Updated U of Col. Prediction Model: Romney Wins

[deacon blues]

On August 22, the University of Colorado released the results of a prediction model that has correctly predicted the presidential election since 1980. In that report, the model, which factors state by state economic data, had Romney winning over Obama. The model used economic data from May. On October 4 the political science professors updated their prediction using August economic numbers. Here is the result:

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.

[bbyrd009]

yikes.
I have my tarot reader coming in to verify this later
.

[Pressing-On]

Fascism cannot work for long unless the populace is acquiescent. FEAR can make otherwise moral, good and conservative people into little Nazis. There is no right and left, only right and wrong. WINNING, as in getting your guy in there, by any means necessary totally undermines liberty. We can vote, we can talk, but so long as people's minds are darkened oligarchy rules.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Fascism cannot work for long unless the populace is acquiescent. FEAR can make otherwise moral, good and conservative people into little Nazis. There is no right and left, only right and wrong. WINNING, as in getting your guy in there, by any means necessary totally undermines liberty. We can vote, we can talk, but so long as people's minds are darkened oligarchy rules.

And you think Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, et al are any different? You think this is about winning and getting my guy in there? Romney isn't "my guy". You've been missing the point this whole election. I don't have the strength to go over it all again. I know you won't be convinced. But I refuse to let you call me a Nazi or a little Nazi just because I'm not sore that my guy, Santorum, didn't get the nomination.

All we can do is pray, vote our conscience and keep looking to Jesus. But we can hope to get a best case scenario. And in this case avoiding the worst case scenario.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

And you think Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, et al are any different? You think this is about winning and getting my guy in there? Romney isn't "my guy". You've been missing the point this whole election. I don't have the strength to go over it all again. I know you won't be convinced. But in refuse to let you call me a Nazi or a little Nazi just because I'm not sore that my guy, Santorum, didn't get the nomination.

It's ridiculous to keep supporting these two parties. And the fear mongering is NOT of God. You as a pastor shouldn't be perpetuating this fear mongering.

We should be working toward getting the Constitution Party more viable for future ballots by getting them a 5% win. It puts them on future ballots and changes the political winds forever. That is the goal we should be pursuing if we are, indeed, calling ourselves patriots and wanting to save our country.

Both of these candidate are big government. You can throw up banners like Romney is the next thing to sliced bread, it's a bunch of bull.

The fact is, this election is not even about third parties that may or may not have a chance at 'success'. This election is about YOU. Who are you? For what do you stand? In what do you believe?

Duopoly sets the stage for a false choice in order to perpetuate oligarchy, yet it is not the oligarchs who rule; rather it is your acquiescence to their machinations that subjugates you. You are a sovereign, you have your vote, you have the chains of the Constitution by which to bind the men to whom you lend power. Yet, many of our country men prefer to fight amongst themselves and choose the lesser evil. Liberty cannot long live with spurious choices that lead to evil in any degree. Liberty is a good proposition and it requires a good vote FOR something. For what will you vote? You can vote for liberty or you can vote for oligarchy. The one liberates, the other subjugates and you will be held to account for your choice. Choose wisely.

"Is there no virtue among us? If there isn't, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." --James Madison

[Dedicated Mind]

po, you're starting to scare me. revolution is in the air.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

po, you're starting to scare me. revolution is in the air.

LOL! Grab on to Big Bird, dude!

Seriously, Jesus tells us what to fear - "And fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It's ridiculous to keep supporting these two parties. And the fear mongering is NOT of God. You as a pastor shouldn't be perpetuating this fear mongering.

You call it fear mongering. That's your assessment. I believe Obama will be extremely wrong for this country as president. I thought he would be the first time. I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to express that as I wish, pastor or no. This is no charade for me. I believe Obama's election will be gravely troubling for the US. I have issues with Romney but nothing close to the degree that I have with Obama. You see them as two peas in a pod. That's your opinion, one that I disagree with. You believe the answer is to break up the two party system. Along with many, many Americans, I disagree with your solution.

You scoff at the "lesser of two evils" argument. Truth is, EVERY election gives us the choice of the lesser of two evils, if Romans 3:23 means anything. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, EVERYONE running for president is a sinner. It doesn't matter who your candidate is! He is at best a redeemed and finite sinner. He is..limited intellectually, spiritually, morally, and dynamically. He will not always know the right thing to do nor the right way to do it. Even when he does know, he will not always do it. Even when he tries, he will not always succeed. So if you're going to think this through like a Christian, you must make your decision on some other basis.

Politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. Obama absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Romney will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whoever claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Ron, Gary or whoever does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Ron, Gary or whoever must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A) every player on the field will be trying to take..Ron, Gary or whoever down; and (B) no player on the field will run defense for..Ron, Gary or whoever and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at..Ron, Gary or whoever. So in the end, Ron, Gary or whoever will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.

Fact is, ALL third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two kinds of people in the world: (1) those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and (2)..rational..people. You can't keep any promises if you don't win office, and THEY CAN'T WIN!

Next, even if that circle could be squared, they would have no constituency in Congress. Remember American civics class? You know what that means? That means---NOBODY will present their legislation. NOBODY will..craft their bills. NOBODY will..argue for them. NOBODY in either house of Congress will..vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.

In my opinion, third-party candidates are immature, and/or fools, and/or they are liars...Isn't that a minus? Isn't that a disqualifier? These are nothing if not fatal flaws in leadership qualities. How can I support this claim? Because there are only two possibilities. First, these wannabes..know they cannot win, and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters. They are deliberately wasting their supporter's money, and deliberately distracting them from supporting a serious player. These are not admirable qualities.

The..second possibility is that..they do not know that they cannot win. If that is the case, they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools who are unfit to lead and undeserving of support.

For example, in this election, third-party candidates know that the two-party candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term he will appoint solidly pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life...

Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for Mitt Romney if they had only two choices. But,..recklessly..and egomaniacally, third-party candidates mislead their followers into thinking that there is a viable third choice. They take the vote that would naturally go to the one pro-life candidate, Mitt Romney, and turn it into at best an empty gesture—which benefits Barack Obama, the candidate who adores abortion and views his grandchildren as "punishments." Thus third-party candidates and their supporters further the cause of abortion—which they abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the pro-abortion side. Brilliant.

I, for one, want to make a difference, not a gesture ("sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert—which we like and want to encourage, right?—and he picked an even more ardently and dependable pro-life running-mate.

The other, Barack Obama, is solidly pro-abortion, even in the most gruesome procedures imaginable. Obama believes preserving abortion is one of the most important things he can do.

As a Christian, I agree with the pro-life position, and I have nothing but disdain for Obama's position. If I do not actively help the one viable pro-life ticket, I help the other pro-abortion ticket. It is just as simple as that. I've read much about and listened to third-partiers. While I share many of their goals, it's all about them (as you said earlier "its all about YOU") and not the issues that they are failing to support. It's about making themselves feel better about themselves, in the name of "conscience."

Me? I'll feel better if I keep the pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."

As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. Obama is no doubt the most liberal President in history when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have been cleared by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 90 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama continue to load the SCOTUS and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And in my opinion if you do not vote for Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.

[CC1]

I have eagerly been awaiting the update of this model after reading about it earlier this summer. I am glad to see that it still has Romney winning and in fact winning with a slightly larger electoral vote not that the final economic numbers have been loaded in.

Of course we all realize it is just a predictive model and not the actual vote so anything can happen but it does give me hope!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by CC1

I have eagerly been awaiting the update of this model after reading about it earlier this summer. I am glad to see that it still has Romney winning and in fact winning with a slightly larger electoral vote not that the final economic numbers have been loaded in.

Of course we all realize it is just a predictive model and not the actual vote so anything can happen but it does give me hope!

They have never been wrong. The first actual study was done in 1996 but they used their model to retroactively predict the elections back to 1980 and each time their formula resulted with the actual winner.