UOC
Updated University of Colorado model still points to Romney win
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes — down five votes from their initial prediction — and short of the 270 needed to win.
The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.
“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hmmmmm…
MeatHeadinCA on October 8, 2012 at 3:08 PM
But what about that atomic bomb?!?!
wargamer6 on October 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM
go vote.
rob verdi on October 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Find as many people as you can to take to the polls, everyone needs to vote.
That said, I really think this election will be a blowout.
John_Locke on October 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Ah yes, the well known University of Colorado model.
/s
Up next, the word press and blogspot models.
I’m partial to Nate Silver
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/
and he still shows the odds heavily in Obama’s favor.
Realclearblue on October 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM
This can become fact if you and those of like mind you know, vote for R&R. Do not stay home, do not vote 3rd, and by ALL MEANS DO NOT vote for bho!
L
letget on October 8, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Heavily? LOL, um no. Medved interviewed Mr. Silver and straight from he horses mouth it’s was slightly at best. Nice try….
Oh, and Nate’s been wrong in the past. This study…not so much. It has a 100% track record.
jawkneemusic on October 8, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Well, if you bothered to search the archives… http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/22/academic-model-romney-will-take-52-9-of-the-vote-320-electoral-votes/
Doomberg on October 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Kunta Kintard hardest hit.
jawkneemusic on October 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM
I agree. F-the-polls and go out and vote like you are feeling compelled to in order to save this country. Then watch the epic meltdown of the left on Nov 7th. You think those tears of anguish were bitter in 2008 to taste? The tears of sheer bliss on Nov 7th 2012 will be worth it all if you do your duty Nov 6th. Go Vote!
milemarker2020 on October 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM
This CU analysis has a pretty good track record IIRC.
KK, those same millionairs are trying to keep you out of their pockets.
Jabberwock on October 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Realclearblue on October 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM
I’m sure your comment was made after reading the study /s
gatorboy on October 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM
And anyone who trusts Nate Silver as well.
22044 on October 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM
LOL@ Kunta Kintard still pushing Intrade. Those same millionaires had ObamaCare going down 60/40. Look how that turned out.
God the left are full of brain dead morons who parrot whatever drivel is emailed to them by their overlords.
jawkneemusic on October 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM
I bet he does.
He’s weighing nothing more than clusters of polling. Which until very recently included Research 2000 – you know, the fraudsters that took Markos Moulitsas for a couple hundred grand and made up their data.
These guys are weighing more than that. Economic data, demographics, and the like.
KingGold on October 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Romney winning NM, MN, and PA while losing NV seems weird.
theperfecteconomist on October 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM
What about that truth detector they were supposedly going to be using during the debate?
portlandon on October 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Pictures please
faraway on October 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM
John king and chuck todd hardest hit
They LOVE their college map
cmsinaz on October 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM
It was more like 85/15 right before the decision.
theperfecteconomist on October 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Wow, didn’t know that. I stopped following Intrade…well because it mean nothing but the liar Kunta Kintard says its 95% accurate so it must be true.
jawkneemusic on October 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Heh, because you like what he says. Sheesh you’re an imbecile.
CW on October 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Agreed. It also says that Obama will win Michigan. It seems to me that if Romney wins Minnesota of all places, he’s winning Michigan.
KingGold on October 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM
I think the recent celebrity Dems defectoring to Romney, in addition to the open criticism of 0bama followers like Mahrer in the wake of the debate debacle (sorry, I just love the term), are the vanguard of the “Obama’s no longer cool” crowd; and we know how cruel the feckless “in” crowd can be when they turn on someone.
Landslide.
Droopy on October 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM
“defectoring”. Heh.
I like it… defectoring.
Droopy on October 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM
You stay that way. I love delusional leftists.
You’re not very smart.
Schadenfreude on October 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Yeah…I can’t see Romney winning here in MN. I could be wrong. Maybe it’ll be a wave election and the lefties here will be so dispirited that they won’t go out to vote, but…we have a relatively popular (only God knows why though) senator (Amy Klobuchar) up for reelection, and I expect her to win.
Othniel on October 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Blacks, Obama has scroomed you royally.
Schadenfreude on October 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM
No kidding. I would seriously crawl across broken glass and then climb over barbed wire to vote. Nothing’s going to keep me from the polls.
crazy_legs on October 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM
The study only has eight elections worth of data, and the model doesn’t appear to account for anything other than economic factors (media, GOTV, burning embassies or fundraiser videos). It’s more a gimmick — a reasonably accurate gimmick — than anything else.
Nate has a pretty good record, as well, but doesn’t claim to be infallible. Obama’s been dropping in his model, btw.
Don’t count your chickens.
urban elitist on October 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM
As much as I would love this to be true, I still think PA and NM are out of reach. OH may be as well, depending on how much people think he “saved” jobs there even though its a crock.
Stop listening to polls and make sure everyone you know that supports Romney gets out and votes on Nov 6. Just make your Obama supporter friends (and we all have them) know to show up on Nov 7.
goflyers on October 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM
New liberal troll?
wargamer6 on October 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Holy sh*t, something I agree with you about!
It’s certainly not over, people need to get out and vote.
goflyers on October 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM
And we can’t wait for you to get yourself banned like the other trolls that now post on Facebook.
CurtZHP on October 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM
‘Zat you, angryed?
Nate Silver’s employer endorsed O’bamna in 2008 and will do so again this year. How does that make him “objective”, in your opinion?
Del Dolemonte on October 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM
As long as thet’re still coming home to roost on Obama,
you can count on that !
Jabberwock on October 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM
I agree-it has a certain “panache” to it.
Del Dolemonte on October 8, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Apologies, Brian. So used to the Facebook section being the peanut gallery for trolls who were all banned from Hot Air for making bigoted comments. Hope to welcome you soon.
CurtZHP on October 8, 2012 at 4:26 PM
PEW HAS Romney by 4..
wargamer6 on October 8, 2012 at 4:31 PM
LOL, you’re clever! “Only eight elections” is a much smaller number to the unwashed Democrat Voter’s mind than “32 years of election data”.
And their batting average is 100%. “Reasonably accurate” implies that they’re been wrong in the past.
Care to tell us why they were right in 2008 and are suddenly wrong now? Not to mention them being right every other time?
E-
Del Dolemonte on October 8, 2012 at 4:35 PM
They have eight elections, and were able to back-engineer their model to make sure it works. Easy to be 100% right when you know the outcome and can jigger your formula until it spits out the numbers you want.
“The state-by-state economic data used in their model have been available since 1980. When these data were applied retroactively to each election year, the model correctly classifies all presidential election winners, including the two years when independent candidates ran strongly.”
urban elitist on October 8, 2012 at 4:50 PM
You didn’t answer my final question. Why were they right in 2008 and why are they wrong this year?
Del Dolemonte on October 8, 2012 at 4:59 PM
You didn’t answer my final question. Why were they right in 2008 and why are they wrong this year?Del Dolemonte on October 8, 2012 at 4:59 PM
I didn’t say they were wrong. I said that I wouldn’t take their prediction as gospel, and (by impliction) any model based on such a small sample, and that has actually been tested bonly y looking backwards, is probably not as infallible as a headline might imply.
Everybody predicted Obama in 2008, so I’m hardly impressed.
urban elitist on October 8, 2012 at 5:20 PM
That was only a bomb on an atomic level – too small to see or hear.
Kind of like a tiny violin playing for gumby….
Chip on October 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM
I wouldnt trust this study. They’re in Colorado. The altitude is known to mess with clear thinking and stuff…
MikeknaJ on October 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM