It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Romney Selected As Winner By Computer Program - Correct Since 1980

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:00 PM
Two University of Colorado professors have used a computer program to predict the winner of the presidential election correctly since 1980. The professors are Kenneth Bickers of CU's Boulder campus and Michael Berry of CU's Denver campus. And as of October, they project that Romney will earn 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. An increase for Romney of 5 votes since their last prediction in August.

My feelings? I read an article about this some time ago, and it has left me overwhelmingly optimistic that Romney will win. Thus, I just can't shake this article from my thoughts. Will the professors prove to predict the race yet again? I hope so!

Forecasting the 2012 Presidential Election with State-Level Economic Indicators

Nearly all forecast models of US presidential elections provide estimates of the national two-party vote (Campbell 2008). Each of the nine forecasts published in the 2008 forecasting issue of PS: Political Science and Politics made national popular vote total predictions for the major party candidates, while only one provided an expected result in the Electoral College (Klarner 2008). These national vote models are assumed to be reliable forecasts of who is likely to win the general election. In most cases, this assumption is reasonable. It becomes problematic, however, at precisely the point that forecasts are most interesting: when elections are close. In tight elections, national forecasts can and have produced a “winner” different from the actual winner. Consider the forecasts and ultimate outcome of the 2000 election. Each of the 2000 presidential election forecasts predicted vice president Al Gore to win a majority of the two-party popular vote, which he did, but none correctly predicted governor George W. Bush to assume the presidency (Campbell 2001). Never in US history have White House residents been determined through a national popular vote. Presidential elections are decided through contests in the states and the District of Columbia. The forecast model we developed explicitly models the presidential contest based on factors inherent to these 51 jurisdictions. This modeling approach allows us to make a projection of the Electoral College result, which popular vote estimates cannot

CU-Boulder prof's updated forecast still gives win to Mitt Romney

The model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and, they say, it is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. To make their predictions, the professors comb economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

edit on 2-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:04 PM
This is assuming they don't steal it with all their machine tampering, registering illegals, same day registration with no proof of identity etc......

God, I hope you're right.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by elouina

And who says computers are just stupid machines? This one appears to be smarter than most Obama supporters. (Uhm, did I just say that?)

That simulation is very optimistic, just like I am. Go Romney!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by elouina

I really hope Obama wins just so I can come here Wednesday morning and watch all the suicides on this site. LOL.

IMO doesn't matter who wins the agenda will be the same. Who doesn't get that?? Obama was Bush's third term. Whoever wins it will be Bush's fourth.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:38 PM
Nate Silver, InTrade and BetFair all have Obama with a 60% and above chance of winning.

Sam Wang from Princeton's university election consortium gives Obama a 97% chance of winning.

We'll see who's right come Tuesday
edit on 11/2/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/2/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:44 PM
Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert Troll Alert

He's everywhere, He's everywhere.

Take a look.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by elouina

Here is a predicted electoral map...that has a very high success rate too.

As with most things in life...time will tell!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:59 PM
Interesting....Just checked the odds on romney winning 330 votes, and they are suspended at the moment. This typicaly happens when they need to change their odds, which can reflect how many people are betting on it.


posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:03 PM
How many threads does this need?

I understand it is the only piece of information that Romney supporters have to hang on because they are losing in every other electoral projection, but really three threads?

Desperation, it's getting sad.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Taiyed

It has been updated since those articles. Like I said this gives us hope! It has nothing to do with your projected feelings of desperation.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by elouina

When it says "correct since 1980," what did it predict for W's second term? A Bush win? Because that didn't happen. Bush had less votes, but snuck by with the help of the Supreme Court.

I was 6 in 1980, and I've predicted every presidential election correct since I've been alive too! Reagan was a shoe-in, then Bush Sr., and then Clinton roared onto the scene, and then Jr, although his 2nd term was a toss-up, but I can't believe people were actually voting for Kerry.

I think this computer program has had pretty easy choices until now, and this time I DISAGREE with the computer, so one of our perfect records is about to end, LOL!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by elouina

Wouldn't be surprised to find out they use a computer program to actually select the winner in real life...
edit on 2-11-2012 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by coldkidc

Or what about the ultimate stealth computer virus? Also I really don't like the idea of election results being on tiny flash drives that can be palmed.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by elouina

I'll put in my two cents, and that is by following the trends of media : I knew Mitt would be pitt against Obama and it was all set up for Obama to win. Just by the sheer amount of attention that was shown to Mitt from the very beginning, the lack of of democratic candidates ..(I did enjoy Vermon the Supreme:lol
and of of course the "closed door" to third parties. The hysteria about womans' rights, medical care ,,,,,,,,religion, gays, medical benefits, .....etc All in which made Obama *sparkle*. Then occupy Wallstreeet which seemed the opposite of the tea party and it simply intrigued me that the tea party was started by multimillionaires Koch brothers and I wondered who was behind this seemingly oppositional movement.
Then there were weird factors, Stephen Colbert running campaigns against Mitt.... who was certainly getting way too much attention already.

I decided only to share all this drivel because I became convinced that Obama was going to win, and they will make the election seem like a 49-51% win again ...

. But we'll see who was played coming this far as predictions go. If Mitt wins I will say a game well played ...
edit on 3-11-2012 by paleorchid13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:00 AM
Firstly, they have not predicted the election since 1980, they said that their model would have predicted correctly since 1980.

Secondly, this has been ripped to shreds by statisticians.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:06 AM
reply to post by elouina

There is already a thread on this.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:19 AM
Already discussed here

Please use the original thread.


new topics

top topics


log in