• Election Model Predicts Romney's Victory
    175 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html[/URL] [quote] Two University of Colorado professors, one from Boulder and one from Denver, have put together an Electoral College forecast model to predict who will win the 2012 presidential election and the result is bad news for Barack Obama. The model points to a Mitt Romney victory in 2012. Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it [URL="http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21373080"]has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980[/URL]. "Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," [URL="http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says"]Bickers said in a press statement[/URL]. To predict the race's outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, [URL="http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21373080"]according to The Associated Press[/URL]. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/unemployment-battleground-states_n_1797473.html"]Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado[/URL]. The professors' model shows a very different picture than what current data suggests. Currently, The Huffington Post's Election Dashboard shows [URL="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map"]Obama with 257 electoral votes to Romney's 191[/URL] with only six "tossup" states including: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. Berry cautions that just because the model has worked in the past, doesn't mean it will work this time. "As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict," Berry said in a statement. Some of those factors include the timeframe of the current economic data used in the study (the data used was taken five months before the November election, but Berry and Bickers plan to update it with more current data come September) as well as tight races. States that are very close to a 50-50 split, the authors warn, can fall in an unexpected direction. According to [URL="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map"]current data from The Huffington Post Election Dashboard[/URL], there are at least 13 states that are either dead heats or within a handful of percentage points in either direction. Currently HuffPost's Pollster, tracking 403 national polls, estimates Obama leading the tight race nationally with 46.3 percent to Romney's 45.2 percent.[/quote] [URL]http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says[/URL] [quote] A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney. The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. “Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program. According to their analysis, 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. “For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.” Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election. The study will be published this month in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. It will be among about a dozen election prediction models, but one of only two to focus on the Electoral College. While many forecast models are based on the popular vote, the Electoral College model developed by Bickers and Berry is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors looked at per capita income, which indicates the extent to which people have more or less disposable income. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently: Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income. Accordingly -- and depending largely on which party is in the White House at the time -- each factor can either help or hurt the major parties disproportionately. Their results show that[b] “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. The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that 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.”[/b] In an examination of other factors, the authors found that none of the following had any statistically significant effect on whether a state ultimately went for a particular candidate: The location of a party’s national convention; the home state of the vice president; or the partisanship of state governors. In 2012,[b] “What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,”[/b] Bickers said. In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, [b]the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9 percent of the vote to Obama’s 48.1 percent, again with only the two major parties considered.[/b] The authors also provided caveats. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and close tallies in certain states. The current data was taken five months in advance of the Nov. 6 election and they plan to update it with more current economic data in September. [b]A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall an unexpected direction.[/b] “As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict,” Berry said. Election prediction models “suggest that presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy,” Bickers said. [b]“It’s not about gaffes, political commercials or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy.”[/b][/quote] This is interesting, and should be a bit of a wake-up call for those who think Obama has it in the bag.
racists
How? Hasn't he been making a fool of himself? Edit: Read the article. Okay, makes sense.
Better fucking not.
Politics is enough of a shit heap without Romney, hope he doesn't get elected
I really don't know what I'd do if Romney became president, and it's not because he's a Republican I could care less about that, it's because he's a fucking idiot who shouldn't be put in charge of a superpower country.
[QUOTE=Killer900;37375722]I really don't know what I'd do if Romney became president, and it's not because he's a Republican I could care less about that, it's because he's a fucking idiot who shouldn't be put in charge of a superpower country.[/QUOTE] Bush was a pretty (seemingly) dumb guy, but the world didn't end under him.
Whelp, there goes all our progress and progression of stuff like Gay Rights.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375748]Bush was a pretty (seemingly) dumb guy, but the world didn't end under him.[/QUOTE] The Iraq War and Bush tax cuts did happen though
[QUOTE=Killer900;37375722]I really don't know what I'd do if Romney became president, and it's not because he's a Republican I could care less about that, it's because he's a fucking idiot who shouldn't be put in charge of a superpower country.[/QUOTE] I dont really care for the party stuff. I care about his beliefs and he has some pretty bad ones.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375748]Bush was a pretty (seemingly) dumb guy, but the world didn't end under him.[/QUOTE] Nope the world just entered a recession.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37375763]The Iraq War and Bush tax cuts did happen though[/QUOTE] Very true, I never things would be [i]good[/i], just that it isn't something to kill yourself or have a mental breakdown over.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375748]Bush was a pretty (seemingly) dumb guy, but the world didn't end under him.[/QUOTE]Bush is nowhere near as bad as Romney.
[QUOTE=Killer900;37375722]I really don't know what I'd do if Romney became president, and it's not because he's a Republican I could care less about that, it's because he's a fucking idiot who shouldn't be put in charge of a superpower country.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, he won't do anything because the moment he tries doing it he'll flip his beliefs to oppose it.
Bush was ignorant. Romney is just sadistic. Hell, I'd rather have Bush than Romney any day.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;37375855]Bush was ignorant. Romney is just sadistic. Hell, I'd rather have Bush than Romney any day.[/QUOTE]I'd take 16 years of Bush over a year of Romney.
I'd be totally fine with Romney if he hadn't turned his back on everything he did as governor in order to appeal to a ravenous crowd of idiots. Now, not so much.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;37375833]Bush is nowhere near as bad as Romney.[/QUOTE] Elaborate please.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375822]Very true, I never things would be [i]good[/i], just that it isn't something to kill yourself or have a mental breakdown over.[/QUOTE] But isn't a war pretty much the worst thing that can happen? And it looks like Romney would be happy to start another one with Iran
Gotta stockpile canned food, iodine, gasmasks. Central Europe might not be in the blastwave but the nuclear winter will be probably nasty.
[QUOTE=winsanity;37375816]Nope the world just entered a recession.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)]other notable events that george w bush was personally responsible for[/url] (begin reading events at the start of 2001 and stop at the end of 2008)
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375748]Bush was a pretty (seemingly) dumb guy, but the world didn't end under him.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if this guy gets elected you can pretty much kiss any chance of equal rights for gays goodbye.
Is this model available anywhere? I mean wouldn't it be quite sensational if it did predict all the elections correct since the 80s? Seems like it would have been brought up a lot due to that.
I'm just going to close my eyes and pretend that Obama will win the election and not the other guy that will no doubt fuck over everything we've all worked hard for ;~;
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375913]Elaborate please.[/QUOTE]Do I really have to? It's pretty obvious how bad Romney is, is his position on banning abortion, destroying health care, and banning gays from marriage not enough? That shit is like, half of his campaign.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37375946]Yeah, but if this guy gets elected you can pretty much kiss any chance of equal rights for gays goodbye.[/QUOTE] Honestly I think his platform is going to flop again the second he is elected. Doesn't mean I want him as president, but I wouldn't count on hime being extreme like his campaign.
Worst case scenario, Mittens gets elected and screws everything up for four years straight. In 2016, we get to pick someone who might know what they're fucking doing. Of course, they'll be burdened with his fuckups, so it'll just be a Bush -> Obama repeat.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37375982]Is this model available anywhere? I mean wouldn't it be quite sensational if it did predict all the elections correct since the 80s? Seems like it would have been brought up a lot due to that.[/QUOTE] I remember it being brought up last election predicting an Obama win. However, that might be a revised memory. [QUOTE=Atlascore;37375995]Do I really have to? It's pretty obvious how bad Romney is, is his position on banning abortion, destroying health care, and banning gays from marriage not enough? That shit is like, half of his campaign.[/QUOTE] Didn't Bush support all these things as well?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37376096]Didn't Bush support all these things as well?[/QUOTE]Yes, but nowhere near as much as Romney, Romney's talking about these things like it's going to destroy the nation. In other words, he's a fundamentalist retard, he's going to get the majority of his votes from insecure religious people that are only voting for him because he's against abortion and isn't Obama.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37375748]but the world didn't end under him[/QUOTE] no it just went into a global financial crisis with the only superpower spiraling into the biggest debt of anything anywhere ever.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.