Proven Election Model Forecasts Romney Victory

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 8:31 PM GMT
    A University of Colorado model, which has correctly predicted the last eight presidential elections, predicts that Romney will win.

    "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.

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 8:46 PM GMT
    It is actually a brand new model. It has therefore predicted cock-all before.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 08, 2012 8:48 PM GMT
    1. There's nothing in the article you posted that indicates this model has "correctly predicted the last eight elections."

    2. This is a new model -- therefore it is impossible for it to have correctly predicted the last eight elections. It has, in fact, not yet correctly predicted ANY election.

    3. Given that the model shows Romney winning Pennsylvania and Minnesota -- states where he has so little chance that he is not even airing campaign ads there -- this model not only has not correctly predicted the last eight elections, it isn't even correctly predicting this one.

    This is why you should not believe everything you read on Free Republic and Hot Air. So take your right-wing lies back to Romney/Ryan headquarters. Do Republicans do anything except tell lies?

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 08, 2012 9:06 PM GMT
    Ya'll need to have some pity and compassion for jockfever as he was dropped on his head quite frequently as an infant.



    icon_lol.gif
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Oct 08, 2012 9:14 PM GMT
    rnch saidYa'll need to have some pity and compassion for jockfever as he was dropped on his head quite frequently as an infant.



    icon_lol.gif


    That seems to be your "catch phrase". You use that one to describe me often too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2012 11:18 PM GMT
    We'll see! I honestly think we should all refrain from being so "confident" about who will win.
  • DR2K

    Posts: 346

    Oct 08, 2012 11:30 PM GMT
    It won't happen, but it's nice to have hope. Electorally Obama is set to win this one quite handily. icon_smile.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 08, 2012 11:39 PM GMT
    jock_1 said
    rnch saidYa'll need to have some pity and compassion for jockfever as he was dropped on his head quite frequently as an infant.



    icon_lol.gif


    That seems to be your "catch phrase". You use that one to describe me often too.



    you prove my hypothesis everytime you post on the "news & politics" forum here on RJ.



    icon_lol.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 08, 2012 11:51 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidWe'll see! I honestly think we should all refrain from being so "confident" about who will win.


    Wow, you actually sound like you think he might win.

    icon_surprised.gif


    MN is not a swing state.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Oct 09, 2012 1:51 AM GMT
    This reminds me of gambling in Las Vegas.

    "Honey, I'm on a roll !
    I can't lose !"

    and, later:

    "I don't know what happened.
    I was doing so well..."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2012 2:57 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8: It is actually a brand new model. It has therefore predicted cock-all before.

    TroyAthlete: 1. There's nothing in the article you posted that indicates this model has "correctly predicted the last eight elections." 2. This is a new model -- therefore it is impossible for it to have correctly predicted the last eight elections. It has, in fact, not yet correctly predicted ANY election.

    "For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner," says Berry.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2012/08/28/economic-model-looks-at-history-sees-victory-ahead-for-romney

    Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

    Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States according to a computer model that has correctly predicted the outcome of every election since 1980.

    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=47352

    Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/

    Jockfever: It is a forecasting model. Based on economic data for 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008, the model correctly identifies the winner of the presidential election held in each of those years.

    One may infer from the professor's comment, and numerous articles, that the model has been in existence since 1980.

    Obviously there is a semantic challenge to describing the results of feeding historical data into a forecasting model. Is the model still forecasting/predicting since it does not "know" the actual outcome?

    Yes, the model is new.




  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 09, 2012 4:24 AM GMT
    jockfever saidEx_Mil8: It is actually a brand new model. It has therefore predicted cock-all before.

    TroyAthlete: 1. There's nothing in the article you posted that indicates this model has "correctly predicted the last eight elections." 2. This is a new model -- therefore it is impossible for it to have correctly predicted the last eight elections. It has, in fact, not yet correctly predicted ANY election.

    "For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner," says Berry.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2012/08/28/economic-model-looks-at-history-sees-victory-ahead-for-romney

    Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

    Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States according to a computer model that has correctly predicted the outcome of every election since 1980.

    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=47352

    Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/

    Jockfever: It is a forecasting model. Based on economic data for 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008, the model correctly identifies the winner of the presidential election held in each of those years.

    One may infer from the professor's comment, and numerous articles, that the model has been in existence since 1980.

    Obviously there is a semantic challenge to describing the results of feeding historical data into a forecasting model. Is the model still forecasting/predicting since it does not "know" the actual outcome?

    Yes, the model is new.






    One may infer that from the professor's comment if one is a right-wing idiot. What the professor is saying is that if you run the available data through this model, it will give you the desired prior outcome.

    Anyone with an elementary grasp on research and statistics will tell you that working backwards and tweaking a study to fit prior outcomes is unscientific, proves nothing, and is not predictive because you are comparing dissimilar data points. Anyone can create a study and tweak it until it gives you the past results you want.

    Anyone with an elementary grasp on vocabulary will tell you that a model that is new as this one is cannot "predict" something that already happened. Someone born in 1999 cannot have "predicted" the outcome of the 1888 elections. Someone born in 2009 cannot have "predicted" 9/11 and the Internet and cell phones.

    The truth is that what this model does is "recreate" prior outcomes. But in typical right-wing fashion, rather than tell the truth Republicans lie, skew, and sell bullshit because they think the rest of us are too stupid to notice (or read).
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Oct 09, 2012 6:36 AM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidWe'll see! I honestly think we should all refrain from being so "confident" about who will win.



    ^^^ This ^^^ The only thing for certain is that either Obama will get re-elected or Romney will be our next President. icon_wink.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Oct 09, 2012 6:38 AM GMT
    DR2K saidIt won't happen, but it's nice to have hope. Electorally Obama is set to win this one quite handily. icon_smile.gif


    Not true -- Romney could win Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin or any configuration of the 4 which would then throw the electoral map into chaos
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2012 10:05 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete 3. Given that the model shows Romney winning Pennsylvania and Minnesota -- states where he has so little chance that he is not even airing campaign ads there -- this model not only has not correctly predicted the last eight elections, it isn't even correctly predicting this one.

    jockfever: One of the professors discussed this on a talk show yesterday.

    I'm from Pennsylvania and have family who worked in the coal industry, which Obama seeks to destroy. Anyone remotely associated with coal mining who votes for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. In the eastern part of the state, Obama is reportedly not popular in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

    The professor admitted that Minnesota would be at the top of his list of states unlikely to go Republican. The model is based on economic data and Minnesota has had declining real incomes due to people abandoning the workforce. He also mentioned a very close Senate campaign and Republican success in contests for governor and state legislators.

    The model predicts that in a lousy economy an incumbent is more likely to lose, and a challenger is more likely to win.

    The polls are moving in the direction of the model's forecast: Romney 53%, Obama 47%.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2012 10:22 AM GMT
    rnch: Ya'll need to have some pity and compassion for jockfever as he was dropped on his head quite frequently as an infant.

    jock_1: That seems to be your "catch phrase". You use that one to describe me often too.

    greatpeopletalkideas.png

    jockfever: And the Left just throws crap.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2012 11:22 AM GMT
    What's so tragic is that posting this article clearly demonstrates that jock fever can't read a simple article and accurately summarize its contents. Let alone critically examine it, or know that in reading a press release it's best to go back to the original source.

    In any case, the Princeton model is where it's at:

    http://election.princeton.edu/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2012 11:23 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkles saidWe'll see! I honestly think we should all refrain from being so "confident" about who will win.



    ^^^ This ^^^ The only thing for certain is that either Obama will get re-elected or Romney will be our next President. icon_wink.gif


    Only because you absolutely insist on being dumb!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 09, 2012 3:24 PM GMT
    Jockfever, what are your feelings on Mormonism v. Christianity?

    Are you praying for a mormon savior?

    icon_neutral.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 09, 2012 4:31 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidWhat's so tragic is that posting this article clearly demonstrates that jock fever can't read a simple article and accurately summarize its contents....



    As we say here in the deep south: "Bless his lil' heart, he was dropped on his head too many times as an infant."



    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete: One may infer that from the professor's comment if one is a right-wing idiot. What the professor is saying is that if you run the available data through this model, it will give you the desired prior outcome.

    Anyone with an elementary grasp on research and statistics will tell you that working backwards and tweaking a study to fit prior outcomes is unscientific, proves nothing, and is not predictive because you are comparing dissimilar data points. Anyone can create a study and tweak it until it gives you the past results you want.

    Anyone with an elementary grasp on vocabulary will tell you that a model that is new as this one is cannot "predict" something that already happened. Someone born in 1999 cannot have "predicted" the outcome of the 1888 elections. Someone born in 2009 cannot have "predicted" 9/11 and the Internet and cell phones.

    The truth is that what this model does is "recreate" prior outcomes. But in typical right-wing fashion, rather than tell the truth Republicans lie, skew, and sell bullshit because they think the rest of us are too stupid to notice (or read).


    jockfever: So the college professors are Republicans? And the Huffington Post and US News and World Report are controlled by Republicans?

    The model predicts the outcome of presidential races using economic data.

    Given economic data from the past eight presidential elections, the model correctly chose the winner every time.

    That doesn't seem like a lot of lies to me.

    Comparing a model to a "someone" having a knowledge of actual election results is not logical. Unless the model is a fraud, it does not "know" any election results ahead of time.

    The model is always "predicting" an outcome unknown to it, based on the input economic data, regardless of the time frame represented by that data.

    Since you're really into this lie thing, the Democrat Party seems like a lot of lies to me. The main lie is that more government means more freedom and prosperity.

    Let's not forget: I did not have sexual relations with that woman. I invented the Internet. The Surge will not work. You can keep your doctor and your health plan. Laser-like focus on jobs. Pass this stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%. Mitt Romney outsourced jobs to foreign countries. Mitt Romney is proposing $5 Trillion in tax cuts.

    The war is lost. My wife died of cancer without health insurance because of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes for ten years. They killed our ambassador and two former Navy seals during a spontaneous demonstration about the trailer for a second-rate movie which only about ten people have seen.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2012 12:41 AM GMT
    HottJoe: Jockfever, what are your feelings on Mormonism v. Christianity?
    Are you praying for a mormon savior?


    jockfever: Christians are called upon to love Mormons, atheists, gays, Muslims, etc.

    Christians, however, cannot add to (or subtract from) the Bible. Christians cannot add Joseph Smith as a prophet. Christians cannot add the Book of Mormon.

    My understanding of Mormonism is limited but certain ideas of Mormonism are incompatible with Christianity. The idea that Christ and Lucifer are brothers, sons of a man who exulted himself into a god, for example, is unacceptable to Christians.

    Christians believe that faith in Christ is the only path to salvation. The Mormon path to salvation is reportedly different.

    Every Mormon I know of is a decent, respectable, law-abiding, patriotic, ethical person who I would be happy to have as a neighbor, business owner, or person holding some other responsible position. The work ethic and family values of Mormons are exemplary.

    I would prefer that the president of the United States be a Christian who supports the Constitution, free market capitalism, and a national defense second to none.

    Under the circumstances I am more than ready for a good Mormon to be president, as opposed to a bad Christian, or a Christian who does not support the Constitution, capitalism, or a strong national defense.

    As a matter of fact, members of a national Christian organization to which I belong probably are praying that Romney is elected.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    HottJoe: MN is not a swing state.

    jockfever: Should we believe you or George Will?

    George Will predicts 321-217 Romney landslide.

    "On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney as well.

    “I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference.”[

    http://conservativebyte.com/2012/11/george-will-predicts-321-217-romney-landslide/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2012 11:10 PM GMT
    If Minnesota couldn't elect Ronald Reagan, even in his 1984 avalanche, they sure won't elect Mitt Romney.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 05, 2012 5:20 AM GMT
    jockfever saidHottJoe: MN is not a swing state.

    jockfever: Should we believe you or George Will?

    George Will predicts 321-217 Romney landslide.

    "On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney as well.

    “I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference.”[

    http://conservativebyte.com/2012/11/george-will-predicts-321-217-romney-landslide/



    Only thing is, the proposition that would change the Minnesota state constitution, to make gay marriage illegal, IS LOSING, in the polls.

    So, that means that Mr. Conservative George Will, has got it exactly backwards.

    The anti gay proposition will get shot down.
    And, Minnesota will go to President Obama.

    YAAAAAAAAAY !!!!!!!!!!!