University of Colorado analysis predicts Romney win in presidential race

[DBruleU]

http://www.examiner.com/article/univ...sidential-race

A state-by-state analysis of the presidential race conducted by two University of Colorado professors predicts that Mitt Romney will be our next president. The analysis, released today, by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver, is based on economic and other factors within each of the 50 states. This same study has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential elections, starting with the 1980 election won by Ronald Reagan.

The analysis is summarized as follows, “President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.”

[spdirty]

[Drek]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs.

Good for the LULZ.

Obama has 201 electoral college votes in states that he's consistently been up by double digits all year long.

So....

1. there is no toss up state or states that add together for the requisite 218 electoral votes needed for their model, so the prediction is inherently flawed and borders on impossible.

2. This assumes that MI, PA, NV, IA, WI, and NH all go red when they're all already strongly leaning blue.

3. That Obama fails to pick up even one of OH, VA, NC, and FL.

In other words, these guys should just roll up those sheepskins and smoke 'em, because they really suck at what they're supposed to be experts at.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Drek

>>...so the prediction is inherently flawed and borders on impossible.<<

DBruleU's stock in trade.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Drek

Good for the LULZ.

Obama has 201 electoral college votes in states that he's consistently been up by double digits all year long.

So....

1. there is no toss up state or states that add together for the requisite 218 electoral votes needed for their model, so the prediction is inherently flawed and borders on impossible.

2. This assumes that MI, PA, NV, IA, WI, and NH all go red when they're all already strongly leaning blue.

3. That Obama fails to pick up even one of OH, VA, NC, and FL.

In other words, these guys should just roll up those sheepskins and smoke 'em, because they really suck at what they're supposed to be experts at.

Strongly leaning? Obama's lead is shrinking by the day in these states. In MI and WI Obama is looking at trouble. To say it's strongly blue isn't the case.

But at you calling these guys idiots when they have been doing this since 1980 and predicted correctly each time.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

DBruleU's stock in trade.

Way to stay on topic loser.

What is it you always say....something about Ad Hominem attacks?

[DBruleU]

By the way...Obama's #'s in IL are even shrinking. If he's struggling any more there as we get closer to Nov. hes in bigger trouble than any of us thought.

[bowtown]

Yep. He's got it in the bag. No reason for Republicans do even go to the polls really. It's a done deal. Just stay home and watch the coverage.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by bowtown

Yep. He's got it in the bag. No reason for Republicans do even go to the polls really. It's a done deal. Just stay home and watch the coverage.

The problem for Obama is Republican voting enthusiasm is higher than the Dems right now.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Way to stay on topic loser.

What is it you always say....something about Ad Hominem attacks?

Not "ad hominem" - it's true.

Yours is a pattern of posting stuff that is subsequently discredited and/or shown to be misleading.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bowtown

Yep. He's got it in the bag. No reason for Republicans do even go to the polls really. It's a done deal. Just stay home and watch the coverage.

Heh!

Oh well - at least this will be a fun thread to bump after the election.

[Requiem]

I'll get a DBruleU tramp stamp if Romney wins the election.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I'll get a DBruleU tramp stamp if Romney wins the election.

K Mike Evans jr. If it happens I'll make sure to remind you of the bet you made with yourself.

[chadta]

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by spdirty

K Mike Evans jr. If it happens I'll make sure to remind you of the bet you made with yourself.

I don't know who that is. The 218 EV for Obama is laughable. It is even more funny that we have a poster trying to say Obama is going to struggle in Illinois. I mean, . Dude is gonna win that state by 15 points. There is no struggle there.

[Rohirrim]

Then the GOP can really pretend that Bush never existed. They can simply blame everything on Obama and go forth in ideological purity.

[SoCalBronco]

I've always been fascinated by these predictive models, they are generally based on very complicated formulas that generally exclude everything except for economic variables. There is a good amount of dispute as to which formulas are the most accurate. I know Roy Fair has his own system and others have their own, I did see another analysis recently I think it was posted on the Atlantic Wire which also suggested a 53/47 two way split in favor of Romney. I think its based on the concept that at some point, the economic climate will create a bottom falling out effect in the incumbent share of support.

We'll see what happens. One can never tell with such models, especially when a foreign crisis, such as something happening in the ME may totally change things.

[Requiem]

"that other factors, like the home state of the top candidates, support from swing state governors and the locations of the party conventions, don’t mean much at the end of the day."

Big refutation of most all accurate and reputable pollsters to date. Haha.

[Rigs11]

Obama is leading among independents,Latinos,women.the GOP brand has taken a huge hit.minimal bounce with the Ryan pick.tax returns still an issue,now he has to decide where to stand on the abortion issue.Willard is toast

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I don't know who that is. The 218 EV for Obama is laughable. It is even more funny that we have a poster trying to say Obama is going to struggle in Illinois. I mean, . Dude is gonna win that state by 15 points. There is no struggle there.

Obviously not going to win IL. The point is however, that Obama is struggling in many states that are always Blue states...and even though he will win IL, his numbers falling there are a sign of his struggles.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Heh!

Oh well - at least this will be a fun thread to bump after the election.

Do you have some Jpegs to illustrate this point, so I can understand it better?

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I don't know who that is. The 218 EV for Obama is laughable. It is even more funny that we have a poster trying to say Obama is going to struggle in Illinois. I mean, . Dude is gonna win that state by 15 points. There is no struggle there.

He's a stupid ass local radio guy that, when we were 1-4 and Tebow was named starter last year, announced that if the Broncos win 8 with Tebow as starter he will get a Tebow tat.



I hope you aren't a welcher if Romney wins.

[Rohirrim]

If Romney wins, I predict the deficit is doubled (at least) in four years. Why? Because when Republicans are in office, deficits don't matter.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Obviously not going to win IL. The point is however, that Obama is struggling in many states that are always Blue states...and even though he will win IL, his numbers falling there are a sign of his struggles.

A junk source and poor article to even link to. 629 voters isn't a good sample size for a county that casts well over a million votes.

What Suburban areas / precincts where they getting voters from? They don't even identify a township. Very well likely could have been areas where Obama didn't perform as well in as 2008.

If Obama is polling 60% in Chicago itself, there is no way he is only getting 49 percent of the vote in all of Cook County. The math doesn't add up.

For the general election itself: That's a smaller # of white voters than McCain pulled in 2008. The Suburban #'s are also less than what McCain had against Obama in 2008. Obama only won men by 1% in 2008, but women make up a six percent larger demographic there.

So basically, more white men are voting for Romney this time around. Everything else, he's doing worse than McCain. OK.

You heard it here, Illinois could be lost this year on this 629 person poll conducted by a guy whose right hand polling friend is Dennis Hastert (who has endorsed Romney in 2008 and 2012). No bias at all here.

Woo. LolloLlll****ingtrollling!