( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
A new University of Colorado study produced a model that would have correctly predicted every Presidential election since 1980, and it predicts that Willard “Mitt” Romney will be the 45th President of the United States. The study, done by Political Science Professors Michael Berry from CU Denver and Ken Bickers from CU Boulder, uses different indicators than most other models. Instead of looking at one measurement of economic health for each state, it looks at two — per capita income, as well as that state’s unemployment number. According to the model, every battleground state will go to Romney, including Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado, making the grand total Romney 320 to Obama 218.
The model also correctly predicted what happened in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote, and George W. Bush won the electoral college.
It is unclear from their press release whether the model included the many recent Republican “War On Women” gaffes, or considers the huge influx of money into the GOP campaigns post-Citizens United. It also does not state if it takes into account Koch brothers’ PACS buying up most of the air time on television.
Thoughts?
My own anecdotal evidence from knocking on doors tells me there seems to be a sizable number of independents and unaffiliateds who seem less enthusiastic about the President than they were four years ago. They claim to be “disappointed” but when asked about specific reasons why, have very little to say (it has crossed my mind more than once that Obama’s PR team may have been more policy wonks than great marketers these past four years).
There also seems to be greater complacency among political activists who supported Obama four years ago. With the number of Republican gaffes and Tea Party members of Congress horror stories, are many Obama supporters so sure of a win for the Dems they have yet to put in any real effort to make it happen?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: fow eyy
IN: No Odor in the Pod (feat. Christy Powell)
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
BY: ParkHill
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Even More Felony Charges For Colorado Coup Plotters Jenna Ellis, John Eastman
BY: Colorado Pols
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
http://www.usnews.com/news/blo…
Goodnight, Nancy.
Say what? A model that predicted the Supreme Court decision to install the village idiot as president? Anyone who comes up with that and insists it is real has to be partying nude in the Sea of Galilee.
It is called Colorado Pols. There was a vigorous discussion of this announcement from CU, yesterday.
And a pollster – sxp151- analysized the so-called study. You might find it interesting
But I heard the posters there are a bunch of egotistical bastards that will be mean to people and may even eat their young.
What if she goes to this “blog” and they are mean to her?
I understand that those posters are among the most courteous in Internet land, interested only in the truth and gladly welcome others of whatever political persuasion.
I have heard that they all pledge to “Disagree with an opinion, but defend to the death the right to express it.”
Although, I, myself, am not party to their secret code, handshake or decoder ring, so I can only report what I have heard.
Perhaps you have been listening to NPR.
Like the fat mouse says, “what we always do” . . . write a long-winged keening anecdotal blog a day or two post-relevance. That’ll teach them bastards . . .
No one on the pols board has ever been rude to another user.
3/4 of the way through the daily open discussion. Silly me for not reading Pols every ten minutes throughout my day! If only I could get an app on my smart phone to ring everytime someone comments on the website!
So, if I missed it in the open thread, why was my diary promoted?
“daily open-discussion” on this site? Damn, I need an app . . .
This has happened before; lots of things come up in the Open Thread that are later written up as diaries and sometimes even promoted. I was tempted to write a diary elaborating my comments, but I figured it would be redundant after the discussion in the Open Thread. So I was also surprised to see Pols promote this. But it’s not a bad thing.
Curious what you think the ramifications are for this particular study, whether it is a credible one or not, in your eyes. My thought is that it might be a kick in the pants to liberals who are sitting back just sending their usual small check, expecting OFA to bring home a win. Thoughts?
But the methodology certainly leaves something to be desired…
then it could motivate them to work for the Obama campaign. But it’s so far from reasonable that the more rational response might be to just ignore it and stay complacent. If the authors’ goal was to motivate Dems, they would have set up the model so that it produced a slim margin. The fact that they use “Democrat” as an adjective in the actual paper makes me think the point was to demoralize Obama supporters, but I think they overdid it and just look kind of foolish.
If you are petty enough to use the word ” Democrat ” in a perjorative sense you don’t really deserve to be taken that seriously, particularly in what is purported to be an objective academic study.
What is correct: Democrat or Democratic?
I am a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party.
Republicans started using “Democrat” as an adjective because Frank Luntz decided it sounds harsh and emphasizes “rat” when you use it as an adjective. This is why every Republican does it.
http://www.newyorker.com/archi…
You, sxp 151, are becoming our resident scholar.
Besides lopsideness of R PAC money (Whare ARE those infamous union bosses when you need them?) I would count:
1. Romney losing women’s votes by even more than he never had, thank you Akins.
2. The lack of income and tax transparency of Rmoney; lots of average Joe’s will remain pissed off about that.
No model could have incorporated those and other factors.
The renowned statistician has a considerably different take:
In the Daily Camera, it was stated this method HAD predicted correctly every election since 1980. Here, it’s “would have predicted….” Which?
And they pad their prediction by not mentioning all data was corralled five months previous to the election (that would be….April)and they’ll update it closer in.
There is not enough liquor in Colorado to allow a three digit IQ to value this. The Coors Curia for Conservative Catholic Chickenhawks in Golden – and those face down in their lap – will give it a go, though.
It was a parameter-fit to old data, so the ethical thing would have been to say “The model reproduces 90% of state election outcomes in past elections” rather than saying “has correctly predicted the last eight elections.”
And my record with regressive retroactively predicting the past correctly is 100%.
predicting grain prices on the Chicago Board of Trade.
I was an intern for a trader – he gave me $100 and told me to never speak of it again. He also ran out of work for me to do shortly after.
This model predicts all kinds of things – That a carefully written release headline will get press all over the world. That backward fitting data is risky business. That sometimes the butterfly getting squished has no effect on anything measurable
or was it Asimov?
I remember the day I read it in 1965. It made a big impression on me.
I don’t think it’s gospel either, but it should be taken into consideration.
but all that supporting argument you provided totally convinced me.
instead of supporting your argument with facts just keep repeating a claim over and over.
The model is methodologically sound !
The model is methodologically sound !
The model is methodologically sound !
And, it is being promoted on some newscast as a model that has successfully predicted election outcomes over the last thirty years….that is atrocious…..and it reflects badly on CU, IMHO.
I really appreciate sxp151 analysis…..I wish to hell he had an agent….
that Nate Silver had many of the same objections and has a much larger audience. So it’s not like nobody will ever hear that there are serious problems with it. Hard to do much public critiquing as an anonymous jerk on a blog though.
I’m not outing anyone to do it though.
Think about this though-
Colorado is approximately 1/3 D, 1/3 R, 1/3 U.
And has been for some time.
An outsider who didn’t understand CO would think we split most of the time.
But we don’t.
Our U’s are slightly less likely to vote than our D’s and R’s. (maybe they don’t get their general ballot because they didn’t vote in the primary – IDK)
And when they do vote, they tend to vote R. Not always. But generally.
That’s why Bennet (an others) was smart to use a Colorado polling company in 2010 – they understand CO.
But if you’re 538 /Silver you gotta get your insider dope somewhere.