U of Colorado Electoral Model Wrong

[Sardondi]

You will be excused for not knowing that in August a couple of professors from the University of Colorado system announced that their Electoral College computer model showed that Romney would be a big winner, 320 electoral votes to 218 for Obama. Ordinarily one might have expected this to have made AP and the usual leading press outlets. But the story went afoul of The Narrative of "Obama Wins", so it barely made a splash in the news reported by the mainstream media, otherwise known as the Ministry of Information.

Maybe it was just too big a swing to credit. But these professors apparently have come up with a very impressive model which uses a whole series of economic indicators for each state. It has proven accurate for every election since 1980. Now these guys weren't around predicting back then, but as one way of testing the accuracy of their model they retroactively applied the criteria to the economic numbers of those elections, and it correctly spit out the winner of each election in the last eight [8] elections. As I said, impressive.

But they were wrong this time. They had to announce their error the other day. It seems their Electoral College count needs to be revised - upward for Romney, downward for Obama. Now they say Romney takes 330 votes in the Electoral College, and Obama only 208. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

330 to 208. That would be a solid win. Let's see what kind of surprises get dropped.

[Pragmier]

Here's their study recently published. It's their first prediction as this is a new model; if correct it will be very impressive.

[Sardondi]

Here, kid. Take this $5 and go get a milkshake - you're stepping on my lines.....

[ItsOver]

Here, kid. Take this $5 and go get a milkshake - you're stepping on my lines.....

  Good one, Sardondi.  I guess I was one of the few that somehow heard about the model in August.  Driving around today, with Limbaugh on for background noise, I heard him mention the update.  Kind of sounds like the sophisticated computer modeling version of "It's the economy, stupid."

[Pragmier]

Don't know if it's irony or poetic justice or what that Obama's debacle happened in Colorado.

[Sardondi]

The professors who did this computer model have now said there's a 77% probability that Romney will win the national popular vote. http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

But gaining more total votes nationwide is really irrelevant, since it is the states a candidate wins which determines how many of the vital electoral votes he earns. Thus winning the popular vote is not a guarantee of election since it's possible to still lose the electoral vote. But only four presidents have been elected while losing the popular vote, so winning it definitely is the best and easiest way to the White House. And winning the national popular vote is a good indicator that the sentiment in favor of that candidate is so wide spread that he will win enough states to capture the 271 electoral votes necessary for election. So it's definitely good news for Romney.

[PB the Deplorable]

... winning the popular vote is not a guarantee of election since it's possible to still lose the electoral vote. But only four presidents have been elected while losing the popular vote...

Most recently in 2000 when W Bush lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

This year the Electoral College appears to favor Obama and it is very possible for Romney to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.  If that happens look for the D's to end their attempt to revise the Electoral College process in favor of a direct vote.

[Sardondi]

...
This year the Electoral College appears to favor Obama and it is very possible for Romney to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.  If that happens look for the D's to end their attempt to revise the Electoral College process in favor of a direct vote.

Gore made an attack on the electoral College within the last two weeks, calling on America to abandon it as an outmoded practice. I predict his pose as the outraged man of principle he assumed while making his demand to destroy the Electoral College will disappear forever into the mists of forgotten history the instant it looks like Obama could lose the people but win the states.

[Pragmier]

I'd like to see a serious public critique of our voting systems but good luck with that now that it's a Dem/Rep duopoly. Proportional and rank voting deserve consideration and study; they might alleviate some of this paralysing hyper-partisanship.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'd like to see much of the power and and wealth drained from the Federal government and returned to us at the state and personal level, the way the Founders intended.  The Federal gov would be limited to the things they were supposed to be doing - diplomacy, military, setting the rules for interstate commerce, national courts, things we can't do at the state level...

There wouldn't be any need to fight over all that power and wealth being sucked toward DC - it just wouldn't be there to fight over.

[onan]

I'd like to see much of the power and and wealth drained from the Federal government and returned to us at the state and personal level, the way the Founders intended.  The Federal gov would be limited to the things they were supposed to be doing - diplomacy, military, setting the rules for interstate commerce, national courts, things we can't do at the state level...

There wouldn't be any need to fight over all that power and wealth being sucked toward DC - it just wouldn't be there to fight over.

I do not completely disagree with this... I am not real clear on how I think monies should be directed towards infrastructure. What I do know however is a majority of states, mostly red states would flounder economically under your suggestion.

[PB the Deplorable]

I do not completely disagree with this... I am not real clear on how I think monies should be directed towards infrastructure. What I do know however is a majority of states, mostly red states would flounder economically under your suggestion.

Fed income taxes would disappear and be replaced by tarriffs on goods dumped here by countries like China and other places big business has exported our jobs to, or maybe Fed taxes would remain and just be reduced to some  nominal amount.  The states would have to raise taxes to fund the things they wanted to keep that the Federal govt did previously.  Other things would be done privately and those costs passed on to customers - I'm thinking things like food inspections.  The Post Office, Patent Office, etc would have to become self sufficient.  Big Pharma would fund the CDC.  So much absolute waste would be eliminated, esp redundancies betwen Fed departments and between the Feds and the states.

I'd bring all the soldiers home from everywhere, we are in what, 100 different places around the world.  Maybe keep a few forward bases, but thats about it.  We don't need to be doing everything everywhere, no one seems to appreciate it anyway.  Terrorism might even go down.

If it were up to me, I'd end Social Security - except for means tested people age 50 and above now and up who couldn't make it without it.  Just because the last several generations agreed to fund their previous generations retirement doesn't mean we have to, but that's just me - no political party would ever try to do that (they'll just wait for it to collapse instead).

I'm not someone that believes in no govt, I just think we are way off track now.

[Pragmier]

Other things would be done privately and those costs passed on to customers - I'm thinking things like food inspections.

I'm very leery of industries policing themselves. How would privately funded food inspections work?

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm very leery of industries policing themselves. How would privately funded food inspections work?

First, take a look at govt regulators, just a few egregious examples that made the news - and who knows what else goes on we don't know about:

The oil leak in the Gulf - govt employee regulators on the rig didn't prevent that.  The PG&E gas pipe leak that blew up that whole neighborhood just outside San Francisco - the govt employee regulators didn't prevent that.  The 2008 financial crisis - nothing is as regulated as banks and financial institutions (unless it's pharmaceuticals) - all those govt employee regulators didn't prevent that.  Too often we hear of some scandal involving govt employee regulators being lax or taking kickbacks that ended up working for the companies they were formerly regulating.  So Fed and State govt regulators are no guarantee of anything - not competence, not lack of corruption.  I'd like to think they are almost all very good and honest, but the truth is not all are.

And it wouldn't be self-regulation.  There would be companies - certified themselves with certified and trained people - whose sole business would be to regulate, say, meat.  The meat industry would pay them to come in and do whatever it is they do and put their seal of approval on products sold for consumers to see - something similar to what Underwriters Lab does for electronic devicess.  If there was a problem with the meat, the media would report what happened and who was to blame, and unlike now when govt inspectors fail, that company would go out of business or close to it. 

None of this is ever going to be perfect, but I trust self interest (Adam Smith's invisible hand) to do it's thing.  Private regulators would get the job done right out of self interest.  Of course there would be bad apples in any system, but the way it is now, it's really hard to get rid of them.

I would imagine there are areas where privatizing regulators just wouldn't work - nuclear reactors come to mind - but I think it would in a lot of areas, and better and cheaper.

[HAL 9000]

I'm very leery of industries policing themselves.

Lawyers police themselves. Oh wait... maybe that's not a good example

[onan]

The oil leak in the Gulf - govt employee regulators on the rig didn't prevent that.  The PG&E gas pipe leak that blew up that whole neighborhood just outside San Francisco - the govt employee regulators didn't prevent that.  The 2008 financial crisis - nothing is as regulated as banks and financial institutions (unless it's pharmaceuticals) - all those govt employee regulators didn't prevent that.  Too often we hear of some scandal involving govt employee regulators being lax or taking kickbacks that ended up working for the companies they were formerly regulating.  So Fed and State govt regulators are no guarantee of anything - not competence, not lack of corruption.  I'd like to think they are almost all very good and honest, but the truth is not all are.

What you don't tell there is how the regulative department had been slashed by the bush admin. And had one of his cronies placed in charge. What you dont tell is how the federal regulation for banking was gutted during the bush admin and the number of attorneys for the bankers outnumber regulators 20 to one.

Haliburton had tested the cement and knew it was not effective at that depth.

You always blame the government and not the fuckin free unregulated market that allows these fuckers to continue their shit. Fuck Exxon still hasn't made all reparations for the oil spill in alaska.

[Pragmier]

There would be companies - certified themselves with certified and trained people - whose sole business would be to regulate, say, meat.  The meat industry would pay them to come in and do whatever it is they do ...

I'm a certified real estate appraiser and considered somewhat of a "regulator" to ensure buyers/sellers/lenders receive an unbiased valuation that also benefits the public good. That's the theory.

But here's the rub - because its a free market, we rely on one of the participants to pay us (typically the lender). On the surface you'd think that all parties would want our service but in fact we're considered the "bad guys" that more often than not kill the deal. So banks, because they want to close loans, would often black list appraisers they considered coming in at low values (read: good appraisers). Too much honesty got me unemployed. On the flip side, appraisers that rubber-stamped reports stood to make a lot of money. Market participants placed greater value on short-term profit over long-term security. This was partially responsible for the real estate crash and collaterization mess.

During the last few years the gov't has tried to help appraisers remain independent - this resulted in legislation that set up a "firewall" between parties. It did that somewhat, but like any bureaucracy it made the system inefficient and more costly. Here's a dirty secret - if you've closed on property and paid for an appraisal, as much as 40% of that fee may have gone to the bank or 3rd parties that had nothing to do with the actual appraisal work. Lenders have resisted itemizing your closing statement fees.

In the end the industry is still trying to solve the appraisal issue. Sorry but I got no solutions 

[Juan]

Does anyone know the details of how Underwriters Labs works?  That seems to have worked for electrical appliances, etc.

Of course, I once knew an old products liability lawyer who said there's no consumer protection like a good lawsuit.  In all the examples given above, how many of them are exempt from lawsuits by ordinary people?

[Pragmier]

You got that right! Everyone's getting sued now. Banks are so scared shitless the pendulum's swung the other way - they're looking for excuses to deny loans. Now they harass me when I DO make value LOL.

[PB the Deplorable]

What you don't tell there is how the regulative department had been slashed by the bush admin. And had one of his cronies placed in charge. What you dont tell is how the federal regulation for banking was gutted during the bush admin and the number of attorneys for the bankers outnumber regulators 20 to one.

Haliburton had tested the cement and knew it was not effective at that depth.

You always blame the government and not the fuckin free unregulated market that allows these fuckers to continue their shit. Fuck Exxon still hasn't made all reparations for the oil spill in alaska.

I don't 'always' blame the goverment, but it is supposed to be their job to enforce rules and follow up with prosecutions.  For all the money we send them, are they doing a good job of it?  Too often they don't.  Instead they let lobbyists write and re-write the laws in exchange for bribes called campaign contributions, and kickbacks in the form of 'entertainment'.  The politicians in DC for the most part spend their entire lives in government and have no skills or background other than getting themselves elected or appointed, keeping their jobs, and plumping up their bank accounts.  It's no surprise they can't or won't put out regs that actually address problems and work (see the monstrosity called Sarbanes-Oxley).  We rely on these people much too much - we give them power and tax money and neither seem to be used appropriately enough of the time.

Look at the debacle of 2008.  This was caused by too much debt - household debt, morgages on houses that were overvalued, corporate debt, Fed/St/Local debt, foreign debt.  Then Goldman Sachs takes sub-prime loans, slices them up, repackages them as AAA mortgage backed securities, and sells them, making millions if not billions.  When the financial system teetered, other institutions found out about what they were doing, became suspicious of the entire market of liquid funds, and wouldn't buy any debt or re-packaged securites from anyone, freezing the market. 

A good start for prosecuting criminals would have been for Holder at Justice and Obama to prosecute execs at Goldman.  Didn't happen - they even announced they were not going to do so a couple months back.  Not only was it wrong, it was bad politics - had they gone after them instead, and talked about it on the campaign trail, they probably would doing much better in the polls now.

The answer is to drain the swamp - by taking away their cash and power.  I'm sure people will differ on the details and what needs to go, and what needs to go first.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Haliburton had tested the cement and knew it was not effective at that depth...

Do you recall where you heard that?  I have a hard time believing anyone would be aware it wouldn't work, know they would lose much of their oil from a leak, know it would pollute and the pressure at that depth would make it nearly impossible to stop the leak, know it would be all over the news, and knpow they would be blamed, then do it anyway.  This sounds like another unsubstanciated claim by one of these environmental pressure groups that don't mind lying about what really happened, but I could be wrong.

I agree they should have done a complete job on research ahead of time, known beyond a shadow of a doubt that whatever they were going to do would not leak, taken extra special precautions and had redundencies built in.  It's been reported these regulators specifically, and oil and gas regulators in general, are too close to the companies they regulate, and even get jobs with them after earning a full govt pension. 

If it were me, everyone involved at Halliburton and the other oil companies on that rig, AND those regulators - everyone that did know and everyone that should have known - would be in jail right now awaiting their trial.  No one is prosecuting them either.  It really makes me wonder why we even have regulations and are paying for regulators.  Maybe regulators for the regulators and another level of salaries, benefits, and pensions?

[onan]

I get it, we are all tired of paying too much in taxes and getting less in return.

But I also get that "starving the beast" is a tactic used for decades.

It doesn't take a genius to see that our regulatory commissions have been under funded and no one has bothered to consider what that means. But we do know that government is bad.

The number of inspectors working in the Gulf of Mexico was far short of the number needed to effectively oversee safety concerns. And it goes on and on. Remember the last mine collapse where, what was it approx 30 men died due to safety violations? At the same time the head guy in the government regulatory office to oversee safety was a recently former oil ceo.

To where I heard about Halliburton and the cement. I heard it on the news. The info I find on the web may not be to your liking, but I hope you read it none the less.

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/bp_covered_up_blow-out_two_years_prior_to_deadly_deepwater_horizon_spill/

[PB the Deplorable]

... I hope you read it none the less.

I never know quie what to make of articles like this.  I can easily believe company execs are stupid - or at least do stupid and arrogant things at times, that various people and companies involved will deny and point fingers at each other, that they will circumvent rules and lean on regulators and employees, try to do a coverup and enlist powerful officials to help them out, that they will make mistakes and be unrealistically optomistic.  It's hard to understand people knowing that a certain procedure previously failed in spactacular fashion yet did the same thing somewhere else.  Who does this.

If it happened like this, is it ego or some sense of entitlement?  It costs them money and puts them at risk. 

I wonder why people aren't in jail - are they so powerful that even the D's back down when they are in power (I can see the R's doing so, but the D's?)?

But whether it was done knowingly as this implies, or if it was truly an accident, there should have been either a criminal investigation or a Congressional one, or both, and the book should have been thrown at everyone responsible.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

I never know quie what to make of articles like this.  I can easily believe company execs are stupid - or at least do stupid and arrogant things at times, that various people and companies involved will deny and point fingers at each other, that they will circumvent rules and lean on regulators and employees, try to do a coverup and enlist powerful officials to help them out, that they will make mistakes and be unrealistically optomistic.  It's hard to understand people knowing that a certain procedure previously failed in spactacular fashion yet did the same thing somewhere else.  Who does this.

If it happened like this, is it ego or some sense of entitlement?  It costs them money and puts them at risk. 

I wonder why people aren't in jail - are they so powerful that even the D's back down when they are in power (I can see the R's doing so, but the D's?)?

But whether it was done knowingly as this implies, or if it was truly an accident, there should have been either a criminal investigation or a Congressional one, or both, and the book should have been thrown at everyone responsible.

It has nothing to do with D's & R's.  It's all about the $'s.  It's the party that's always in power because it backs both sides.

[Juan]

I can easily believe company execs are stupid - or at least do stupid and arrogant things at times,

I used to think that execs would do stupid things, but not insanely stupid things.  Then the company I used to work for submitted a budget, in this poor economy, that required more than a 10% increase in sales to break even.  When sales actually fell, the company had to fire almost half the employees.  So, at this point, I believe that corporate execs will make decisions that reach any order of stupidity.

A good book about the housing crisis is "Reckless Endangerment" written by a business reporter for a mainstream outlet - the New York Times, IIRC.  It blames Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs, politicians such as Newt Gingrich, the investment banking firms such as Goldman Sachs, mortgage companies and the investment ratings services such as Standard and Poor's. It's a fascinating read that puts the blame on a large number of very greedy people.
Here's a link
http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Corruption-Armageddon-ebook/dp/B004H1TM1G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350641841&sr=8-2&keywords=reckless+endangerment+by+gretchen+morgenson

[Sardondi]

I used to think that execs would do stupid things, but not insanely stupid things.  Then the company I used to work for submitted a budget, in this poor economy, that required more than a 10% increase in sales to break even.  When sales actually fell, the company had to fire almost half the employees.  So, at this point, I believe that corporate execs will make decisions that reach any order of stupidity.

A good book about the housing crisis is "Reckless Endangerment" written by a business reporter for a mainstream outlet - the New York Times, IIRC.  It blames Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs, politicians such as Newt Gingrich, the investment banking firms such as Goldman Sachs, mortgage companies and the investment ratings services such as Standard and Poor's. It's a fascinating read that puts the blame on a large number of very greedy people.
Here's a link
http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Corruption-Armageddon-ebook/dp/B004H1TM1G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350641841&sr=8-2&keywords=reckless+endangerment+by+gretchen+morgenson

Which was the beauty of the free market, because in a  free market, which of course assumes no government intervention, insane decisions are punished in proportion to the degree of insanity.

But then Obama made crony capitalism into an art form, in which those companies which themselves or their executives contributed to Obama/DNC were mysteriously rewarded with significant governmental benefits, whether in the form of actual bailouts, grant of huge "incentives", Obamacare waivers or other relief from executive fiat which tended to benefit those executives directly.

So the insertion of the President into the equation makes a mockery of a free market, and it can no longer operate to correct and handle "insane decisions". Then those companies whose executives made insane or even fraudulent decisions are immunized from their insanity - if they were slick/brazen enough to generously contribute to the Friends of Obama club. Then we find out they're safe from the real world. And it's the taxpayers who pay the freight, not the executives and investors in the businesses which were so foolish as to hire those executives who made insane decisions.

[Pragmier]

It has nothing to do with D's & R's.  It's all about the $'s.  It's the party that's always in power because it backs both sides.

They got each other's back.


Michael Moore Told to 'Cool It' on Senator Dodd

For Moore haters just watch the first min on Senator Dodd.

[onan]

I find it incomprehensible that anyone thinks the free market has any motivation to do things "right". The supposition that competition will keep everyone "above board" is laughable. People that place profit as the main goal will always back door safety and the environment unless held accountable. Think of lake Erie in the 80's or the Hudson river. Isn't that the river that caught fire?

Competition will hear a clarion call to exploit anything to gain the most profit. If one company finds a way to back door the environment all others will follow suit.

[Sardondi]

I find it incomprehensible that anyone thinks the free market has any motivation to do things "right". The supposition that competition will keep everyone "above board" is laughable. People that place profit as the main goal will always back door safety and the environment unless held accountable. Think of lake Erie in the 80's or the Hudson river. Isn't that the river that caught fire?

Competition will hear a clarion call to exploit anything to gain the most profit. If one company finds a way to back door the environment all others will follow suit.

The free market, unrestrained by the leavening of individual and societal morality, could give a rat's ass about "right". My argument is that enlightened self-interest of free-market principles almost always provides for a better outcome than government intervention. But I also believe hyper-capitalism shorn of morality is but naked greed, which leads to the kind of excesses we all know. The answer is a culture inculcated in personal responsibility and morality...which the West is doing everything in its power to destroy. 

[onan]

The free market, unrestrained by the leavening of individual and societal morality, could give a rat's ass about "right". My argument is that enlightened self-interest of free-market principles almost always provides for a better outcome than government intervention. But I also believe hyper-capitalism shorn of morality is but naked greed, which leads to the kind of excesses we all know. The answer is a culture inculcated in personal responsibility and morality...which the West is doing everything in its power to destroy.

Where is this "enlightened" free market located? I do believe that capitalism has provided benefits to others.

Like it or not societal morality is not something we will be rid of. I don't think the average guy in the west (I think you mean the US, but not sure) is anti-capitalism. I also don't think most in US are anti-socialism. Free markets have brought us cheaper and more than likely more sophisticated products than other models. At the same time those markets have exploited those where the resources are found, be they manpower or raw materials. I don't expect a system to have any regards, the people implementing the system should, first and foremost.

If I had to choose between exxon and the government I would choose our government every time.