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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Requiem]

Still taking money wagers on this election. Who is ready to bet the bucks?

[pricejj]

How about "The Time for Change Model", where the "formula" automatically gives the incumbent ~51% of the vote, and has been accurate since 2000?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by pricejj

How about "The Time for Change Model", where the "formula" automatically gives the incumbent ~51% of the vote, and has been accurate since 2000?

But I'm sure you are fine with the economic models that all side in Romney's favor because the underlying principle in most all of they is that no incumbent POTUS has won re-election with unemployment numbers as high as they are now. Sound reasoning.

[pricejj]

My personal fave is "The Economic Expectations Model", which predicts an Obama victory based almost exclusively on the question, "Do you think you will be more economically stable next year?"

Nevermind that the model had a -5% error in 2008, and a +7% error in 2004.

[Requiem]

My favorite model is the mixed president is better than a Mormon president model.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Requiem

But I'm sure you are fine with the economic models that all side in Romney's favor because the underlying principle in most all of they is that no incumbent POTUS has won re-election with unemployment numbers as high as they are now. Sound reasoning.

It's not one of the 13 cited models, but I would tend to give it credence over some of the others, considering it has held true for every single presidential election in U.S. history.

[Requiem]

I personally like what Nate does @ 538.