Skip to main content

Electoral College Prediction Made...yeah, 2.5 months before the election...

On August 23rd of 2012, it can be confirmed that the November presidential election is over and we will have ourselves a new man in the Oval Office - Mitt Romney. Yes, that's right - prior to either party's convention, a debate - two and a half months before the election, the race has been decided. The Republican nominee - Mitt Romney - has come away with 320 electoral votes and President (for the time) Barack Obama finished with just 218. Romney won the states of: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Hampshire.

Okay, so it's not November; it's not even September, but that doesn't seem to matter to political science professors Ken Bickers of Colorado-Boulder or Michael Berry of Colorado-Denver. They've devised a forecasting model which made the before-mentioned prediction and which they claim has never been wrong before.

I find this to be ridiculous. We haven't heard the two candidates debate yet. Neither the Republican National Convention nor Democratic National Convention have gotten underway. We still have two and a half months of gaffes, flip-flops, vetting, interviews, debates, ads, etc. How can we declare with any confidence that either candidate, let alone the underdog - Mitt Romney - will win by a final electoral count of 320 to 218?

What I find especially fascinating is that according to this model, Romney won all the so-called "battleground" states. Yet if we look at the polls and the election were held tomorrow, I have a very difficult time seeing that prediction come to fruition.

In Colorado (worth 9 electoral votes), the most recent poll has Obama ahead by 3 points. The second most recent poll, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, have the candidates tied. Keep in mind, however, that Rasmussen has favored Republican candidates by approximately 3 points this year, so in the end, it may very well be consistent with the most recent poll that has the president ahead by 3. In any case, it appears at this point, Obama has a slight advantage in the state.

Florida's (29 electoral votes) been going back and forth for some time now and I'd call this state a true toss-up at this point. In the past three polls (all conducted in the past week or so), Obama leads by 3 in one and Romney leads by a combined 3 in the other two (he led by 2 in Rasmussen Reports, so taking in the bias of the poll, the true result would be somewhere around even or Obama at +1).

The last two New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) polls have the president up by an average of 4.5 points (6 in one and 3 in the other). I can't remember a time when he trailed in the state.

Romney has led every now and again in Ohio polls, but Obama appears to have a lead there. In the two most recent polls (released in the past couple days) has the president up by an average of 4.5 points. Rasmussen had the candidates tied, which equates to a 2-3 point edge for Obama. At this point I give Obama a slight edge to nab the Buckeye state's 18 electoral votes.

Virginia has been somewhat similar to Ohio in terms of polling. I'd say approximately 1 out of every 5 polls has Romney either tied with or leading Obama. Yet the most recent poll has the incumbent president up by 5 points. Like with Colorado and Ohio, I'm giving Obama a slight edge in this state as well, which is worth 13 electoral votes.

Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) may be on the brink of battleground status, perhaps in part due to Paul Ryan (fellow Wisconsinite) being named Romney's running mate. However, Obama still has a slight advantage there, as he's led by a total of 5 points in the two most recent polls conducted in the Badger state.

I think the strangest of all the predictions is that of Romney winning Minnesota (10 electoral votes). Most don't even consider that to be a battleground state. There haven't been a whole lot of polls conducted there, but the two most recent have Obama up by an average of 10.5 points. Of all the states this forecast model predicted to go Romney's way, I find Minnesota to be the least likely to follow suit.

Lastly, we have North Carolina (worth 15 electoral votes). Of the eight "battleground" states that were listed in the article that wall went to Romney, I believe the Tar Heel state is the most likely to go his way in November. The most recent poll has Obama up by 3, but that poll tends to be 2-3 points biased in favor of Democrats (PPP). Most other polls have Romney up between 1 and 4 points. At this time, I'd give the Republican nominee the slight edge here.

So, let's round this up. According to Bickens and Berry, Romney won pretty convincingly, by the final electoral count of 320-218. Yet, there are no signs that Minnesota will go Romney's way (so make that 310-228). New Hampshire is unlikely to vote for the Republican candidate either (306-232). Ohio and Virginia have been looking fairly good for Obama (275-263). If Wisconsin went Obama's way, which is very possible (the last time they voted for a Republican to become president was Reagan back in '84), that'd place him in office for a second term with a final tally of 273 electoral votes to Romney's 265. This is giving Florida, North Carolina and even Colorado to Romney.

In other words, this forecast model is absolute garbage and will be about as accurate at predicting the election as I will be at predicting when the Chicago Cubs next win the World Series. I'm going to say 2036.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D195989

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_romney_vs_obama-2030.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mn/minnesota_romney_vs_obama-1823.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"