quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I heard a guy on the radio, today that breaks down numbers on a state-by-state basis and has been doing this since the 1980 election.

His model has an 89.something percent accuracy rating and they've only got one election wrong (I think). He's a professor out in Colorado. I remembered that.

He says that his data are incomplete until he gets September numbers but, as of right now, he calls the electoral college:

Romney = 320 Obama = 218

Supposedly, the new indicators look like they're not going to help the incumbent much (and his model allows for incumbency).



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

You know you're in trouble when your ratings are beaten by a 6 year old and her dysfunctional fat mother on basic cable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

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.

tazzy, I need to correct you on a fine point which is very important to data crunching guys like myself. The model did NOT predict races since 1980. The model AGREED WITH the outcomes. Had the model been in existence since 1980 and correctly predicted, I would be in awe. But it actually was built to reflect results from previous elections. That's using hindsight, which we all know is flawless. The problems with the CU model are:

1. It uses the economy as the sole independent variable. No other factors. Including anything about the incumbent's opponent. Karl Rove proved that even if you are a lousy incumbent, you can win if you make your opponent look bad enough.
2. The model assumes that Obama is viewed as responsible for the economy. The ownership is viewed as split between him and Bush. He's also trying to tie Romney's Bain activities to the sort of thing that leads to middle class unemployment. So the bad economy will hurt Obama, but not as much as if 100% of the electorate held him responsible.
3. Saying that the model correctly reflects all election results since 1980 implies that there are a lot of results prior to 1980 that won't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

If he doesn't look into a camera at least ten times during each debate and say: "Ask yourself if you're better off than you were four years ago?" he's an idiot because a large portion of Americans (that care enough to vote) are NOT better off than they were, four years ago.

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

If he doesn't look into a camera at least ten times during each debate and say: "Ask yourself if you're better off than you were four years ago?" he's an idiot because a large portion of Americans (that care enough to vote) are NOT better off than they were, four years ago.

Michael

Here's the problem. When I look at my investments value and combine it with the (built in the last 4 years) equity on my real property, I am better off than I was 4 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restyles

Depends on the poll you pick. Rasmussen has a 5-6 point "bounce" with something like half the increase coming out of "prefer some other candidate tha O or R", meaning those arent as likely to be lost back as it would be if it came from undecideds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restyles

Depends on the poll you pick. Rasmussen has a 5-6 point "bounce" with something like half the increase coming out of "prefer some other candidate tha O or R", meaning those arent as likely to be lost back as it would be if it came from undecideds.

I use RCP.... it gets rid of the bias from pollers like Rasmussen, which has only ever shown Romney in the lead...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restyles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

If he doesn't look into a camera at least ten times during each debate and say: "Ask yourself if you're better off than you were four years ago?" he's an idiot because a large portion of Americans (that care enough to vote) are NOT better off than they were, four years ago.

Michael

Here's the problem. When I look at my investments value and combine it with the (built in the last 4 years) equity on my real property, I am better off than I was 4 years ago.

Not if you adjust for actual inflation, not the BS numbers the government wants you to believe. And that doesnt count the inflation held back artificially by the Fed, that will bounce as soon as there is a real recovery.

quote:

RCP includes ancient numbers, there is no bias in Rasmussen's numbers and you are totally wrong about only showing Romney in the lead. they had Obama in the lead as recently as the day before the convention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

RCP includes ancient numbers, there is no bias in Rasmussen's numbers and you are totally wrong about only showing Romney in the lead. they had Obama in the lead as recently as the day before the convention.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

I disagree. When their numbers come from so far left field in comparison than the others, you can say what you want, but those numbers are not accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Winterapple, Romney doesn't need to inspire passion in the Republican base.  President Obama, and the administration and record do that for him.  A bland and boring, "Milquetoast Mitt," doesn't return the favor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I believe that the only "formula" Romney needs to put "President" in front of his name is to borrow a page from Reagan's book ...

If he doesn't look into a camera at least ten times during each debate and say: "Ask yourself if you're better off than you were four years ago?" he's an idiot because a large portion of Americans (that care enough to vote) are NOT better off than they were, four years ago.

I've been saying this for a couple of weeks and I'll keep saying it because it's a feeling right down in my bones: this feels like 1980. It's déja-vu, all over again.

Mr. President? It's the economy, stupid.



Peace and comfort,



Michael