you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
In all things, seek the truth.
If you think O is going to win, it is probably because you saw that somewhere.
If you analyze polls and get neck-deep in details, you'll find there is a built-in assumption that there will be the same turnout as 2008. If you re-weight the polls based on how people identify themselves today, rather than in 2008 (four years makes a big difference) you will find quite the opposite.
I've spent about 100 hours analyzing the polls, maps and underlying data. As of right now I've got a very high probability of a Romney win. I'm currently, conservatively, scoring Romney at 291, with reasonable chances at Wisconsin and PA. CU data analysis agrees with my assessment, and they've never been wrong. They even called the split-election in 2000 perfectly. CU has Romney at over 330.
I'm not trying to be political... the impact is significant to REITs. Romney wants to fire the fed chief and end QE, while O has promised "more of the same".
When all others will marvel at "how wrong the polls were," I hope you will remember what I told you about actually analysing what you've been told rather than merely believing what you were told. Everyone, even myself, has bias. In all things, seek the truth.
Either I will be discredited, or almost everyone you've been listening to will be discredited.
Virginia will reveal the bias, and whomever wins Virginia early in the night will also take Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. There's a slightly more leftward bias in NH, WI and PA. NC is already in-the-bag for Romney... I have no idea why anyone calls it a swing state. I'd say the same for NV for Obama... in the bag for O there.
Remember my post for four days ;) It's NOT long odds Romney will win. I have him at better than 50%, and more like 75% after re-weighting as people now identify, and accounting for undecideds historical trend, plus "voter enthusiasm" measures which sharply go against the current president.
The only poll that matters is the vote, but know that many polls are designed to influence public opinion rather than find the actual truth. With some scrutiny, however, it can still be found.
I figured out who CU is...I've done a little homework...saying the CU model "has never been wrong", is pretty bold. I believe 2012 is the first "prediction" this model has ever made. The partial-truth of your statement is that when tested against data from previous election years, back to 1980, it would have made the right predictions, but that is also a little misleading, since the model was actually created using all those election years as the data to build predictions on, in other words, it had to get the right results because the actual results are what it's predictive capacity is modeled on. I'm not stumping for anyone, but it is disturbing to me when untruths are spewed in a piece attempting to sound authoritative and academic.
From the CU presidential prediction model:
"CU professors Michael Berry and Ken Bickers have never been wrong in their presidential picks since they started their method of prognostication back in 1980. No other forecaster can make that claim."
They first picked Reagan over Carter in 1980. This is not a back-tested model, but a model that has accurately predicted the future for the following years: 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008.
They are 8 for 8. There is no untruth here - if uncovered I have no pride in admitting I'm wrong. This is not the first time the model has made a prediction, and it is not a back-tested model that started this year.
I'd post the link but it will blacklist the comment. Search for these gentlemen's names and see if you can tell me where I'm wrong about this ;)
Some of the stations have shown clips of Romney's predatory investing strategies. At first I thought it was a story about Boesky.
The average of polls here have O ahead 7 points.
It changes every day but the trend shows a slide over the last week. Same in our senate race.
I think the market sells off until tuesday close.
Wed open up if R wins.
It's much easier for an incumbent to be re-elected than a new candidate to be re-elected. Gas is cheap and unemployment is going down (yeah I know the numbers don't count the people who gave up).
Sure the deficit has ballooned, but the average voter doesn't care about that. The average voter wants a job, a house, and cheap gas. And don't talk about privatizing SS and Medicare, that really gets people riled up. (Ryan was a poor choice and doomed Romney)
Quote is from Jim Sinclair:
"If Obama wins, Bernanke will continue QE as normal, secure in his job. If Romney wins, Bernanke will increase QE in an attempt to keep his job. Either way, the printing press rolls on devaluing in the dollar and increasing the book price of hard assets. Markets know this. Knowing something in a market is a strong motivator.
There is NO scenario short of an election coup d'état of congress that can stop the presses."