RUSH: "A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every US president since 1980," they've never missed, "forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney," and he will win 320 electoral votes. It's a University of Colorado analysis. It's not a poll. It's an "analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every US president since 1980," and they haven't missed.
"The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. "'Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,' said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.
"According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote to Obama's 47.1%, when considering only the two major political parties." Now, that doesn't factor a third party or minuscule write-ins. They just look at the two primary candidates.
"'For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,' said Berry. 'The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office.'" I don't know where he gets that, but regardless, this guy says: "What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it's the former [in relative terms], the president may receive credit for the economy's trajectory and win a second term.
"In the latter case [absolute terms], Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008." Now, again: "Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election."
They predicted that.
"While many forecast models are based on the popular vote, the Electoral College model developed by Bickers and Berry is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. In addition to state and national unemployment rates, [these guys] looked at per capita income, which indicates the extent to which people have more or less disposable income. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently:
"Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income." So you can see how they arrive at their conclusion. They haven't missed since 1980. They are predicting that Romney will win 320 electoral votes. To throw myself in here, this does not surprise me. You know me. I haven't held back. I don't have any scientific basis for my belief; just my gut. And I will admit I make a lot of assumptions.
I assume that a majority of the country is opposed to what's happening.
I assume a majority of the country does not want to be a bunch of takers.
I know that many of you disagree with me, but these guys say, "In 2012, 'What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states..." These guys predict, based on their data that hasn't missed since 1980, that he will lose North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
"In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9% of the vote to Obama's 48.1%," but it's only right to mention this: "The authors also provided caveats. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and close tallies in certain states. The current data was taken five months in advance of the Nov. 6 election and they plan to update it with more current economic data in September."
Ah, we will eagerly anticipate that report.
"A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall in an unexpected direction." Let's assume for the fun of it that these guys are right. I want you to imagine Election Day plus one, the day after the election, if the Democrats lose North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. If that happens, there is going to be hell to pay like you haven't seen. If that happens, no way they can charge fraud. It won't stop 'em, maybe. But, if that happens, you are going to see one of the biggest soul searches you've ever seen.
For a while.
And then it won't take 'em long to get back on track of blaming the stupidity of the voters, which is something that they carry with them each and every day, and that is contempt for average people.
Now, the Washington Times, a Dave Boyer story: "Poll Shows Romney Closing Gap with Obama in the Swing States -- As Republicans head to Tampa, Fla., to nominate Mitt Romney for president, the contest with President Obama is narrowing in the 10 battleground states that likely will decide the election. Since Aug. 1, Mr. Romney has gained ground in eight of those states, and two of them -- Wisconsin and Michigan -- are now considered too close to call by some pollsters.
"[Obama] has expanded his lead only in New Hampshire..." Everywhere else, it's tightening, significantly so. And it's tightening in polls that have the far-out-of-reality weighted Democrat sample. The AP poll is the latest, the AP-GfK poll. In that poll, Obama was up ten points in May or June. He's now up four, losing ground rapidly. But it's a poll that has an outsized Democrat sample. I saw an analysis of this poll. I mean, it's cooked. This latest AP poll with GfK is cooked.
If this poll had an accurate party sample that reflected turnout on Election Day 2008, Obama would be a point down in the latest AP poll. "'What we’re seeing now is the tightening of the race that everyone predicted, which makes sense given the economy,' said Jason Johnson, associate professor of political science at Hiram College in northeastern Ohio. 'It has to do with people’s frustration with Obama rather than an increased appreciation of Romney.'"
That's not a surprise, either.
It's exactly what I thought would be the case. I thought this was always gonna be a referendum on Obama. And to the extent that Romney and Ryan can make themselves likable, then that's icing on the cake. But this always was gonna be a referendum on Obama. It still is gonna be a referendum. I don't care what the Obama campaign is trying to say. I don't care what the Drive-By Media is trying to say and how they try to slant this and how they try to portray it.
This is gonna be a referendum on Obama.
He is not the likable guy he was.
I don't care what anybody says, folks. He does not have that aura that he had in 2008. It's blown. His cover is blown wide open and he is seen to be human and incompetent at that. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just like every other guy, and there's nothing messianic here. "Hope and Change" are gone. And don't forget the poll of the toddlers, the 18 to 29 year olds. They're claiming that they are so upset that they're gonna turn out in record numbers.