CU election projection gurus still have Romney winning...actually kinda predicting a landslide

[spdirty]

These guys are really putting their reputations on the line with this. They have it 330-208 for Romney. Hope they're right. I honestly don't know who's gonna win, just putting this out there because it's interesting.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...win-university

[Requiem]

Haha.

The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

What a joke.

[SoCalBronco]

This model uses state by state economic data. What is interesting about this model is the claim that it has worked 9 elections in a row and even accurately predicted the 2000 result where Gore wins popular and Bush wins electoral. The model itself is a new one, the 9 for 9 claim comes from the professors plugging in the state by state economic data on record in the election years all the way back to 1980 into the mathematical formula to see how close it was to the actual result (it doesnt claim to have been around back then, its just a retroactive application of the formula using the data from back then).

We'll see how close they come. There are a couple other models out there which project Romney at around 53% of the two party share (The famous Bread and Peace Model among others). Ofcourse, there are several models including Allan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency, which predict re-election of the President.

I wouldnt be surprised by any result, be it a slight Romney win, slight Obama win, or a win by any of the candidates by 3-4 points.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

This model uses state by state economic data. What is interesting about this model is the claim that it has worked 9 elections in a row and even accurately predicted the 2000 result where Gore wins popular and Bush wins electoral. The model itself is a new one, the 9 for 9 claim comes from the professors plugging in the state by state economic data on record in the election years all the way back to 1980 into the mathematical formula to see how close it was to the actual result (it doesnt claim to have been around back then, its just a retroactive application of the formula using the data from back then).

We'll see how close they come. There are a couple other models out there which project Romney at around 53% of the two party share (The famous Bread and Peace Model among others). Ofcourse, there are several models including Allan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency, which predict re-election of the President.

I wouldnt be surprised by any result, be it a slight Romney win, slight Obama win, or a win by any of the candidates by 3-4 points.

There's 13 models out there, 5 of which say Romney will win, another 5 says Obama will win and finally 3 models have it as a toss up.

[Rohirrim]

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected.

Because they all have one religion in common,moronism.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected.

I just shows how ignorant most people are in this country. For the polls to swing like they have based on a showcase of Romney lies during debate, how can you think anything but most Americans are truly ignorant and lazy. They don't care to fact find for themselves, they're simply won over by body language and being told what they WANT to hear, not what is truth. That is a fact.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by ZONA

I just shows how ignorant most people are in this country. For the polls to swing like they have based on a showcase of Romney lies during debate, how can you think anything but most Americans are truly ignorant and lazy. They don't care to fact find for themselves, they're simply won over by body language and being told what they WANT to hear, not what is truth. That is a fact.

His $5 trillion dollar tax cut is a joke, on its face. Anybody who believes it has **** for brains. He's going to cut loopholes? Which loopholes add up to 5 trillion? He won't say. Bull****. Is he going to cut the mortgage interest write off? Really? Then say goodbye to an already staggering housing industry. He says he'll create 12 million jobs in four years? Most economists say that if we just stayed with the status quo, that many jobs would be created in four years. Romney is feeding people bull**** from one end to the other, and they're buying it up. Just like he used to sell Bain's bull**** promises.

Americans need to learn a little arithmetic.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by spdirty

They have it 330-208 for Romney.

That's pretty funny. Romney certainly appears to have a better chance right now then he did a week ago. But if Romney wins it's going to be by a nose. (insert Pinnochio joke here...)

[orinjkrush]

it has never been about what you say, its about how you say it. Think Reagan.

[Arkie]

Intrade has a market for every state. They predicted nearly every state right in 2008. They have it 303-235 for Obama.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Intrade has a market for every state. They predicted nearly every state right in 2008. They have it 303-235 for Obama.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php

Florida just switched to Obama. Now it's 332-206 for Obama.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Florida just switched to Obama. Now it's 332-206 for Obama.

Intrade predicted this a month ago. Not bad.

[nyuk nyuk]

I think these guys have accurately predicted every election since 1980, if I'm not mistaken.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I think these guys have accurately predicted every election since 1980, if I'm not mistaken.

The model retroactively has the right predictions. They haven't predicted anything before any election up to this point. In other words, the model wasn't here in 1980, or 84, or 88, or 92 or anything up to this point. But when the model was derived, they then retroactively took state economic data available in each year and plugged it into the formula and it came out right.

We will see if they are right with this call. It is certainly an aggressive call.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

The model retroactively has the right predictions. They haven't predicted anything before any election up to this point. In other words, the model wasn't here in 1980, or 84, or 88, or 92 or anything up to this point. But when the model was derived, they then retroactively took state economic data available in each year and plugged it into the formula and it came out right.

We will see if they are right with this call. It is certainly an aggressive call.

Or they retro fitted the model using the those results.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by elsid13

Or they retro fitted the model using the those results.

It's easy to do with a sample size of 8.

[Rohirrim]

I wish one of the Righties on here would answer my questions. Here's a candidate who has completely covered the details of his past. He destroyed all records of his time as governor. Wiped the hard drives clean. His records from the Olympics are closed. He's only coughed up two tax years that were engineered for the election. His time at Bain he refuses to disclose, other than stating that when Bain was doing a bunch of questionable things, he had no part in it, which is disputable. He hides assets offshore so they can't be taxed but won't tell anybody how much.

And then, on his positions, he reminds me of the old Talking Heads song: "I've changed my hairstyle so many times now, I don't know what I look like." In other words, he's a complete cipher. The Right doesn't know what he stands for, and neither does the Left. He comes to the debate and simply changes all the things he's been saying for a year. And the Righties just sit their nodding their heads as if it's all good. When little slips of the tongue occur or some old stories come out, they divulge the nature of a very strange man. It's some weird ****. Maybe it's some kind of Mormon mind trick?

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I wish one of the Righties on here would answer my questions. Here's a candidate who has completely covered the details of his past. He destroyed all records of his time as governor. Wiped the hard drives clean. His records from the Olympics are closed. He's only coughed up two tax years that were engineered for the election. His time at Bain he refuses to disclose, other than stating that when Bain was doing a bunch of questionable things, he had no part in it, which is disputable. He hides assets offshore so they can't be taxed but won't tell anybody how much.

And then, on his positions, he reminds me of the old Talking Heads song: "I've changed my hairstyle so many times now, I don't know what I look like." In other words, he's a complete cipher. The Right doesn't know what he stands for, and neither does the Left. He comes to the debate and simply changes all the things he's been saying for a year. And the Righties just sit their nodding their heads as if it's all good. When little slips of the tongue occur or some old stories come out, they divulge the nature of a very strange man. It's some weird ****. Maybe it's some kind of Mormon mind trick?

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

Except that in the debate he said he's going to keep much of it.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

at Socialists.

How is taking 2.5% of my pay away (Obamacare tax), and redistributing it to someone else in the form of over-priced healthcare (without them having to do anything for it), a "good thing"?

It's not a good thing. It's bad for me, and bad for everyone else, who now has to pay a higher marginal cost for healthcare created by my dollars that someone else is using. The subsidized person receiving my money never would have purchased the product at that cost, without my redistributed money.

It's precisely why Socialist redistribution policies don't work...they destroy competition, and disable the invisible hand. There is literally no point in the equation, where the price of healthcare goods is competitive.

That can begin to change that by repealing Obamacare, and giving block grant funding to Seniors, in order that they can pay out of pocket for healthcare services, including health insurance, if they wish.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

at Socialists.

How is taking 2.5% of my pay away (Obamacare tax), and redistributing it to someone else in the form of over-priced healthcare (without them having to do anything for it), a "good thing"?

So how would the republicans bring down the cost of HC? What is their plan?

It's not a good thing. It's bad for me, and bad for everyone else, who now has to pay a higher marginal cost for healthcare created by my dollars that someone else is using. The subsidized person receiving my money never would have purchased the product at that cost, without my redistributed money.

Very few would get any "redistributed money" under the AHCA -- those who cannot afford to but insurance on their own. And if those folks don't have insurance they use the ER and we pay for that anyway, so your whining about paying for the HC of others is pointless. Under the current system you already are. And the republicans would do nothing to change that.

It's precisely why Socialist redistribution policies don't work...they destroy competition, and disable the invisible hand. There is literally no point in the equation, where the price of healthcare goods is competitive.

Under the AHCA, everyone buys private insurance. Insurance companies will compete for customers. The invisible hand continues to function.

That can begin to change that by repealing Obamacare, and giving block grant funding to Seniors, in order that they can pay out of pocket for healthcare services, including health insurance, if they wish.

I don't see how that is a solution to getting everyone insured.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

More wars are a bad thing, but we've got a problem with Israel and Iran. Israel is not going to let Iran have a nuke, period. They will attack Iran. When that happens Iran will close the straights of hormuz. You will see an economic depression unlike any have witnesssed in almost 100 years, maybe the worst ever.

The Bush/Obama tax cuts can't really be repealed anyway. You'll send America into a tailspin during a mini-depression. This could cause the rest of the world to collapse as well. Union jobs will disappear overnight if we go into another global recession. We've got serious global problems to address as country both finanically and geographically. Our goals should be to stop Iran from gaining nukes, but allow them to create better infrastructure. We also need to make sure that we are protecting the world by protecting our economy.

[pricejj]

Gotta love "The Primary Model", which assumes an Obama victory because he received a higher percentage of his party's votes, than Romney did, in the New Hampshire primary. Ooooooh, the science!