Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says
August 22, 2012 •

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.
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 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.
“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. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”
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.
The study will be published this month in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. It will be among about a dozen election prediction models, but one of only two to focus on the Electoral College.
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, the authors 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.
Accordingly -- and depending largely on which party is in the White House at the time -- each factor can either help or hurt the major parties disproportionately.
Their results show that “the apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said. The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”
In an examination of other factors, the authors found that none of the following had any statistically significant effect on whether a state ultimately went for a particular candidate: The location of a party’s national convention; the home state of the vice president; or the partisanship of state governors.
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, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Bickers said.
In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9 percent of the vote to Obama’s 48.1 percent, again with only the two major parties considered.
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. A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall an unexpected direction.
“As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict,” Berry said.
Election prediction models “suggest that presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy,” Bickers said. “It’s not about gaffes, political commercials or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy.”

once again...it 's NOT a question of color...it's a question of class...

I guess " sleep " is now considered work...

The imperial Presidency has overturned Congress and the law again. Not content to stop at rewriting immigration policy, education policy and energy policy, yesterday, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the Clinton-era reform. …

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). … The whole point was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

This reform was very successful. TANF became the only welfare program (out of more than 70) that promoted greater self-reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose. Recipients were required to perform at least 20–30 hours per week of work or job preparation activities in exchange for the cash benefit.

Now, Obama’s HHS is claiming that it can waive those work requirements that are at the heart of the law, and without Congress’s consent.

it's not a question of color...it's a question of class...

My #1...Groucho Marx...

labor participation rate...

New monthly unemployment numbers are due to be released Friday for June, but growing evidence suggests the official jobless rate doesn’t tell the real story.

Most attention will focus on what the Department of Labor calls its U3, or official, unemployment number. That currently is 8.2 percent, up from 8.1 percent in April. Another key number is the U6 rate, which also includes the “underemployed,” people working part-time but who want full-time work. That stands at 14.8 percent, up from 14.5 percent.

Yet economists point out that both numbers are being skewed by another factor: More people are simply dropping out of the labor market. The labor participation rate fell to 63.6 percent in April, the worst since 1981, and the number of people out of the labor force is a record 88.4 million. If the participation rate were the same as January 2009, experts say, today's U3 jobless rate would be 11 percent.

most of is list is more and more government...President Reagan once said..."Government isn't the solution...Government is the problem"...he also said..."The nine most terrifying words in the English language are...I’m from the government and I’m here to help"

for solutions...do yourself a favor and check out Milton Friedman...also...it's very hard for the economy to grow when almost 400,000 people a week...sign up for unemployment...and...95,000 homes a month go under ( including mine )...my company went under in 2010...I worked there 17 years making six figures...and now...I make $11.00 an hour, but I have Blue Cross / Blue Shield...

once again...

#1 Today there are 88 million working age Americans that are not employed and that are not looking for employment. That is an all-time record high.

#2 When Barack Obama was elected, the percentage of unemployed Americans that had been out of work for more than 52 weeks was less than 15%. Today, it is above 30%.

#3 There are 1.2 million fewer jobs in America today than there were when Barack Obama was inaugurated.

#4 When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

#5 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is hovering close to an all-time record high.

#6 During the Obama administration, worker health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent.

#7 Since Barack Obama has been president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by 90 percent.

#8 Since Barack Obama has been president, home values in the United States have declined by another 13 percent.

#9 Under Barack Obama, new home sales in the U.S. set a brand new all-time record low in 2009, they set a brand new all-time record low again in 2010, and they set a brand new all-time record low once again during 2011.

#10 Since Barack Obama took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen by more than 6 million.

#11 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million.

#12 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#13 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" is now sitting at an all-time high.

#14 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1700 an ounce.

#15 Since Barack Obama became president, the size of the U.S. national debt has increased by 44 percent.

#16 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.

#17 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#18 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration....when Kardashian became president unemployment stood at 6.5%...he wanted the job and has made everything worse...and lastly...HE INHERITED A TRIPLE A RATING !!!

#1 Today there are 88 million working age Americans that are not employed and that are not looking for employment. That is an all-time record high.

#2 When Barack Obama was elected, the percentage of unemployed Americans that had been out of work for more than 52 weeks was less than 15%. Today, it is above 30%.

#3 There are 1.2 million fewer jobs in America today than there were when Barack Obama was inaugurated.

#4 When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

#5 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is hovering close to an all-time record high.

#6 During the Obama administration, worker health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent.

#7 Since Barack Obama has been president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by 90 percent.

#8 Since Barack Obama has been president, home values in the United States have declined by another 13 percent.

#9 Under Barack Obama, new home sales in the U.S. set a brand new all-time record low in 2009, they set a brand new all-time record low again in 2010, and they set a brand new all-time record low once again during 2011.

#10 Since Barack Obama took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen by more than 6 million.

#11 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million.

#12 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#13 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" is now sitting at an all-time high.

#14 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1700 an ounce.

#15 Since Barack Obama became president, the size of the U.S. national debt has increased by 44 percent.

#16 During Barack Obama's first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.

#17 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#18 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration....when Kardashian became president unemployment stood at 6.5%...he wanted the job and has made everything worse...and lastly...HE INHERITED A TRIPLE A RATING !!!

being wealthy is not what's driving down our standard of living...it's caused by too many people in the cart and not enough pulling...half the house holds in this country now receive somekind of government " assistance "...we've become a country of producers and non-producers...NOT the rich and the poor...

1Affordable Care Act: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Public Law 111-148 as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152.
This proposed rule would also amend Medicaid regulations consistent with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, which amended the Act to provide authority for a 5-year duration for certain demonstration projects or waivers under the Act, at the discretion of the Secretary, when they involve individuals dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare benefits.

Several states also have waivers that would allow recipients to exceed the five-year time limit. Moreover, many state waivers guarantee a job after five years or provide for the continuation of benefits if no job is found.

Even without the waivers, few welfare recipients will actually be affected by the time limits. Most welfare recipients use the program for far less than five years and would never fall under the five-year limit. What about the small proportion of hard-core welfare recipients who do remain in the program for more than five years? That is the group that the time limit targeted. Yet, once again, exemptions limit the bill's effectiveness.

For example, the time-limit provision does not apply to about 17 percent of the current welfare caseload: minor children, but not their parents, who are receiving assistance. A substantial portion of that group is children who are U.S. citizens born to noncitizen parents. In addition, states are allowed to exempt up to an additional 20 percent of recipients from the five-year limit for hardship reasons.

Furthermore, the time-limit provision applies to only 4 of the nearly 80 federal welfare programs. A person who exceeds the five-year limit and has her cash benefits cut off would still be eligible for a host of federal welfare benefits, including food stamps; Medicaid; public housing; Supplemental Security Income; the Women, Infants, and Children health and nutrition program; free school lunches; and so on.

ah haaaaaaaaaa...it was 5 years since 1994 when the Republicans forced Clintons hand after he vetoed it twice...but...in ObamaCare...theres'a little provision that once again makes " welfare " an open ended proposition...look it up...

seeing that all appetites are different...let's assume that everyone ate there " fair share " ( God I hate that term )

let's take a look at who really benefits from tax cuts...

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The
bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, the ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day
and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group
still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would
still eat for free. But what about the other six, the
paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3
(33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to eat for free. But once outside
the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got
$10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times
more than me!"

"That's true! !!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should
he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get
all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits
the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat
him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But
when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who
get the most money back from a reduction are those who
paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the
table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in
Europe and the Caribbean.

this ruling will now put President Kardashian in a box...he'll have to defend a 500 billion dollar tax increase on the American people...and...he will have to explain why he insisted that it wasn't a tax but a fee...now that the Supreme Court...has just ruled that it is indeed a tax...

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. — Ben Franklin

I'm from Chicago...well actually the suburbs...(I wouldn't live in the city )...and...I've seen this act for decades...politicians from this state / city...are the most underhanded...corrupt...on the take...deny and accuse bunch you'll ever see...thank God in another 4 months or so...we won't have to watch this c**p anymore...this country...has NEVER been more divided...just like the city of Chicago...

The Rolling Stones 1972 in Chicago...The Exile On Main Street Tour...and...believe it or not...Stevie Wonder was the front band...