DarkSteven
Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008 Status: offline
|
The predictive mechanism is ridiculous. It simply measures Obama's strength as a function of the overall US economy. It doesn't take into account Romney's lack of popularity, nor does it account for the fact that some voters, myself included, consider the GOP more responsible for the lousy economy than Obama. Here are a few quotes from the Denver Post's article that show how bad the model is: "The analysis asserts Romney will win every one of 13 swing states except Nevada, New Mexico and Michigan." Nobody believes that will be the case. Every analysis and poll I've read gives Obama more than just three. "The researchers also assert that their economic-based model, which they developed after the 2008 election, would have correctly predicted the outcome of every presidential race since 1980." Translation: the model breaks down with data before 1980. Note that the input data is easily obtainable for data reaching before the 1960s, so that's a lot of data that doesn't work. Also, note that the model predicts ONLY win/lose and not the margins. If it could predict margins. I'd have a lot more faith in it. I could throw together a crude curve fit that would be about as accurate. "According to the analysis, which Bickers said the pair would update in September when new economic data arrives, Obama will only garner 218 electoral votes, well less than the 270 needed to win." Again, this is far worse for Obama than every poll done to date. It's not credible.
_____________________________
"You women.... The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs... Quit fretting. We men love you."
|