Electoral College Prediction Model Points To A Winner In 2012 Presidental Election

[Charles Kozierok]

Should add. You've been a welcome addition to this forum in my book!:thumbsup:

Thanks. I came to AT for the tech talk, but I've got a political streak and it's hard to suppress.

 

[gevorg]

Did you even read the article? Let me help you:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=195989

If you get enough monkeys forecasting future events, at least one of them will be consistently right!

 

[First]

I'm curious if anyone here actually believes Romney can possibly get over 300 electoral votes, let alone 320. I would love to see the statistical model for that. Please, do speak up! lulz

 

[cybrsage]

If you get enough monkeys forecasting future events, at least one of them will be consistently right!

Is this your way of trying to pretend you were not busted for saying something stupid? It fails.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm curious if anyone here actually believes Romney can possibly get over 300 electoral votes, let alone 320. I would love to see the statistical model for that. Please, do speak up! lulz

It's not that far-fetched. He'd have to win FL, OH, VA, PA, WI and IA, and I don't think that will happen, but it is not an outlandish suggestion if things go sour for Obama. It's not like it requires him flipping NJ or CA or anything.

 

[blankslate]

The race is closer than in 2008 isn't it? And this time the economic troubles favor Republicans who have been able to obstruct the President rather well.

Beginning with the challenge to the election results that kept Senator Franken from taking his seat for 5 months after the other people who were elected or re-elected in the 2008 election were seated in Congress.

Then Senator Kennedy fell ill only a few months later...

Remember the economy fell apart a few months before the election of 2008.

Then a naive (in terms of not realizing the lengths Republicans would go to stymy his efforts to improve the economy) President set himself up by making statements that conservatives could later use to hang the economy around his neck like a lead weight.

So now regardless of what really happened the white house will get the blame for an ailing economy. It does always get the blame though. However, the obstructionism this President faced was pretty much unprecedented in the last 50 years.

When election machines are easily hacked and voter I.D. voter have the potential to remove far more legitimate voters than the very few examples of people who actually commit voter fraud; people who support Governor Romney's candidacy may very well have reason to celebrate this November.

 

[blankslate]

It's not that far-fetched. He'd have to win FL, OH, VA, PA, WI and IA, and I don't think that will happen, but it is not an outlandish suggestion if things go sour for Obama. It's not like it requires him flipping NJ or CA or anything.

Maybe an attack on Iran by Israel for example? For you conspiratorial minded out there.

I usually just find conspiracy theories entertaining. However, that doesn't mean that a very very few are not true.

 

[gevorg]

Is this your way of trying to pretend you were not busted for saying something stupid? It fails.

just keep your head in the sand, neocon

 

[diesbudt]

It's not that far-fetched. He'd have to win FL, OH, VA, PA, WI and IA, and I don't think that will happen, but it is not an outlandish suggestion if things go sour for Obama. It's not like it requires him flipping NJ or CA or anything.

It would be a catastrophe if states like Texas or California flipped. Everyone would be so confused.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Maybe an attack on Iran by Israel for example? For you conspiratorial minded out there.

I may be in the minority, but I think if a war breaks out in the Middle East, Obama wins 350-400 EVs.

 

[cybrsage]

just keep your head in the sand, neocon

You have a lot of ways of covering up for your ineptness. I suppose it comes from the massive amount of need you have for it.

 

[cybrsage]

It would be a catastrophe if states like Texas or California flipped. Everyone would be so confused.

You would go to California to see the ocean....and not find it!

 

[cybrsage]

I may be in the minority, but I think if a war breaks out in the Middle East, Obama wins 350-400 EVs.

It depends on how he reacts. If he sides with Israel and sends in troops and/or bombers and/or gives Israel lots of weapons and intel, then yes. If he sides against Israel or does nothing then no.

 

[diesbudt]

You would go to California to see the ocean....and not find it!

oh snap. Who stole the pacific ocean?

 

[diesbudt]

It depends on how he reacts. If he sides with Israel and sends in troops and/or bombers and/or gives Israel lots of weapons and intel, then yes. If he sides against Israel or does nothing then no.

It also would depend on when.

If war broke out in July, and was still going on? Then probably.

But if it was to break out a week before the polls open? It wouldnt affect more than a small minute fraction of the voters.

 

[Bird222]

Well, we've seen what happens when Republicans get control, they fuck everything up nearly beyond repair. We've seen what happens when Republicans get enough of a minority to disrupt, they intentionally fuck everything up to make Democrats look bad. So why the fuck would anyone vote Republican? I'd like to think the country isn't THAT stupid. Anything other than massive Democrat wins will likely put us in a situation where this country collapses financially as well as socially.

Don't bet on it.

 

[mshan]

"The upcoming issue of the peer-reviewed PS: Political Science & Politics includes two models from other researchers that reach the same conclusion. One study by a pair of University of Colorado political scientists, announced yesterday, predicts that Romney will walk away with 320 electoral votes on the back of high unemployment. A second study, by Douglas Hibbs, concludes Obama's weakness includes the death toll in Afghanistan.

I have serious reservations about both papers; for example, our methodology is very conclusive that recent movement in economic indicators* correlate with election outcomes, not the overall levels. But I will not subject the readers to the brutal crossfire of warring presidential forecasters. The point is that all of these fundamental models point in the same direction: Romney. And as of today, they are all wrong. That is, all these models look at only half the picture and are not useful today as standalone forecasts."

"Our updated model, which does factor in polls and markets, still has Obama winning the election with 303 votes.

We searched for an explanation for difference by looking for data points that are uniquely different this year than in the historical elections. There is one glaringly obvious factor: the favorability difference between Obama and Romney.

Favorability is shockingly bad for Romney. Pollsters routinely ask questions like, "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of …" for both Obama and Romney. Currently, the Pollster average has Obama with 48 percent favorability and 45 percent unfavorability, while Romney is lingering with 41 percent favorability and 47 percent unfavorability. Romney's consistent negative favorability to unfavorability split is unprecedented in American politics.

There is a lot of chatter about the value of modern conventions, which are more like pageants than actual nominating events. With the premium on likability in this election, they are still clearly a valuable opportunity to showcase the candidates. It may be Romney's best hope of turning around those favorability polls, which in our opinion are presently costing him the election."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/signs-point-romney-victory-except-one-very-big-160549179.html





* Coincident and Leading Economic Indicators: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=565616