University of Colorado professors, Ken Bickers and Michael Barry are predicting that Mitt Romney will win in 2012 and become America′s 45th president. Their computer model has been successful in predicting every electoral college winner since 1980. If they are right again, Romney will win 320 of the 538 electoral college votes, well above the needed 270. Their model shows that the economy will be the major issue that puts nearly all of the ′swing states′ in the Romney column. With the latest news from the head of the Congressional Budget Office concerning the financial cliff the nation is headed for come January, it seems unlikely that the economic situation will change in the remaining weeks of the campaign. So will Mitt Romney sweep the swing states and be our next president?
Some new polls are showing Romney gaining ground in not only Florida, but Wisconsin and Michigan as well. Ohio is still extremely tight. North Carolina already has Romney pulling away. Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia are all within striking distance for Mitt. Plus we must also consider two important facts, that most polls are skewed in favor of Democrats to start with and that there is probably a ′Bradley Effect′ involved as some polling respondents may fib to the pollsters saying they support Obama while they actually do not.
There are two main questions which will be answered on November 6, who will succeed in getting their base out best and which way will the six million or so swing voters go? These are made up mostly of Independents and ′Reagan-Democrats′ who voted for Obama in 2008 but historically are not loyal to either political party. If anything, they tend to vote Republican more often than not.
It is hard to imagine how anyone with an I.Q. over 50 could even consider voting for Barack Obama? Not only has his presidency been a total failure, but, he has not learned from his mistakes as Bill Clinton did. Obama continues to stubbornly hang on to his Socialist agenda of class warfare, division and hatred. I tend to agree with the findings of University of Colorado professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry. Mitt Romney will most likely win most, if not all, of the swing states and thereby win the 2012 presidential campaign with more than 270 electoral college votes. Given the state of the economy, my left sock could beat Obama this November.
August 23rd, 2012 at 8:27 am
I was on a site last night that posts the betting odds from 15 different gamboling sites.
Every single one had Obama as the overwhelming favorite.
In betting terms, you have to bet two dollars to win one, while it is the opposite with Romney.
In other words, almost 1 to 2 (actually 4/7) for Obama and 11/5 (just over 2 to 1 for Romney.
As a betting man, I like to track people who put up money, unlike, say, a Rasmussen Poll that utilizes skewed demographics and loaded questions to gain the desired result.
August 23rd, 2012 at 11:48 am
Latest from Quinnipiac that indicates a bump attributed to the selection of Ryan.
These are for people who are likely to vote:
• Florida: Obama at 49 percent to Romney’s 46 percent, compared to Obama’s 51 – 45 percent lead August 1;
• Ohio: Obama edges Romney 50 – 44 percent, unchanged from August 1;
• Wisconsin: Obama at 49 percent to Romney’s 47 percent, compared to Obama’s 51 – 45 percent lead August 8.
As for favorability ratings:
Florida voters give Obama a 50 – 45 percent favorability rating, compared to Romney’s 45 – 42 percent score. Ryan gets a 35 – 29 percent favorability, while Biden has a negative 37 – 44 percent score.
Obama gets a 51 – 45 percent favorability rating from Ohio voters, while Romney gets a negative 39 – 45 percent score. Ryan gets a 32 – 27 percent favorability, while Biden has a split 40 – 40 percent score.
Obama gets a 51 – 45 percent favorability rating from Wisconsin voters, compared to Romney’s split 44 – 43 percent score. Native son Ryan gets a 44 – 35 percent favorability, while Biden has a negative 35 – 42 percent score.
August 23rd, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Yeah good stuff, these professors are getting more famous for their forecasts.
Buzz, human beings like to pick and choose what supports our hopes which is what you are guilty of doing now. I think optimism is part of our survival instinct.
August 23rd, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, kinda like the Rasmussen polls I see on here all of the time.
I used to work in study design for the pharmaceutical industry.
In the eighties we played it pretty straight, even though we could do 100 studies and “drawer” 99 of them. Meaning, conduct 100 studies with numerous designs, metaphysical markers and a different wording of the questions, but only disclose the results of the one that provided a “favorable” answer.
Eventually, we could get a study that said any drug was safe and effective. Heck, I get enough tries and I could get rat poison approved. There was, at that time however, a certain scientific approach.
As we entered the nineties, the gap between the research and development department and the business department was narrowed.
We then conducted studies that pitted a specific drug head-to-head against the competitor’s formulation.
When we were directed to do the study we simply asked, “What do you want the answer to be?”
We then defined the questions, patient population of the study, measurement scales and areas of emphasis. Anyone with a background in quantitative analysis knew that the study could claim statistical credibility, but was, indeed, a sham.
I think many political polls do their best to ascertain an accurate ratio, but also realize that many are not playing it straight up.
Any poll that consistently and substantially deviates from the norm is playing fast and loose with the rules and is certainly biased.
Many of these companies, such as Gallup, also work in the private sector, so I assume they have a large enough sample size, provide neutral questions and are truly trying to provide a credible poll.
August 23rd, 2012 at 12:51 pm
That story I just told also explains how a drug like Vioxx was approved. Numerous studies indicated a substantial coronary risk, but the company only presented 3 American studies (the minimum for approval) to the FDA, while throwing away the rest.
They decided that the potential lawsuits would be offset by sales.
They were wrong, but the company that was hurt the most was Pfizer. They paid an exorbitant amount of money to buy Pharmacia so they could get their hands on drugs that were just like Vioxx; Bextra, which had the same molecular structure and Celebrex.
Bextra was pulled soon after Vioxx and Celebrex lost a lot of market share due to a requirement for a black box warning that basically said it dramatically increased your risk of heart attack.
Funny thing is that “everyone” (doctors, sales reps etc.) knew the drug was dangerous (although, really not that much more than Motrin or Naproxen or even Aleve), but turned a blind eye.
Maybe because the sales reps were giving doctors $1500 checks to do a “clinical trial”, which was merely code for, “I am giving you money and I expect a few hundred scripts”.
That practice is now illegal (it technically was then as well), but still happens to a certain extent.
The drug industry at that time made the Mafia look like angels.
August 23rd, 2012 at 1:11 pm
“Yeah, kinda like the Rasmussen polls I see on here all of the time.”
Uh, yeah.
What you forgot to mention was, that poll by Quinnipiac was also a collaboration with ABC and NYTs. True foundations of non-partisan politics.
Other collaborations with Quinnipiac always include one of the liberal outlets, NBC, ABC, CBS, along with the NYTs.
The latest Quinnipiac also showed Obama loosing ground in the last 30 days in most swing states.
The trend is a dead heat that more than likely will be decided by Independents.
August 23rd, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Yeah Buzz, we get it.
4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest.
If the polling systems are so vulnerable why do we bother throwing the numbers back n forth at each other ?
I we offset most poll results by eliminating bias, partisanship and selectivity…
… Obama is screwed
August 23rd, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Sorry, my F key is ucked up
August 23rd, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Oh, I think most of the polls are not biased and if they have a large enough sample size are close to being accurate.
The polls do, however, influence voting, or at least turnout.
I do find it amusing, however, that you deem the work product of any news outlet other than Fox as not credible`.
So any poll that might have an affiliation with a news network that doesn’t begin with the letter F is biased?
Hey, I know that MSNBC, for business reasons, decided to emulate FOX, but from the other side of the field, but I think you would be hard-pressed to prove the polls of the other networks are anything but neutral.
Additionally, I don’t think Gallup has any affiliation other than selling their information.
As I stated, they are making their money doing polling for the purposes of market research. I don’t think they care who does or doesn’t win an election.
Rasmussen, however, has a looooong history of not exactly being neutral.
And as I stated, anytime you see a poll that is consistently outside the norm they are either biased or simply not very good at their job.
Consistent statistical anomalies simply don’t exist.
Is it a dead heat? Not according to most polls and the aforementioned casinos. It might be by the conclusion of the GOP convention. In fact, if it is not, then the GOP is in trouble.
It is close, simply not a toss-up at this time. Heck even Rasmussen, as of today, has the Electoral College prediction as Obama 247, Romney 206 with 85 listed as a toss-up.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
August 23rd, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Well, all the polls are “biased” in the sense that the pollsters have to decide how to normalize the variables. What percentage of men, women, minorities, etc, to include.
Yes it’s close, Obama a little ahead now. I’ll worry when he breaks 50% in any of the battleground states. Typically, incumbents in the mid-40s are in trouble regardless of what a challenger is polling today.
August 23rd, 2012 at 7:02 pm
“I do find it amusing, however, that you deem the work product of any news outlet other than Fox as not credible`.”
Nyah, not really.
I did use Quinnipiac as example pointing to Obamas loosing ground in swing states.
I often quote Rasmussen or Gallup only because liberals cream themselves when FOX is mentioned.
Juxtaposed to liberals hating FOX (even though their liberal audience is substantial enough to debunk that bullsht also) as opposed to all the other fair and balanced outlets that slobbered over Barry in 08.
August 23rd, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I pray daily that the professors are correct in their prediction. I cannot afford another 4 years of socialism. As the Iron Lady said,”Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”
August 23rd, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Oh, I watch Fox all of the time.
It is like crack, you can’t turn it off.
It is sensationalist, disingenuous, absurd, whorish, cheap, dim-witted and wildly entertaining all at the same time.
They also have reasonably good looking women who don’t mind dressed and made-up like prostitutes while they pretend to be something akin (oops) to journalists.
I think the stats show that more Democrats than Republicans watch Fox News.
5,4,3,2,1… here comes the inevitable MSNBC cracks, which I rarely watch by the way, other than Morning Joe on occasion, because while I agree that Mika should be made to move to another country I can’t stomach the washed up beauty queen, inarticulate weatherman and the gnome on Fox and Friends. This is like a news show for people that are ummm…”slow”.
It makes the Morning Show parody that Will Ferrell used to do on Saturday Night Live seem insightful (although at least that was portraying something like “Good Morning Riverside or something, not a national show).
Plus, it is like this site. Why would I spend time on sites where everyone thinks like I do? I prefer to read dissenting opinions, even if most of you truly scare me to death.
August 23rd, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Poor Buzz. Scared to death by the opinions of others. Personally I find nothing more pitiful that an old liberal, but I have hope for your salvation.
August 24th, 2012 at 5:02 am
Buzz,
The model these profs use has nothing to do with polling data…
“Using economic indicators from the 50 states, the model shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 electoral votes for Obama. Also shown by the model is that Romney will be victorious in all of the current swing states. Those states include Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado.”
Here is a bit more about the model from: http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-professors-electoral-college-model-predicts-2012-election-winner/
“A press release from the University of Colorado states that the model from the professors is the only in the country to use the country’s unemployment rates and per capita income. The data from the model shows that voters in the country feel that Republicans are more responsible for per capita income while Democrats are more responsible for the unemployment rates.
“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.”
August 24th, 2012 at 5:07 am
Plus, as Patrick pointed out, Buzz, Americans are optimistic people by nature. There is nothing optimistic about Barack Obama. Even hard-core Liberals are disappointed with him, that he did not take Socialism far enough.
As I’ve mentioned before, Obama was elected in 2008 much like a desperate man agrees to a blind date with a woman who is outwardly attractive. But upon actually meeting her, and seeing that she has ‘Man-Hands’, our Casanova is quickly turned off at the sight of her (Obama) ripping through lobsters and opening bottles of beer.
August 24th, 2012 at 10:05 am
“I can’t stomach the washed up beauty queen, inarticulate weatherman and the gnome on Fox and Friends. This is like a news show for people that are ummm…”slow”.”
As opposed to any other ?
Most morning shows are folksy and goofy in general.
As far as “slow” goes.
Maybe its you who prefers only what your mosquito trap will hold as any source that puts you in your place is immediately discounted.
Anyone who uses morning talk shows on any outlet as an example of news coverage, uses the weather reporter as a representation,isnt smart enough to realize that those catering to the viewer market realize no one wants to start their day watching C-SPAN.
Then again, your sense of humor and ability to lighten up has always been rather plugged up by that stick everyone asks you to remove.
And yes, you deserved that attack by insinuating that those who watch FOX are somehow comfortable with dumbed down coverage thats actually just another fruity morning show.
I suggest you start from scratch.
Get rid of all modern tech, read our Constitution, and then argue from there
Or better yet, answer my questions
August 24th, 2012 at 10:17 am
“They also have reasonably good looking women who don’t mind dressed and made-up like prostitutes while they pretend to be something akin (oops) to journalists.”
I dare you to find any other outlet with women who have credentials even close to those at FOX.
Judges, attorneys , white house press secretary, economists, campaign managers,all in the same time slot as Robin Meade.
Who is nothing
but hot
August 24th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Andy, you are right that Americans generally are optimistic people, which is why we are successful. Liberals are pessimistic because of their self-loathing complex, so you won’t get agreement on that idea.
Micky, I believe that the talking bimbos are a universal phenomenon on all 1000 channels. What’s worse, even the men are starting to look like Ken dolls.
August 24th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
You’re absolutely right Patrick which is why I got pee’d off over being associated with “slow” and responded with “as opposed to any other ?”
I usually get up around 1 or 2 am because I’m at the most 6 hours behind the rest of the countrys news cycle. Fox & Friends is on but muted while I cruise around the blogs or chat with friends.
This being the silly season, I’m sleeping in more often.
This morning during the shootout this morning at the Empire State building David Lee Miller was reporting in a pastel baby blue jacket.
And Steve Doocy has to go.
But still, the bimbos at FOX are no doubt a higher calibre than the masses of asses were used to.
August 24th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
“This morning during the shootout this morning”
Its obviously time for a nap
August 29th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
I usually do not leave a comment, but after reading a great deal of comments on Colorado Professors Predict Mitt Romney Win in 2012 Right Pundits.
And, if you are posting on other online social sites, I’d like to follow anything fresh you have to post.
I actually do have 2 questions for you if it’s allright. Could it be just me or does it look like like a few of the comments look like they are left by brain dead folks?
Would you list of the complete urls of your social community sites like your linkedin
profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?