University of Colorado predicts Romney win

They have a model which has correctly predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1980.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...ado-study-says

Well then bet me some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Sorry to burst your bubble but there have been other studies similar to the Univ of Colorado and most, but not all predict an Obama win: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-but-not-all/

Also, No President has won the White House without winning Ohio and guess whose currently leading in Ohio??? Also, as WTF has stated if you are so confident take your bet to Vegas or I will bet you whatever you want- is that a deal???
Also, I could care less about what studies say- I am just confident that Obama will win.
Also, if you remember this year during the GOP primaries it was noted that in history who every won the GOP South Carolina primary won the GOP nomination- however, Newt won and didn't get the nod so that streak was broken and the Colorado streak will be broken.
If you click on my link there are more studies that are leaning towards an Obama victory.

Thats interesting about Ohio. A candidate could be leading in other states except Ohio and thats his ass. What is it about Obama despite any poll or insightful prediction that leads you to believe outside your personal hopes and dreams that this guy can't possibly lose the election?

Thats interesting about Ohio. A candidate could be leading in other states except Ohio and thats his ass. What is it about Obama despite any poll or insightful prediction that leads you to believe outside your personal hopes and dreams that this guy can't possibly lose the election? Originally Posted by acp5762

ACP I never said Obama was unbeatable- any candidate can be beaten- but as soon as the candidates from the GOP appeared I really didn't think any of them have a chance- some better than others- I was never impressed with Mitt- the reason being he has a track history of being a flip flopper- he truly is an etch a sketch guy- during the primaries he labeled himself as an ultra conservative Tea party supporter- against immigration, against abortion(was once for it) agreed the Bush taxes should get extended- he agreed to everything to get the GOP nod and then all of a sudden during the first debate he comes to the middle and pretends to be a "moderate"- so I don't trust him and I think a lot of Independents will not trust him s well.

I do think the race was be very close in terms of the popular vote- but IMHO for Romney to squeak out a win he would have to run the tables on all the Toss- up States that are in dispute and I just don't see him doing such a thing. I think his stand on abortion and the fact that Biden pointed out that the next President will perhaps replace 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices will bring women out in drives to vote against Romney. He didn't do anything to help himself with the Latino vote and trust me the 47% comment will hurt him.

Now, this will not be a cake walk for Obama I think he win a very close election, but Obama has to do exceptionally well on the next 2 debates notably the last debate- the last debate is always the one people tend to remember- so again I just don't think Romney was the best candidate that the GOP could have thrown at Obama.

Many of my Republican friends who will still be voting for Romney by default have mostly admitted that they wish it were another candidate go up against Obama then Romney.

Thats interesting about Ohio. A candidate could be leading in other states except Ohio and thats his ass. What is it about Obama despite any poll or insightful prediction that leads you to believe outside your personal hopes and dreams that this guy can't possibly lose the election? Originally Posted by acp5762

That's true- and the one thing that is going good for Obama is that he has a lead and it's a toss up state that could really swing the race one way or the other- but Ohio's UE rate is one of the lowest in the nation at 7.2% which is something Obama has taking advantage of and it's probably the reason why Obama is leading in that state because the UE rate is one of the lowest in the nation.

Again, your political IQ is deficient; Jack Kennedy won the White house against Richard Nixon and didn't win Ohio.

When you use the term "never" be certain......

Also, No President has won the White House without winning Ohio and guess whose currently leading in Ohio??? Also, as WTF has stated if you are so confident take your bet to Vegas or I will bet you whatever you want- is that a deal???
Also, I could care less about what studies say- I am just confident that Obama will win.
Also, if you remember this year during the GOP primaries it was noted that in history who every won the GOP South Carolina primary won the GOP nomination- however, Newt won and didn't get the nod so that streak was broken and the Colorado streak will be broken.
If you click on my link there are more studies that are leaning towards an Obama victory. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Well then bet me some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Originally Posted by WTF

Why is it always about money for you libs?
Your bet is with the U of C. Not me. I made no claim.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there have been other studies similar to the Univ of Colorado and most, but not all predict an Obama win: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-but-not-all/ Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

No bubble bursting here.
Do you read your own links?
The first study they detailed doesn't include economic variables. That sounds like excellent methodology for this election.

"The variables: Uniquely among the studies here, Norpoth and Bednarczuk do not include any economic variables. Instead, they simply use the share each major party candidate got of the primary vote in the New Hampshire primary."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-but-not-all/

The second study had Romney winning and the fifth one had Obama with Romney within their historical margin of error.
Then the other two studies they did not detail were split.
I was gonna say it was pretty weak evidence and then I saw that it was Ezra Klein's blog. Same thing.

No bubble bursting here.
Do you read your own links?
The first study they detailed doesn't include economic variables. That sounds like excellent methodology for this election.

"The variables: Uniquely among the studies here, Norpoth and Bednarczuk do not include any economic variables. Instead, they simply use the share each major party candidate got of the primary vote in the New Hampshire primary."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-but-not-all/

The second study had Romney winning and the fifth one had Obama with Romney within their historical margin of error.
Then the other two studies they did not detail were split.
I was gonna say it was pretty weak evidence and then I saw that it was Ezra Klein's blog. Same thing. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

If you scrolled down a little further you would have read the following:

Study: Economic Conditions versus Trial-Heat Polls as Early Election Predictors
Who did it: Robert Erikson (Columbia) and Christopher Wlezien (Temple).
The variables: The model uses both polling data, obtained from Real Clear Politics, and the Conference Board’s “leading economic indicators” (LEI) metric, which is based on a number of indicators including Treasury interest rates, unemployment claims, housing permits, manufacturing orders and hours worked, and stock prices. Specifically, they use LEI averaged through the first quarter of the election year and the incumbent’s share of the two-party vote in polls in the first three quarters of the election year. At the paper’s writing, polling data for the third quarter of this year was not available, so the authors only used data through July. They weighted this data less, as it did not contain voters’ reactions to the conventions.
How well it does: The model’s accuracy varies on how far one is from the election. One quarter out — or roughly where we are today — the model has an average error of 1.9 points and predicts 13 of the last 15 election results accurately.
What it predicts: The model predicts that Obama will get a 52.6 percent share of the two-party vote and that Romney will get 47.4 percent. It gives Obama an 80 percent chance of winning, overall.

If you scrolled down a little further you would have read the following:

Study: Economic Conditions versus Trial-Heat Polls as Early Election Predictors
Who did it: Robert Erikson (Columbia) and Christopher Wlezien (Temple).
The variables: The model uses both polling data, obtained from Real Clear Politics, and the Conference Board’s “leading economic indicators” (LEI) metric, which is based on a number of indicators including Treasury interest rates, unemployment claims, housing permits, manufacturing orders and hours worked, and stock prices. Specifically, they use LEI averaged through the first quarter of the election year and the incumbent’s share of the two-party vote in polls in the first three quarters of the election year. At the paper’s writing, polling data for the third quarter of this year was not available, so the authors only used data through July. They weighted this data less, as it did not contain voters’ reactions to the conventions.
How well it does: The model’s accuracy varies on how far one is from the election. One quarter out — or roughly where we are today — the model has an average error of 1.9 points and predicts 13 of the last 15 election results accurately.
What it predicts: The model predicts that Obama will get a 52.6 percent share of the two-party vote and that Romney will get 47.4 percent. It gives Obama an 80 percent chance of winning, overall. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I already read that. It's only one of the four studies detailed. The point is there's no avalanche of unequivical evidence contained in your link. Not even close.
But you already explained yourself earlier. Something like, "I don't care what studies say, I just know Obama's going to win." But I paraphrase. Stunningly brilliant though.

I think there is a factor or two in this race that might skew the results. A distinction between what people say they are going to do and what they actually do. And speaking of Ohio, that was occurring in the exit polling done in 2004, which caused Kerry to pass over Ohio the last day and go "home" to get prepared for his victory party.....you know the rest of the story.

I would say the "do as I do and not as I say" factor has an even a greater potential this year of being a game changer. But I do like the left talking up the win ... it cost Kerry .... it cost Gore.

Why is it always about money for you libs?
Your bet is with the U of C. Not me. I made no claim. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Try buying some pussy with that Colorado study!

I think there is a factor or two in this race that might skew the results. A distinction between what people say they are going to do and what they actually do. And speaking of Ohio, that was occurring in the exit polling done in 2004, which caused Kerry to pass over Ohio the last day and go "home" to get prepared for his victory party.....you know the rest of the story.

I would say the "do as I do and not as I say" factor has an even a greater potential this year of being a game changer. But I do like the left talking up the win ... it cost Kerry .... it cost Gore. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Then you lack the understanding of how well organized Obama's political machine is if you compare it to Gore or Kerry.

This election would be over had Obama not been so smug in the first debate.

The problem the GOP has is that Ohio is doing well and will vote Blue nationally. Mitt fuc'd himself with all that Auto Bailout bashing. I think Fl will be blue because Mitt ppicked Ryan. Now way Mitt can sweep the other swing states.