Electoral College model predicts Romney 2012 landslide
An Electoral College model which has successfully predicted the winner every year since 1980 suggests a Romney landslide. What do you think?
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.
“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” Bickers said in a press statement.
To predict the race’s outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, according to The Associated Press. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado.
This model flies in the face of FiveThirtyEight‘s prediction of quite the opposite, currently 294.2 Obama to 243.8 Romney.
Current stats from RealClearPolitics show Obama leading by a slim 1.5% in the popular vote, with 221 electoral votes called for Obama, 191 for Romney, and the remainder a toss-up.
It would appear that the race may boil down to which camp more successfully frames the issues. If the Obama campaign manages to focus the race on the “Akin Plank” of the GOP platform, he’ll likely win. If Romney can keep eyes on the economy, simple dissatisfaction of voters will help him to prevail.
At this point, does it really matter? Obama assassinates American citizens without oversight, pushed through Mitt Romney’s health care plan on a national level (and was personally responsible for the utter lack of any sort of discussion of single-payer and for the death of the public option), has expanded “faith-based initiatives”, didn’t punish BP for the Deepwater spill, didn’t punish the banks for breaking the economy, punishes whistleblowers, has expanded our military budget and opened up several new conflicts, etc. ad infinitum. In short, Mitt Romney will probably govern almost exactly as Obama does, except that the Democrats in congress will stop nodding and applauding when he does this horrible crap and start resisting it; the result might very well actually be better than what we have now. (After all, Obama has moved to the right of Bush because he has no opposition from the left where Bush did.) It’s very clear that the Democrats want to screw us just as badly as the Republicans — but with a smile instead of a sneer. I’m no longer willing to be complicit in this process; I’m voting Green.
I’m equally disappointed with Obama, and agree with all your points about his selling of those who elected him down the river. Unfortunately, it does make a difference, in one key area: Four of the nine Supreme Court justices were born in the 1930s. It’s pretty likely two or more will retire in the next couple of years. Their replacements will be setting the church-state separation tone and much more for decades to come. Otherwise I see it as a choice between the politics of lip-service or the politics of bigotry. I wouldn’t expect progress under Obama, but I would expect steps backward under Romney. If Romney had chosen a moderate as his running mate, instead of a Tea Party extremist on par with Akin, I think a lot more left-leaning voters would be looking at Romney. He decided to bend to the will of the extremists, which pretty much tells us how he’d act as President.