Academic model: Romney will win 52.9% of the vote, 320 electoral votes

[Shady]

Good news for the U.S. economy and the world economy. Help is on the way, in just a few more months.

Academics predict economy will drive a Romney victory

Campaign 2012 may have spent weeks stuck on discussions of Mitt Romney’s taxes, Joe Biden’s rant on putting “y’all in chains” and “legitimate rape” and abortion, but a pair of Colorado political scientists believe the struggling economy will still be the dominant issue and will pave the way for a Romney victory.

Using a state-by-state analysis of unemployment and per-capita income, academics Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry of the University of Colorado project that Romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote and 320 electoral votes.

You're probably asking, how does their model fit with past presidential elections?

The academics said their model focuses on the preeminent issue of the economy. Applied retrospectively, the model predicts the correct winner in every presidential contest going back to 1980.

LA Times

I hope they're right. It will mean a lot for the American economy, but especially to our economy, seeing as though we're so dependent on a strong U.S. consumer base. Keep your fingers crossed!

[kimmy]

Good news for the U.S. economy and the world economy. Help is on the way, in just a few more months.

Great news for the Americans who need help the most: the Koch brothers, the Lehman brothers, General Electric Corporation, and Ann Romney's dancing horse!

#HeckuvajobWillard!

-k

[BubberMiley]

Much like polls, science is a scam to be scoffed at---unless it tells you what you want to hear.

[Shady]

Great news for the Americans who need help the most: the Koch brothers, the Lehman brothers, General Electric Corporation, and Ann Romney's dancing horse!

#HeckuvajobWillard!

-k

Complete nonsense. Btw, Lehman Brothers went out of business in '08, and General Electric pays ZERO taxes under Obama!

#HeckuvaJobKimmy

/facepalm

Ignorance is bliss.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Shady

[CANADIEN]

Good news for the U.S. economy and the world economy. Help is on the way, in just a few more months.

Good news indeed. Rejoice, things are gonna get very good... until banks are given free rein to screw up the economy once again, which will come very very quickly.

[Shady]

Good news indeed. Rejoice, things are gonna get very good... until banks are given free rein to screw up the economy once again, which will come very very quickly.

Actually, it was government intervention that screwed up the economy. Lowering lending standards as to facilitate home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. You know, to help lower income folks. It's the kind of policy people like kimmy want more of. Luckily in Canada we've done the opposite, we've actually strengthened mortgage standards.

[j44]

Good news indeed. Rejoice, things are gonna get very good... until banks are given free rein to screw up the economy once again, which will come very very quickly.

Actually, it was government intervention that screwed up the economy. Lowering lending standards as to facilitate home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. You know, to help lower income folks. It's the kind of policy people like kimmy want more of. Luckily in Canada we've done the opposite, we've actually strengthened mortgage standards.

Actually, it was both.

[Shady]

Actually, it was both.

Not really. Banks weren't given free rein. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated industries. The biggest problem was the lowering of lending standards, and the government's insistance on promoting home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. And of course the federal reserve for keeping interest rates artifically low for an extended period of time. Yes, government served everybody well with those policies.

[CANADIEN]

Actually, it was government intervention that screwed up the economy. Lowering lending standards as to facilitate home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. You know, to help lower income folks. It's the kind of policy people like kimmy want more of. Luckily in Canada we've done the opposite, we've actually strengthened mortgage standards.

Yeah yeah... there was no reckless behaviour by bankers, especially American ones.

Interestingly enough, stricter banking regulations here resulted in the meltdown affecting us less, relatively speaking, than other countries. Repear after me Shady... thank you Mr. Martin.

[j44]

Not really. Banks weren't given free rein. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated industries. The biggest problem was the lowering of lending standards, and the government's insistance on promoting home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. And of course the federal reserve for keeping interest rates artifically low for an extended period of time. Yes, government served everybody well with those policies.

Are you saying the banks are blameless?

[kimmy]

Actually, it was government intervention that screwed up the economy. Lowering lending standards as to facilitate home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. You know, to help lower income folks. It's the kind of policy people like kimmy want more of. Luckily in Canada we've done the opposite, we've actually strengthened mortgage standards.

The banks dished out way more sub-prime mortgages than any government quota system required them to, and they did it because financial deregulation combined with an extreme lack of ethics made it highly profitable for them to do so.

-k

[msj]

Not really. Banks weren't given free rein. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated industries. The biggest problem was the lowering of lending standards, and the government's insistance on promoting home ownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. And of course the federal reserve for keeping interest rates artifically low for an extended period of time. Yes, government served everybody well with those policies.

That's right folks, the government both regulates the banks "highly" and lowered lending standards (at the same time!) so that those same banks just couldn't help themselves as they jumped off the cliff with all the other lemmings.

Just like the inaccurate story of lemmings jumping off the cliff, Shady is, surprise! lying (yes, lying) about this:

Did Affordable Housing Legislation Contribute to the Subprime Securities Boom?

Dissecting the big lie about the economic crisis Plus Charts.

Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

The Subprime Crisis: Is Government Housing Policy to Blame?

Wallison and the three “des” – Deregulation, Desupervision and De Facto Decriminalization

I know Shady isn`t going to read a single one of those links but others will.

[CANADIEN]

The banks dished out way more sub-prime mortgages than any government quota system required them to, and they did it because financial deregulation combined with an extreme lack of ethics made it highly profitable for them to do so.

-k

There is no doubt that easy access to mortgages, extended beyond what was reasonable, was a factor in the crisis. But some U.S. banks wanted sub-prime mortages. Recklesssly, they kept piling bad mortgages upon bad mortgages. They kept encouraging people who they ought to know would not be able to meet the payments to get those mortgages. They didn't say "OK, more home ownership is fine, but this is too risky". Considering the level of influence they have on law-makers, they could have called for more prudent policies regarding mortgages, but instead they kept pushing and pushing for less and less regulations.

Sure, any person who took a mortgage he/she knew, or ought to have known, they would not be able to pay is responsbile for his/her misfortune. But banks that recklessly pile bad debts upon bad debts share a far, far greater responsability for screwing the world's economy.

[kimmy]

I know Shady isn`t going to read a single one of those links but others will.

Thanks!

Much of this information is over my head, but I get the impression that the gist of it is that Shady is full of it.

-k

[Topaz]

Since its a know fact that US past elections have been "controlled" by other sources and not mainly by the voters, who ever of the two candidate agree more to the world's elitist, or power's that be, will get the White House.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Either way,

After a decade of poor government, the US may very well be on the verge of falling off the financial cliff.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/22/u-s-facing-its-worst-decade-heading-toward-fiscal-cliff-congressional-budget-office/

The change never came.

[punked]

Either way,

After a decade of poor government, the US may very well be on the verge of falling off the financial cliff.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/22/u-s-facing-its-worst-decade-heading-toward-fiscal-cliff-congressional-budget-office/

The change never came.

People have been saying this for 70 years. Why is now different? Is it because there is so much faith in long term US debt that they can borrow money at a historic low? So low that they are actually making money when adjusted for inflation?

[punked]

You're probably asking, how does their model fit with past presidential elections?

I was asking that Shady the lair. So I went over to fivethIrtyeight the very well regarded statistician who was predicted some of the closest election over the last years. Turns out that this is a new model that has NEVER PREDICTED ANYTHING!! Shady lie go figure.

[-TSS-]

You may well be right. Obama is very unlikely to win any states he lost in 2008 and many states he won four years ago have turned sour on him for failing to bring in miracles expected of him.

[Black Dog]

Thanks!

Much of this information is over my head, but I get the impression that the gist of it is that Shady is full of it.

-k

You don't need to read a bunch of fancy-schmancy links to arrive at that conclusion.

[GostHacked]

People have been saying this for 70 years. Why is now different? Is it because there is so much faith in long term US debt that they can borrow money at a historic low? So low that they are actually making money when adjusted for inflation?

You've might of heard of a few huge banks going under. You might have heard that personal debt is at an all time high. You might have heard about the banks facilitated the whole crisis by lending out more than people can pay back resulting in many going bankrupt and homeless all while hedging against those very losses. Because important regulations were axed by the government. The can cannot be kicked any further down the road. Simply because the road has ended. The government and the banks in my view share the responsibility of the whole manufactured crisis equally. If the regulation existed, there would be serious penalties for those banks breaking those rules. Who convinced the government that repealing those acts were a good freakin idea to begin with? Someones palms were greased with a few greenbacks, that much we can be certain of.

Take a look at those troubled countries in the EU. It's coming this way, if it's not already here. Now you don't even really need a printing press to avoid a crisis, you can just digitally make money appear since society is being moved towards being cashless. There is simply not enough trees to make paper money out of that had been digitally dreamed into existence.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Odds are Obama will win, but Romney has a much better shot than most people think.

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. Btw, Lehman Brothers went out of business in '08, and General Electric pays ZERO taxes under Obama!

#HeckuvaJobKimmy

/facepalm

Ignorance is bliss.

Here is some ignorance for you then Shady.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

One cure would be to make lobbying illegal. What is more screwed up is that GE is saving millions by using these lobbying strategies and high priced lawyers and accountants. Also this goes to show more of the incestuous relationship big business and big government has.