University of Colorado analysis predicts Romney win in presidential race

[24champ]

Originally Posted by 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.

I saw that too, and this CU forcast/prediction will be updated in September.

Obama is going to have a tough sell with increasing taxes as his economic plan, the CBO said it will result in a recession and higher unemployment.

The CBO report found that the spending cuts and tax increases would result in a recession and higher unemployment. However, the report also said it would improve the outlook of the federal government's budget deficit.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-unacceptable/

[Garcia Bronco]

The funny thing is there is no abortion issue. Its been settled for a long time from a legal perspective.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The funny thing is there is no abortion issue. Its been settled for a long time from a legal perspective.

tell that to the 251 congressman that voted to redefine rape in HR3.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Obama is going to have a tough sell with increasing taxes as his economic plan, the CBO said it will result in a recession and higher unemployment.

Okay. Now tell us what the CBO has to say about what the Romney/Ryan plan will do...

[Rohirrim]

What the worlds' leaders have to get together and figure out is how to force the greedy bastards to inject back into the economy the $32 trillion they're hiding offshore. Until that happens, it's all blather.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Until that happens...

And since the "worlds' leaders" are in bed with those same people it's never going to happen.

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What the worlds' leaders have to get together and figure out is how to force the greedy bastards to inject back into the economy the $32 trillion they're hiding offshore. Until that happens, it's all blather.

Since the "worlds' leaders" work for the "greedy bastards" -

that's not gonna happen.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Okay. Now tell us what the CBO has to say about what the Romney/Ryan plan will do...

Just to be clear, you agree that Obama's economic plan doesn't fix anything?

In its report Wednesday, the CBO warned that the nation would be plunged into a significant recession during the first half of next year if Congress fails to avert nearly $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts set to hit in January.

The massive round of New Year’s belt-tightening — known as the “fiscal cliff” or “Taxmageddon” — would disrupt recent economic progress, push the unemployment rate back up to 9.1 percent by the end of 2013 and produce economic conditions “that will probably be considered a recession,” the nonpartisan CBO said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...c_story_1.html

[BroncsRule]

re: OP -

These guys are working from a model that ignores polls and focuses on economic indicators, and they're playing off some "trueisms" that have evolved over the last 60 years, like: "when unemployment is above 6%, the incumbant is in deep dodo".

It also should be noted that polls (and the people who respond in them) are notoriously fickle. Carter famously led Reagan by 6-10 points, and had a similarly "insurmountable" lead in the Electoral College projections as late as September 1980. When the voters actually showed up just 6 weeks later, Reagan crushed Carter like a bug.

While their base assumptions have some validity, I think these CU guys are overlooking seveal contraindicators that make this situation unique. Namely: Although the economy is sour, the incumbent team has done a remarkable job of portraying the situation as an "inherited mess" that is taking longer than anticipated to clean up. Independents and moderates would seem to be buying this explanation in large numbers, which would largely de-fang the whole underpinning of the poll.

Add in the fact that Romney has been unable or unwilling to clearly outline his own economic agenda in any detail, and the Republicans are the ones in deep dodo.

There is still time for Romney - he can make his case in the debates. But if he can't or won't come to the debate table with specifics, Barry will eat him alive.

(Uncle Joe will do better in the Veep debate that a lot of people think, BTW.)

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Just to be clear, you agree that Obama's economic plan doesn't fix anything?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...c_story_1.html

Here's how it works: The Republicans in Congress would not allow Obama to pass anything. He couldn't get a resolution passed to make it "National Dog Catcher Day" without McConnell tacking on another tax break for the rich. So, the Congress is not doing their jobs, and they're not allowing Obama to do his job. Meanwhile, America suffers. If Romney gets elected, they'll work hard to pass his Hooverite program. The Dems will try and stop it. Maybe we'll have four more years of gridlock, or maybe the GOP will win back Congress and be able to pass all of the Romney/Ryan "Feed the Rich" program. At any rate, that will sink this country into another Great Depression and in four years the Republicans can run on, "It's all Obama's fault." It's a win/win. At least for the Washington insiders like McConnell, Boehner and Cantor. For the country, it will be a catastrophe.

[TonyR]

[I]n 1970, the middle class held 62 percent of the income in the country. The upper income held 29 percent. Those numbers have now flipped: The middle class is at 45 percent and the upper income class is at 46 percent.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-and-shrinking

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/...-middle-class/

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good point. The Romney team will start with the best of intentions (for the rich) - beliving in their weird, twisted economic policies as they do. If they win control of the Senate, and pull "the nuclear option" (changing Senate rules on the first day of the session to supress fillibusters), they will be able to:

Repeal Obamacare/Gut Medicare (more money out as the elderly swamp emergency rooms)
Make the Bush era tax cuts permanent (less money in)
Lower the Corporate Tax Rate (a lot less money in)
Lower the tax rate on interest income (WAY less money in)
Increase Defense spending/attack Iran (WAY more money out)

and - ultimately, when the next mega-recession hits wall street, they'll freak out, cave, and throw probably 2-3 Trillion at the banksters saying "Please save us!!"

The End.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Here's how it works: The Republicans in Congress would not allow Obama to pass anything. He couldn't get a resolution passed to make it "National Dog Catcher Day" without McConnell tacking on another tax break for the rich. So, the Congress is not doing their jobs, and they're not allowing Obama to do his job. Meanwhile, America suffers. If Romney gets elected, they'll work hard to pass his Hooverite program. The Dems will try and stop it. Maybe we'll have four more years of gridlock, or maybe the GOP will win back Congress and be able to pass all of the Romney/Ryan "Feed the Rich" program. At any rate, that will sink this country into another Great Depression and in four years the Republicans can run on, "It's all Obama's fault." It's a win/win. At least for the Washington insiders like McConnell, Boehner and Cantor. For the country, it will be a catastrophe.

Presidents have always had to deal with Congress, Reagan with Tip O'neil...Clinton with Newt...Bush with Pelosi for a time. So what?

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Presidents have always had to deal with Congress, Reagan with Tip O'neil...Clinton with Newt...Bush with Pelosi for a time. So what?

The "so what" is that John Boehner makes Tip, Newt & the rest look like Refined Gentlemen of Distinction by comparison.

No mean feat, that.

[GreasyQtip]

Hey, here is two extremely well respected economists who also have a prediction, and who have also predicted the last many elections. Guess who they have getting 303 EV?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...3gULSTMFgRY0TA

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by GreasyQtip

Hey, here is two extremely well respected economists who also have a prediction, and who have also predicted the last many elections. Guess who they have getting 303 EV?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...3gULSTMFgRY0TA

this article represents the author's "first draft" in the 2012 election cycle, and was published in February, based solely on historical data available at that time.

They revised their estimates in June, to reflect the dismal 2nd quarter economic figures. They now predict Romney winning with 290 electoral votes.

As the author states in the original article: "A key finding of the model is that economic trends—whether things are getting better or worse than they were a month ago—are more meaningful than the level state of the economy. In other words, whether the unemployment rate is increasing or decreasing is more important than what the unemployment rate actually is."

he then goes on in his most recent blog post to do his best to undermine the conclusions of his own model.

Read more here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Not "ad hominem" - it's true.

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

Actually, the poorest counties are blue counties in red states.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by 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.”

so what's new, another republican who can't read and understand any poll that is against their thinking................this article is complete and utter BS

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Actually, the poorest counties are blue counties in red states.

But the reference was to states - not counties.

In any event, why would it surprise anyone that the counties populated predominantly by minorities in the Jim Crow states would be the poorest?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Presidents have always had to deal with Congress, Reagan with Tip O'neil...Clinton with Newt...Bush with Pelosi for a time. So what?

The 112th Congress is the most polarized Congress since the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s, and we all know what came after–the GILDED AGE period of corporate dominance, not well looked upon by historians, and reminding us that we are now, in so many respects, in a new GILDED AGE, personified not only by the GOP control in the House of Representatives and in many state governments, but by the wealthiest Presidential nominee in American history, Mitt Romney, worth twice the assets of the last eight Presidents from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush combined!

The Republican majority in the House and Republican opposition in the Senate set back economic recovery in 2011 and right up to this moment in 2012, by any measure! And this Congress caused the loss of America’s credit rating, and seem ready to do it again!

Voting unsuccessfully to repeal the Affordable Care Act THIRTY THREE times is an exercise in futility, and the House of Representatives has wasted approximately EIGHTY hours in doing nothing, two work weeks when they could have been working on job creation legislation!

This Congress has NOT passed any appropriations bills by the deadline of October 1 in 2011, and will not by October 1, 2012, as things stand!

The failure to provide for the future of our infrastructure–roads, bridges, subway systems, and airports– is a major problem for the long term.

Two Congressional experts, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, have written a book condemning the paralysis of the 112th Congress, saying it is the worst performance they have witnessed in 40 years of covering Congress!

In sum, the 112th Congress is an embarrassment, and there is no sign of any improvement in the future, particularly if the split Congress continues into the future!
http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=18883

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Presidents have always had to deal with Congress, Reagan with Tip O'neil...Clinton with Newt...Bush with Pelosi for a time. So what?

How many have had to deal with an opposition in congress that flat out stated a goal to prevent the President from being re-elected YEARS before the next election?

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

so what's new, another republican who can't read and understand any poll that is against their thinking................this article is complete and utter BS

WTF are you talking about?

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

How many have had to deal with an opposition in congress that flat out stated a goal to prevent the President from being re-elected YEARS before the next election?

What's your point?

I'm pretty sure each party does not want the opposition party to be re-elected...whether they state that or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

UC vs. DBruleU's idol....oh noes!

Karl Rove’s polling shows Obama leading by almost 30 pts

Written by Samuel Warde | August 23, 2012 | 2


George W. Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove has been issuing an analysis of the 2012 electoral map since April – consistently showing President Obama as the favorite to win.

In his latest analysis he shows Pres. Obama with 257 of the necessary 270 electoral votes and Mitt Romney with only 182 electoral votes and 99 votes up for grabs. That means for Romney to be able to win, he would need to capture nearly 88% of the remaining votes up for grabs to Obama’s need of only 13 votes.

According to his Rove’s site:

“Two states changed status since last week’s Electoral College map. Ohio moved from “lean Obama” to “toss-up” and New Hampshire shifted from “toss-up” to “lean Obama.” “Safe” Romney and Obama EC votes are unchanged at 108 and 172, respectively. With the changes in OH and NH, there are now nine states (85 EC votes) that “lean Obama,” five states (74 EC votes) that “lean Romney,” and six states (99 EC votes) that are “toss-up.” Keep an eye on Wisconsin. New polls moved it in Romney’s favor this week, making it likely that it will change to “toss-up” soon. NOTE: South Carolina and South Dakota have been changed to “safe Romney” status in order to get an accurate outlook of the playing field. As Joe Trippi and I discussed on Special Report last week, they are safe GOP states that have not been polled in almost a year and may not be polled in the 79 days until the election. Their Electoral College votes have been moved to previous “safe Romney” totals as well as is reflected in the map’s trend line. “

You can see his map below.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Presidents have always had to deal with Congress, Reagan with Tip O'neil...Clinton with Newt...Bush with Pelosi for a time. So what?

To suggest that the obstruction Obama has faced is in anyway comparable with your above examples is simply dishonest.