say this with blood squirting from my eyes.
There is no scenario under which the libs in this state would find enough fault to vote for someone other than the magic Kenyan from Choomdale.
After all, when one is a lib, one does not questions the ways of the Messiah.
That has been my prediction for about two months.
So, do they wait til the election is over and then apply their model?
yes, it looks like a 180 reversal of 2008, Romney will win 53/47ish. But if it was an “Honest Election”, like they have in Nevada,Philly and Chicago, it would be closer to a 60/40 Romney landslide.
74.42% of the vote.
Is it even possible? A lot will have to happen in the next 11 weeks to make that happen.
The reasons why Mitt is so much persona non grata within these walls, are not largely predominant in larger America. And thanks to hysterical communiques like Obama’s latest from Sandra Fluke that equates Mitt Romney to the questionable sexologist Akin, if they hear that Mitt is too liberal they will never hear that from Barack Obama. Result: slam dunk in popular vote for Mitt. He will mop the floor with Barack.
Never misunderestimate Barack’s capability of jamming his foot ever further into his mouth.
You don't understand the idiot vote. This country proved that the LAST election.
In my financial experience, a lot of investment strategies that claim to work in the future because they were “back tested” for 20, 30, 40 or however many years still can fail.
It’s very difficult to accurately simulate all the factors that go into something as complex as an election or the performance of an investment.
I’m not saying they’re completely wrong, just that I’ve seen this claim many times and it didn’t prove out over the future events.
That’s at the low end of how I expect the electorate to vote.
I would not get my hopes up. Obama will likely win Pennsylvania and Ohio, and I think he has a really good shot at Virginia. That would basically end it for him with those 3.
Depressing that my home state of Ohio is going down, especially given some recent in-state R wins and the crappy economy going against Baraq.
Virginia I can see, with Virgil Goode giving Baraq a Clintonian plurality win. And of course NoVa is so friggin’ prosperous from all the govt largesse that Obama will run up a huge margin there.
That’s not at all what it says.
Go throw cold water on yourself :) Otherwise, you’re just wasting your cold water.
Ohio is not Obama’s yet, and he in fact is not leading here at this moment. IIRC, it’s a statistical dead heat.
Anecdotally, and I live in southern Ohio, there is no way he will win southern Ohio. It is overwhelmingly against him.
Don’t count your votes before the liberal judges do. :)
This analysis doesn’t seem to have a way to account for vote fraud, and there will be vote fraud, especially if we’re in the middle of October and Obummer is down by 5 points or more in the polls, if people think they’ve been vicious thus far, you haven’t seen anything yet, they’ll go full all-out gangland warfare true to Chicago style. This will get a lot tougher and nastier before its all over.
I goofed around with the map on 270towin.com. I came up
with romney 389 and obamma 149 (HI,CA,MN,IL,NY,MD,DC,RI,
VT AND MA)
Thats my prediction and i’m willing it to happen although
i’m still going to volunteer with the rjc here in ohio(oiho)
and make phonecalls just in case...
I hope i win the contest and that my country is saved as well.
I think Romney will win closer to 55% of the vote.
How many union voters in Ohio who will overpower any sense of decency?
I would seem that MI is more likely to defect than MN. But Detroit may still save Obama with its voter fraud and uninformed suburban citizenry.
You left off NJ, DE, WA, and OR from the Obama list, and probably PA too.
While the model is heartening, this election and 2008 have something the other years did not. Barack Obama is black. That means that a lot of people voted for him in 2008 because of novelty, racial solidarity, and LOTS of white guilt. Many of them knew nothing about him at all. It didn’t matter. It could well be that nothing will matter this time. Remains to be seen. I doubt that guilt is infinite, but I’m starting to wonder.
2008:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Economic_models_predict_clear_Obama_win_0801.html
His model, which assumed tepid U.S. economic growth of 1.5 percent and a 3 percent rate of inflation, predicted the Republican candidate John McCain’s share of the vote would be 47.8 percent, handing Obama 52.2 percent.
2004:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite an embarrassing failure in their forecasting four years ago, political scientists and economists are again predicting the outcome of the presidential election, and most foresee a win for President George W. Bush.
I seriously doubt that with Ohio and Virginia looking poor right now.
I hope Obama loses - and loses BIG - but things have to look a lot better for Romney than they do right now.
Those still subject to "white guilt" are far more likely to vote for Obama over the telephone than they are in the confines of a voting booth.
I submit that Zero's percentage of the actual vote will be at least 2-3 pts lower than his last poll result.
So I have to tell someone....
Yesterday I was at San Francisco General Hospital (you’ve got to hope you don’t end up there) and we were trying to check someone out. Well, in the hall there was a confrontation with a black guy with dreadlocks in a wheelchair and a TV in his lap and his friend (or whatever) who was a plump black girl with major attitude. She told a cop standing there that he couldn’t touch her - apparently the cop had asked if she was on probation and she was very positive that this guy had no right to “touch her” and wasn’t nice about it “You can’t touch me”. The cop was standing back...obviously afraid of the implications. This girl was in charge. I just thought to myself - there is an Obama voter and probably she and the guy in the wheelchair are on welfare. These were professionally militant blacks.
I work with black people, in fact one of the people in my hospital visiting group is black, but they are different...they don’t care about color or use it as a weapon or an excuse. The underclass the liberals have created for their base is like a bunch of people from another planet for those of us who aren’t used to it. I watched the episode yesterday and just thought “California is gone forever”. Pray the rest of the country doesn’t follow.
Who was it that won only one state? Mondale?
Yep, MN and DC was it.
I also seem to remember that once the Reagan campaign knew they had it in the bag, they quit running ads in Minnesota, I guess so Mondale wouldn't be totally humiliated.
Yep, Minnesota!
Now nobama’s problem in 12 is the idiots are having a lot of trouble finding any incentive to vote period. Its much easier to gin up for a challenger. I suspect many of those idiots have taken a heap of ridicule for their 08 vote and would just as soon not have to go though that over again.
Even his plantation bruthas, who will certainly not vote for Mitt, are not looking much enthused this time.
In Utah and Idaho, maybe 74.42%. Without Ryan, Romney doesn’t get that kind of love on FR!
Reagan didn't bother with MN at all, until the last minute. Air Force One was enroute to CA for election day, and made a quick stop in Rochester, MN.
Mondale won MN by a vote margin so thin that it was less than one vote per precinct (about 1,300 votes, I think). Several third-party candidates each had enough votes to constitute the winning margin.
There were persistent rumors of massive vote fraud in the Iron Range at the last minute to generate enough votes to keep from embarrassing Mondale completely. But, it wasn't worth investigating.
Here's the University of Colorado press release
Fred, your Post #4 is spot-on.
The best we can hope for is to make it a competitive race here and force the Dems to spend money and time here - rather than in Iowa or Wisconsin.
IOW, we’ll try to take one for the team.
Awesome. I'm beyond thrilled to think about him being summarily and humiliatingly axed on Nov. 2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.