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

[Rohirrim]

Romney has made business experience the main reason to elect him. Without his business past or his projections of business future, there is no there there. But history shows that time in the money trade is more often than not a prelude to a disastrous presidency. The less experience in business, the better the president.

In a scholarly ranking of great presidents, a 2009 survey conducted by C-Span,6 of the 10 best leaders lacked sufficient business experience to be president by Romney’s rumination. This list includes Ronald Reagan, the actor, union activist and corporate spokesman, and John F. Kennedy, the naval officer, writer and politician. There is one failed businessman on the list of great presidents, the haberdasher Harry S. Truman.

By contrast, two 20th century businessmen — George W. Bush, whose sweetheart deal with the Texas Rangers made him a multimillionaire, and Herbert Hoover, who came by his mining fortune honestly — were ranked among the worst presidents ever by the same historians. Bush left the country in a sea of debt and an economic crisis rivaled only by the one that engulfed Hoover.

Both George W. Bush and Romney are Harvard Business School graduates, further padding their business cred. Once they started governing, both men failed to improve the economic lives of those under them.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-wrong-resume/

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

...

So you promote Obama and Bernanke deflating the dollar away towards zero, usurping all U.S. citizens wealth? And widening the gap between those who have assets tied to inflation ("the rich"), and those who don't ("the poor").

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

George Washington was a general. Thomas Jefferson was a scholar. Teddy Roosevelt was never a businessman. Your premise is total hogwash.

You are wrong. It was George Washington getting ripped off by English merchants that prompted him to back a revolution. TR funded and got funding for a number of his ventures: He was the ultimate salesman. Thomas Jefferson was businessman, a broke man, that got funding for his school. These are just examples. I swear...what do they teach you kids in school. How do I know these things about history that you don't? Most of my early education, where I learned these facts was at public schools.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The U.S. does not have a problem with health care standards. We provide the best healthcare in the world.

Seriously? While the standard is high the cost is astronomical compared to other countries. No, we do not provide the best HC in the world. In fact our system is by far the worst among industrialized nations.

Under Obamacare, a 15 member panel decides what standard of healthcare you will receive.

Wrong.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...Advisory_Board

The only way to cut costs under Obamacare is to reduce services, or which reduces standards.

Pure speculation.

Whereas, competition naturally increases standards in a more free-market based approach.

The ACA (I guess I was mislabeling it the "AHCA") is a free-market based approach. What part of "private insurers" don't you understand?

Inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plans with HSA's are the cheapest and best way to provide coverage in case of emergency.

Evidence? Or is this just in theory?

If you truly want everyone covered, capping skyrocketing Medicare spending is the best way to reduce healthcare costs. This is true all around the world.

Which is what the Independent Payment Advisory Board ("15-member panel") is tasked to do. Yet you are against it.

Romney proposes to reform medicare for younger people, which decreases healthcare costs substantially.

How?

Medicare was enacted in 1965, and has skyrocketed healthcare costs. Capping Medicare spending isn't as dramatic as you make it seem. The world's best healthcare system will remain intact, be more efficient, and less expensive for all. Unlike Obamacare which only increases costs.

As already pointed out to you, the Swiss enjoy quality HC at a much lower cost than us. Real-world proof that you are wrong.

Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the world, with the fastest increasing healthcare costs. So the answer is "NO"...it doesn't work.

Source?

And can you explain why it's remains so popular in Massachussets if it's such a bust?

Though the Massachusetts health care law has been panned by Republicans nationwide, local support for it remains steady.

Two out of three adults in the state support the law, while 88 percent of doctors say it improved, or did not affect, the quality of care, per the BCBS survey.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...re-law-worked/

Obamacare subsidizes individuals and families up to 300% of the federal poverty level...that equates up to about $35k per year for an individual or $69k for a family of four. That is not "poor", that is squarely in the middle-class.

I said "disproportionately benefits" the poor, not exclusively. Reread.

The problem is, healthcare costs are too high. There is no reason a family of four who makes $69k per year should be mandated to purchase health insurance with premiums of $7200 per year, or more. They then have to figure out a way to cover the $10,000 deductible to pay for their ACTUAL healthcare.

Yes there is -- to spread the risk for everyone and to avoid sticking hospitals with the ER bill. But realistically the vast majority of such families would have insurance through their employers so why you bring up this unlikely scenario is a mystery.

That's actually what it would cost for me to purchase health insurance now (and the price is projected to increase). As an FYI, a similar plan in Massachusetts (Romneycare) is approximately $8000. As you can see, mandating expensive health insurance for over-priced healthcare is no solution at all.

Once again, see the Swiss system. High quality care, far lower cost then the USA. A model that has been proven to work in the real world.

I really don't understand you conservatives. You fall all over yourselves to dump a system that has real-world working examples and throw your support behind a plan that only works in theory. That doesn't strike me as very "conservative."

Massachusetts also has the largest debt as a % of GDP of all the states, and the fastest increasing debt...primarily due to increasing healthcare costs. Again, Obamacare doesn't work.

Source?

Obama has stated that he doesn't want to revisit healthcare. That he has "fixed" it.

Can you find one example of Obama saying that he will oppose any reforms of the ACA?

Actually, Singapore has the worlds cheapest, and most effective healthcare system. You should check it out.

Yes I have. Not sure it would work here though. They have a very different system of government. But I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from them.

Switzerland has a debt to GDP ratio of 401.9% and is the 3rd biggest debtor nation in the world. Socialism does not work.

If the U.S. had that debt to GDP ratio, we would be spending about $1.8T on debt servicing, which is over 70% of federal revenues.

What does this have to do with their largely successful HC system?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

So you promote Obama and Bernanke deflating the dollar away towards zero, usurping all U.S. citizens wealth? And widening the gap between those who have assets tied to inflation ("the rich"), and those who don't ("the poor").

Didn't you learn anything from Cheney? Deficits don't matter. Most of it is money we owe ourselves. Jobs are the issue, not tax breaks, and not deficits. Create jobs. The deficit will take care of itself. Besides, when it comes to runaway spending, I would trust the Dems over the Republicans.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The deficit will take care of itself.

U.S. taxpayers paid 20% of federal tax revenues towards debt servicing last year, and this number is only going up.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Besides, when it comes to runaway spending, I would trust the Dems over the Republicans.

You can't possibly be serious. These are the neo-Progressives, not Clintonian Democrats. Obama has added more than $5T in debt...more than any President in the history of the U.S. And twice as much as his predecessor GWB, who added about $2.5T in 8 years.

If Obama is elected to another term, he will have added more debt than all other Presidents combined (based on his generous projections).

[El Minion]

Debt is a problem when Japan, China and other foreign countries stop buying our debt and stop parking their money here. Inflation is low and so is interest rates. Complaining about the debt now is a red herring, jobs is and has been the issues to keep the US on the road to recovery not debt, at least not now. Complaining about the debt now is like complaining that there are to many investors (foreign countries) wanting to invest (buying US treasuries) in your business. We should all be so fortunate.

If US debt was such a problem, then Japan and everyone else would be dumping US treasuries and interest rates would be going through the roof. They are not.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Didn't you learn anything from Cheney? Deficits don't matter. Most of it is money we owe ourselves. Jobs are the issue, not tax breaks, and not deficits. Create jobs. The deficit will take care of itself. Besides, when it comes to runaway spending, I would trust the Dems over the Republicans.

Debt benefits the financial class, so deficits matter to them.

We can create debt free money like Lincoln's Greenbacks or JFK's US Notes. We can create money instead of bonds out of thin air. The bankers create Federal Reserve Notes out of thin air to buy the bonds. Their creation buys our creation, and we pay them interest for this exchange. There's no reason to have this system of debt-based money except to benefit the 1%.

[Blart]

If Romney wins America gets what it deserves

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Blart

If Romney wins America gets what it deserves

Yes. We all deserve a chance for a free and prosperous future, without the shackles of Socialism and ever-increasing debt.

The Romney/Ryan plan begins to put us on that path. The path to prosperity.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by El Minion

...

The Federal Reserve is printing $80B dollars per month in order to keep a ZIRP. Without that, interest on our $16T debt would eat up all our tax revenues. Unfortunately, that also means that U.S. Citizens can no longer gain interest earnings on their wealth. It also means that Social Security cannot grow like it's supposed to, in order to be somewhat sustainable.

Deficit spending is also highly inflationary, as evidenced by skyrocketing prices in the real estate, healthcare, commodities, and education industries (to name a few).

Therefore, not only are prices going up, while the dollar devalues, but our wealth is also not growing...creating a deadly mix, where we all get poorer. Except of course people who are lucky enough to hold real assets.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The Romney/Ryan plan begins to put us on that path. The path to prosperity.

Unless you're a multi-millionaire, bro, you're not allowed on that path.

[Requiem]

pricejj has got the punchlines down hookline and sinker.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Requiem

pricejj has got the punchlines down hookline and sinker.

He's living, breathing proof of the power of propaganda.

[barryr]

Even the liberals have had 4 years to come up with all the great stuff that Obama has done, but spend more time telling everyone why Romney would be worse. Pretty much sums it all up.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by barryr

Even the liberals have had 4 years to come up with all the great stuff that Obama has done, but spend more time telling everyone why Romney would be worse. Pretty much sums it all up.

Most serious political scientists and people who actually know what they're talking about realize that Bush ****ed this country up so badly, allowing Wall Street to obliterate our economy so thoroughly, that no president, regardless of party, could have cleaned up the mess in four years. Especially with the worst Congress in history, dedicated to doing absolutely nothing. We'll be lucky if we can clean it up in the next eight years. Unfortunately, the Right has learned absolutely nothing from this disaster, and simply wants to proceed along the same path Bush took, employing the exact same policies.

It's called insanity.

[spdirty]

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

[EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study

775 298 Google +34 84

By Levi Fox, on Oct 16, 2012




The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus Reform has learned.

The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.
Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.



“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

Berry noted his model has never been wrong at predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” he said.

Berry also acknowledged that while his poll is accurate, however, that his model does not “calculate a specific confidence level for the Electoral College result.”

The study, conducted every four years, is non-political and employs historical data as well as current unemployment numbers and income levels.

In the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, a recent poll reveals that a majority of voters believe the health of the economy is the most important issue of this election.

Additionally, more than double of the respondents in aUSA TODAY/Gallup Poll trust Romney over Obama to fix the economic state of our country (63%-29%).

Along with the economy, unemployment adds an element which only increases the probability of the CU prediction.

“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.

Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder adds, “the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

The Colorado model has had such accuracy over the years, these results have received no criticism from academic peers, according to Berry.

Berry emphasized that the overall accuracy of this model is based on the premise that American elections circle around the major issues. The day-to-day campaigning, gaffes, and political jabs are quite ineffective to the general population’s decision, come November 6th.


Campus Reform's Levi Fox had the chance to discuss this prediction with Dr. Michael Berry. Here is the exclusive interview.

Follow Levi Fox on twitter: @levithefox

[barryr]

Originally Posted by spdirty

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

[EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study

775 298 Google +34 84

By Levi Fox, on Oct 16, 2012




The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus Reform has learned.

The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.
Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.



“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

Berry noted his model has never been wrong at predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” he said.

Berry also acknowledged that while his poll is accurate, however, that his model does not “calculate a specific confidence level for the Electoral College result.”

The study, conducted every four years, is non-political and employs historical data as well as current unemployment numbers and income levels.

In the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, a recent poll reveals that a majority of voters believe the health of the economy is the most important issue of this election.

Additionally, more than double of the respondents in aUSA TODAY/Gallup Poll trust Romney over Obama to fix the economic state of our country (63%-29%).

Along with the economy, unemployment adds an element which only increases the probability of the CU prediction.

“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.

Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder adds, “the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

The Colorado model has had such accuracy over the years, these results have received no criticism from academic peers, according to Berry.

Berry emphasized that the overall accuracy of this model is based on the premise that American elections circle around the major issues. The day-to-day campaigning, gaffes, and political jabs are quite ineffective to the general population’s decision, come November 6th.


Campus Reform's Levi Fox had the chance to discuss this prediction with Dr. Michael Berry. Here is the exclusive interview.

Follow Levi Fox on twitter: @levithefox

I think this is the likely scenario. Obama hasn't done or said a thing that would make any legit undecider think he is the answer. Plus, it is highly likely the numbers of people that voted in 2008 will take a serious drop this time around since Obama has not given people any reason to get that thrilled and excited. Sure, the yellow dog democrats will vote for him, they'd vote for a dead guy for president as long as that "d" is by the name, but the youth vote in particular is going to diminish IMO and that was Obama's meal ticket. But those same voters in 2008 don't have jobs, see high gas prices, higher food prices, and there's Obama taking numerous vacations and Michelle with her $500 pairs of shoes. Not a good way to win fans who haven't yet been brainwashed into zombie democrat voters.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Vacation and expensive shoe smack from a GeeDubya/Condi cheerleader?

That's some funny sh*t.

BTW, when gas was approaching $5/gallon on the smirking monkey's watch, BushCo cheerleaders like you bent over backward to assure us the POTUS had no control over gas prices.

Double standard much?

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by 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

[TonyR]

What happened to barryr? And lonestar? And nyuk nyuk? And pricejj? Among many others? All very quiet...

[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.

[Jetland]

Originally Posted by TonyR

What happened to barryr? And lonestar? And nyuk nyuk? And pricejj? Among many others? All very quiet...

i think nyuk got a bit of a ban over this stupidity
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...21#post3707521

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by barryr

I think this is the likely scenario. Obama hasn't done or said a thing that would make any legit undecider think he is the answer. Plus, it is highly likely the numbers of people that voted in 2008 will take a serious drop this time around since Obama has not given people any reason to get that thrilled and excited. Sure, the yellow dog democrats will vote for him, they'd vote for a dead guy for president as long as that "d" is by the name, but the youth vote in particular is going to diminish IMO and that was Obama's meal ticket. But those same voters in 2008 don't have jobs, see high gas prices, higher food prices, and there's Obama taking numerous vacations and Michelle with her $500 pairs of shoes. Not a good way to win fans who haven't yet been brainwashed into zombie democrat voters.

Swing and a miss.

[NUB]

BTW: Nate Silver went 50/50 on predicting how the states would vote.