CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums

CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums (
-   Open Debate (
-   -   Colorado Univ. sees Romney Landslide, has picked correctly last 8 elections (

Paul Motter October 3rd, 2012 02:06 PM

Colorado Univ. sees Romney Landslide, has picked correctly last 8 elections
The University of Colorado has a unique prediction model that has correctly picked the winner of the last eight presidential elections.

This year they predict:

Romney: 320 electoral college votes
Obama: 218 electoral college votes

This prediction is based purely upon economic conditions in each of the districts it samples. It was actually done back in August.

Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says | University of Colorado Boulder

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.”

This suggests a few things:

Polls and the Media suggesting Obama has a lead are flat out wrong, or that this election will be decided on topics other than the economy.

However - it is important to note that this model has been right eight times in a row, and it is predicting a landslide by Romney, so even if it is partially correct it suggests that many "swing" voters could easily go the direction of Romney.

One thing that is well known - polls can be horribly and drastically wrong. That is a fact, especially in close elections. Also, it has been reported that this year the number of people who agree to be polled is only 9% of the people who are approached.

zydecocruiser October 3rd, 2012 03:01 PM

Good luck with that one.

A model by two professors based on lies, damn lies, and statistics. looks like they are going to have to refine that model a bit to reflect reality.

Obama 348, Romney 190: UAH astrophysicist, who got it right twice before, predicts electoral results

"I think the operative word is disaster if you're a Republican," said Colley on Monday. "I think the operative word is confidence if you're a Democrat."

Obama 348, Romney 190: UAH astrophysicist, who got it right twice before, predicts electoral results |

mehawk October 3rd, 2012 03:29 PM

Bill, just as your "Ohio" posting is, technically, correct, but has had a fantastic run of good luck.

Paul Motter October 3rd, 2012 03:29 PM

Chances of correctly predicting two polls - 1 in 4 (by sheer guessing)

Chances of correctly predicting eight polls - 1 in 256 (by sheer guessing)

Here is my prediction - the percentage of undecided voters out there is getting up into the teens in many states.

My prediction is that many of them will go into the voting booth and realize no one is looking and think "hey, we already gave this guy four years and nothing's happened, let's try this other guy."

The idea is that the deciding factor will not be policy or the Sandra Fluke vote (who already made up their minds), it will be people who have not really thought a lot about this election ( the undecideds ) realizing they have nothing to lose by trying the new guy.

zydecocruiser October 3rd, 2012 03:37 PM

Chance of anything is still just lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A write in candidate will be a lost vote for Myth. How many votes will Ron Paul get? Colorado doesn't consider that.

Pledge to Write In Ron Paul in 2012

The republican party has been heavily infiltrated by tea smokers and is broken.

ship2shore October 3rd, 2012 03:52 PM

You must be quite pleased Mr. Motter. Congratulations on your guy winning.

richstacy October 3rd, 2012 03:54 PM

Paul I have a bit more faith in polling than you do -- but I saw one of the CU poly-sci guys on local TV here in Denver today, the day of the 1st debate and he says nothing in their model has changed and they still predict a rather large Romney victory.

richstacy October 3rd, 2012 04:03 PM


Originally Posted by zydecocruiser (Post 1449243)
Chance of anything is still just lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A write in candidate will be a lost vote for Myth. How many votes will Ron Paul get? Colorado doesn't consider that.

Pledge to Write In Ron Paul in 2012

The republican party has been heavily infiltrated by tea smokers and is broken.

Hopefully very few will vote for Paul. Any vote for Ron Paul is at best a wasted vote and at worst merely a vote for Obama because it takes a vote from Mitt. I think most folks remember the victory the little creep Ross Perot gave to Clinton and are too smart for another mistake like that!! At least I hope so. And BTW, the CU model does take Paul into account.

What is broken is our country and its economy, thanks to the economic policies of the Obama administration. If you want more freedom, less government and less regulation, then vote for Mitt, forget Paul. He is not a factor.

zydecocruiser October 3rd, 2012 04:32 PM

The CU model expects everyone to vote for one of two candidates but even they admit they can't predict people's perception. In other words, they are guessing.

Apparently republicans do forget the past because they are making the same stupid mistakes they did 4 years ago. rofl

Marsdude October 5th, 2012 10:45 AM

The CU analysis is interesting and can not be discounted. Of course it does not predict for sure the outcome of the election, but past results are impressive.

There are a few things that they are not taking into account for this election but I will be interested to see what happens..

BTW, most of us who are politically active have made up our minds by this time. We should not be upset at each other because of this. We are voting because of our political outlooks, not because of the stuff we are hearing on the media.

Paul Motter October 5th, 2012 12:45 PM

Marsdude is right - those of us paying attention are voting because he have our own opinions about how things should be run. And I understand that and respect it.

Which is why I have asked repeatedly that people not post taunting posts that refer to the other party as "stupid" or use derogatory names for the candidate.

However, it seems one party in particular thinks it is funny (and probably good tactics) to continually insult people who don't agree with them. I think it is a really bad idea, if you want to convince people to come over to your side, you don't do it by calling them stupid.

Paul Motter October 8th, 2012 01:36 AM

Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

October 4, 2012 • Social Sciences
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Their original prediction model was one of 13 published in August in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. The journal has published collections of presidential election models every four years since 1996, but this year the models showed the widest split in outcomes, Berry said. Five predicted an Obama win, five forecast a Romney win, and three rated the 2012 race as a toss-up.

The Bickers and Berry model includes both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. The new analysis includes unemployment rates from August rather than May, and changes in per capita income from the end of June rather than March. It is the last update they will release before the election.

Of the 13 battleground states identified in the model, the only one to change in the update was New Mexico -- now seen as a narrow victory for Romney. The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Obama is predicted to win Michigan and Nevada.

In Colorado, which Obama won in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 53.3 percent of the vote to Obama’s 46.7 percent, with only the two major parties considered.

While national polls continue to show the president in the lead, “the president seems to be reaching a ceiling at or below 50 percent in many of these states,” Bickers said. “Polls typically tighten up in October as people start paying attention and there are fewer undecided voters.”

The state-by-state economic data used in their model have been available since 1980. When these data were applied retroactively to each election year, the model correctly classifies all presidential election winners, including the two years when independent candidates ran strongly: 1980 and 1992. It also correctly estimates the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the election through the Electoral College.

In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors analyzed changes in personal income from the time of the prior presidential election. 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 fluctuations in personal 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.

In an examination of other factors, the authors found that none of the following had a 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.

The authors also provided caveats. Their model had an average error rate of five states and 28 Electoral College votes. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall in an unexpected direction due to factors not included in the model.

“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,” they wrote.

All 13 election models can be viewed on the PS: Political Science & Politics website at Cambridge Journals Online - PS: Political Science & Politics.

ship2shore October 8th, 2012 05:57 AM

Im starting to think some sort of marine creature should pick our next President. Like they do for the Superbowl.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 AM.