Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:12 pm**

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics ... dent-obama

A newly-released University of Colorado study predicts that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama in November.

Romney will also win the popular vote 52.9 percent to 47.1 percent, according to the study, reports the Boulder Daily Camera.

This study has been right in every election since 1980.

The study crunches economic data, unemployment numbers and per capita income in all states and then calculates a winner.

University of Colorado Political science professor Kenneth Bickers said in a statement: "Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble."

Political science professor Michael Berry, who co-authored the study, added: "For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner. 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."

BUT

-rd

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm**

Even foxnoise was predicting obama winning. The notion itself is absurd. These throwaway american politics threads are getting old.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:20 pm**

What is absurd is the real unemployment rate (teen unemployment is above 25%), and the trajectory that USA will be in recession AGAIN in the next 6 months, and CBO expects the USA will lose 2,000,000 more jobs....

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:23 pm**

xeno wrote:Even foxnoise was predicting obama winning. The notion itself is absurd. These throwaway american politics threads are getting old.

And they're usually wrong...but they don't want Obama to win, I think.

Paradox!

-rd

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:27 pm**

A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:33 pm**

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

Currently Obama leads in electoral counts.

The model is wrong, unless Republicans are successful at block enough votes to give Romney the election. But I don't think that the Republic is going to take that well again. There's just no way that Romney can defeat Obama after all of his mistakes and scandals. Obama can almost stay home and still win.
I mean, I guess that even if Romney did win by magic and voter suppression, then the Dems will still be gaining control the Congress again, so he still can't do anything.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:48 pm**

Most of the predictions I'm getting at saying Pestilence wins, with War as VP.
Maybe I should stop watching the History Channel.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:52 pm**

/ wrote:Most of the predictions I'm getting at saying Pestilence wins, with War as VP.
Maybe I should stop watching the History Channel.

Isn't that Darksiders III?

-rd

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

You wouldn't want to bet against Obama though :lol:

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:23 pm**

comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

You wouldn't want to bet against Obama though

I find it hilarious you think you know the future, and even more funny you think that gives you power or something.

I think it's dumb to bet on something 3,6,12 months before the election, especially when it can and usually does get decided about 3 days before the vote. I think anyone who acts like they know who will win is a fool. I mean, look at the reality. I don't even have to accept your bet, and if Obama loses you will look like a fool anyways for being so balls deep in Obama's starfish. On the other hand, if Obama wins, what do you get? All you get is to say "I told ya so!" and then pretend you had some hidden knowledge or something? That is one hell if a risk you are taking, all for so little reward. I like where your head is at though.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:13 pm**

Well, I'd bet 10 clams on my man.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:20 pm**

I wish presidential races were just giant gladiator battles with every candidate fighting to the death in a battle royale.

That would be awesome.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:27 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Currently Obama leads in electoral counts.

The model is wrong, unless Republicans are successful at block enough votes to give Romney the election. But I don't think that the Republic is going to take that well again. There's just no way that Romney can defeat Obama after all of his mistakes and scandals. Obama can almost stay home and still win.
I mean, I guess that even if Romney did win by magic and voter suppression, then the Dems will still be gaining control the Congress again, so he still can't do anything.

What scandals? You mean the ones the Democrats keep trying to trump up like Romney's actions leading to a woman dying of cancer? You mean the ones that refuse to budge the polls because people are smart enough to realize the "scandals" are just distractions from Obama's failed record? Nearly every single state is moving closer to a win for Romney, which is why you see the administration asking local radio stations in Michigan and New Mexico if Obama can do softball interviews with them. Obama won New Mexico for 15 points, yet now he's having to give attention to the state this time around? That can't bode well for him. Wisconsin is now in a statistical tie, and even Obama's hometown of dirty politics is showing much less support for him than what is needed.

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:30 pm**

God, I hate the United States' two-party system. I really dislike both Romney and Obama. The only one I liked was Newt, and I suppose Ron Paul, but to a lesser extent.

-Sully

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:25 pm**

Victor Sullivan wrote:God, I hate the United States' two-party system. I really dislike both Romney and Obama. The only one I liked was Newt, and I suppose Ron Paul, but to a lesser extent.

-Sully

Newt laughing made us all laugh.

-rd

Posted: **Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:49 pm**

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:God, I hate the United States' two-party system. I really dislike both Romney and Obama. The only one I liked was Newt, and I suppose Ron Paul, but to a lesser extent.

-Sully

Newt laughing made us all laugh.

-rd

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:13 am**

Phatscotty wrote:
comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

You wouldn't want to bet against Obama though

I find it hilarious you think you know the future, and even more funny you think that gives you power or something.

I think it's dumb to bet on something 3,6,12 months before the election, especially when it can and usually does get decided about 3 days before the vote. I think anyone who acts like they know who will win is a fool. I mean, look at the reality. I don't even have to accept your bet, and if Obama loses you will look like a fool anyways for being so balls deep in Obama's starfish. On the other hand, if Obama wins, what do you get? All you get is to say "I told ya so!" and then pretend you had some hidden knowledge or something? That is one hell if a risk you are taking, all for so little reward. I like where your head is at though.

Yes its much better to bang on endlessly without any conviction , be wrong several times , then continue to bang on

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:43 am**

Army of GOD wrote:I wish presidential races were just giant gladiator battles with every candidate fighting to the death in a battle royale.

That would be awesome.

Agreed. And there'd be less politicians.

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:55 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:I wish presidential races were just giant gladiator battles with every candidate fighting to the death in a battle royale.

That would be awesome.

Agreed. And there'd be less politicians.

So you throw Obama, Romney, this Jill Stein character, Gary Johnson, etc. into a ring and make them fight. Who wins? Is it like Royal Rumble where the best wrestlers go in last? Would there be five people in the ring when the lights went down, the Undertaker music came on, and Obama sprints to the ring, throwing the socialist candidate, Green party candidate, and Libertarian candidate out within 30 seconds? And then it's just Romney and Obama for ten minutes?

I'd pay good money to watch that. Good money.

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:53 am**

I heard about this study yesterday on NPR (I think?). So far I haven't seen any details about the actual methodology or the history of this model.

There is a fundamental mathematical problem with developing a new model and giving it significant credibility: My guess is that this is a model they developed over the last year or so. They developed it based on all available data, including that of the last 8 presidential elections. They don't mention how the model performed prior to 1980, and I would guess that they didn't have the economic data prior to that election, so they can't test their model against it. If my assumptions are true, they developed a model using exactly 8 data points. Mathematically speaking, there are infinite ways an N+1 independent variable function can be perfectly fit to N data points. They state that they're using "economic data, unemployment numbers and per capita income in all states" to calculate the winner. So that means they have a minimum of 3 inputs per state (treating "economic data" as a single input) for a total of 150 input parameters. Now, there will be quite a bit of correlation between those 150 parameters, so they're not fully independent, but this still well over-specifies the data set.

A better way to make a model is to do so without looking at the data for, say the two most recent elections. You build the model and evaluate it against the previous election, and then test it against the two recent ones to see how it performs. Then, as successive election pass, your model can be evaluated over time. Only then should it be given much credibility.

Although I'm not on the same side of the political spectrum, I have a lot of respect for the election analysis over at http://fivethirtyeight.com/

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:39 pm**

comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

You wouldn't want to bet against Obama though

I find it hilarious you think you know the future, and even more funny you think that gives you power or something.

I think it's dumb to bet on something 3,6,12 months before the election, especially when it can and usually does get decided about 3 days before the vote. I think anyone who acts like they know who will win is a fool. I mean, look at the reality. I don't even have to accept your bet, and if Obama loses you will look like a fool anyways for being so balls deep in Obama's starfish. On the other hand, if Obama wins, what do you get? All you get is to say "I told ya so!" and then pretend you had some hidden knowledge or something? That is one hell if a risk you are taking, all for so little reward. I like where your head is at though.

Yes its much better to bang on endlessly without any conviction , be wrong several times , then continue to bang on

And who is banging on endlessly and hounding the other to make a bet? You! So, since you are wrong here, I conclude your post was made to yourself.

conviction - a fixed or firm belief. Yeah, I don't have ANY of that! :lol:

I'm not making any stupid bets about what decision 100 million separate people are going to make 3 months from now, and I sure in the hell am not betting on Romney. I don't know why you think I would :lol:

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:52 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

Where did you hear that? That would be very interesting. I think Joe Biden is a waste as he never seems to do anything, except supposedly order the illegal assault on megaupload.

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:10 pm**

bedub1 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:A lot can happen in 3 months.

If you want a whiff of how Obama thinks things are going, look no further than the confirmation that Obama did indeed meet with Hillary Clinton about replacing Joe Biden last week.

Where did you hear that? That would be very interesting. I think Joe Biden is a waste as he never seems to do anything, except supposedly order the illegal assault on megaupload.

Well, what we do know is that Obama had a lunch with Joe Biden, and then Biden and Obama went to a meeting with Hillary Clinton right after that.

After that, Obama denies it (for obvious reasons not to appear weak), and we all know the media is not going to follow up on this one. However, here is the story

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected offers two weeks ago by President Barack Obama and his administration to replace Joe Biden as the vice president in the 2012 election.

...revealed that top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett asked about the vice presidency during a lunch with the secretary of state.

"The lunch was ostensibly about policy issues, but the subject of the vice presidency came up," Klein said. "Hillary told Valerie Jarrett that she was not interested in running as Obama's vice president."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-r ... le/2505206

Conquer Club

Romney Predicted As Winner

Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner

Re: Romney Predicted As Winner