Sunday, October 28, 2012

Update: Reliable Model Put Romney as President

This reliable models from the University of Colorado is very accurate. It predicted the winner of each election since 1980. In fact, it got the election in 2000 correct with Gore winning the popular vote and Bush won the electoral college. Even though the other polls show it nearly a tie, majority of all the polls show Romney significantly improving. We are 10 days to the national elections. At this rate, Romney will be the eventual winner.

(NewAmerican) The forecast of the 2012 presidential election by Michael Berry and Kenneth Bicker, political science professors at the University of Colorado, that was released in August has been updated with more current economic information, and the result is the same: a Romney win as the economy continues to falter.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency, and Berry and Bicker are projecting that Governor Mitt Romney will win 330 of the 538 votes up for grabs in November, while President Obama will receive just 208, down from the 213 they predicted in August.

It’s the economy. The model developed by the two professors has an uncanny track record, correctly predicting each presidential election since 1980, often with startling accuracy. In their paper originally published in August by the American Political Science Association [APSA] along with 12 other studies, it differed in its predictive “model” by looking at two essential pieces of the economic puzzle: changes in real per capita income — that is, net, after-tax, spendable income — and unemployment rates. But their model doesn't just rely on the national numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has been heavily criticized recently for its inexplicable drop in the unemployment rate while real jobs in the economy aren't even reaching maintenance levels. It relies also on state-by-state analyses of those same factors, which appear to be more reliable. As the professors note:

In contrast to these other Electoral College models [published by the APSA], our model includes measures of change in real per capita income, as well as national and state unemployment figures.

Accounting for both changes in personal income and unemployment provides a more robust approximation of state economic well-being and, thus, serves to model the impact of retrospective evaluations of the incumbent party's stewardship of the economy…

The data incorporated in our model are regularly released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the US Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the US Department of Labor. This gives us high-quality, predictably available data to use as the feedstock for our model.

This is how politically correct political science professors cover themselves: just in case the national data get a little dicey, the numbers from the states are more predictive:

The heart of our forecast centers on the third set of independent variables. We use two basic measures of economic conditions: unemployment levels and change in real income per capita. Unemployment is measured in two capacities. First is the national unemployment rate. The second is the corresponding unemployment rate in each state…

Our third measure of economic well-being taps the extent to which people have more or less real disposable income at their discretion during the current incumbent's presidential term. The measure included in our model is the percentage change in each state in real per capita non-farm income from the fourth quarter of the prior presidential election year to the first quarter of the current election year.

The unstated but important underlying assumption by the professors is almost an iron law of politics: People will vote their pocketbooks. People are hurting, and that’s hurting Obama....

If Obama Cant Protect 4 Americans, He Cant Protect a Country

Hillary Clinton said that Obama would fail the 3AM phone call if he became president. Voters were warned and ignored Clintons plea. Now, we have 4 dead Americans because voters decided to elect an inexperienced politician. I blame those idiot voters who put a poser in the oval office. Critics are saying that there was a cover-up. If there was a cover-up, it was used to hide the inadequacies of an inexperience president. In reality, Obama is incompetent to serve as a commander-in-chief. If Obama is unable to protect 4 Americans, what makes you think he can protect a country?

(FoxNews) President Obama declined to answer directly whether a CIA annex was denied urgent requests for military assistance during the deadly attacks last month on U.S. outposts in Libya.

The president did not give a yes-or-no answer Friday when asked pointedly whether the Americans under attack in Benghazi, Libya, were denied requests for help during the attack.

Fox News has also learned that a request from the CIA annex for backup was later denied.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

4 in 10 Americans Have $500 Or Less In Savings

In an economy brought on by Obama, are you surprise? More Americans are poorer under Obama. Obama is the welfare king and the food stamp king! The president leveled the playing field by making more white people as poor as the black people. Does America really want another 4 more years of Obama's stupidity?

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A survey of about 1,100 Americans finds that more than 4-in-10 respondents admit they don’t have more than $500 in readily accessible savings.

The survey is a kind of departure for, a website that compares credit card deals. Not respondents all were poor. Some had big houses, big mortgages or 401(k)s, but still no more than five Benjamins to rub together right now.

In addition to the emergency savings question, the survey found that 54% of respondents don’t have a savings plan in place, and 45% are afraid they’ll never be able to save.

Friday, October 19, 2012

The Choice is Clear...OBAMA NEEDS TO GO!

The difference is very clear. One is a pessimist and the other and optimist. One is a socialist and the other a capitalist. Obama must leave the presidency NOW!!!!  

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama presidency

Obama is making everybody poorer in America. In order to control the voters, Obama needs to control them by making these suckers dependent on the government. This is not what our founding fathers wanted.

(WashingtonTimes)Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday.

Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011, and state spending on those programs brought the total to $1.03 trillion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Budget Committee.

That makes welfare the single biggest chunk of federal spending — topping Social Security and basic defense spending.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

There is NO Global Warming. It Ended 16 Years Ago

This is no global warming. It is a money making business that benefits the government and the United Nations. The proof is true because the media is not talking about it.

(Daily Mail) The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Reliable Election Model, Romney WILL be President

This election model is very accurate and has predicted the past several decades. Even with their caveat, Romney will win in November! YAY!

(Colorado.Edu) An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Of the 13 battleground states identified in the model, the only one to change in the update was New Mexico -- now seen as a narrow victory for Romney. The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Obama is predicted to win Michigan and Nevada.

The state-by-state economic data used in their model have been available since 1980. When these data were applied retroactively to each election year, the model correctly classifies all presidential election winners, including the two years when independent candidates ran strongly: 1980 and 1992. It also correctly estimates the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the election through the Electoral College.

The authors also provided caveats. Their model had an average error rate of five states and 28 Electoral College votes. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall in an unexpected direction due to factors not included in the model.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Unlike Unemployment Rate, Obama Cant Fake Gas Prices

Even though the unemployment rate gave us a bogus figure, there is no way the Obama Administration can manipulate the price of gas at the pumps. The price of gas remains extremely high as the president support funding a bankrupt green technology sector.

(CNBC) Retail gasoline prices, already at the highest levels on average since July 2008, are likely to continue to climb this month as refinery and pipeline problems overshadow weakness in U.S. consumer demand.

The national average for regular unleaded is now at $3.79 a gallon, basically on par with where pump prices were last Friday.

The cash market for gasoline — which sets the price for retail gasoline prices that consumers pay — in California soared $1.15 cents in 9 days to $4.24 a gallon on Thursday.

In other states, such as Mississippi, the statewide average is $3.52. Here in New York, gasoline averages at $4.13 per gallon. California tops the list with an average of $4.49 per gallon.

Historically weak demand is the main theme for gasoline prices at the end of the year. The final three months of the year are the lowest for gasoline demand and prices come off, says CNBC contributor and trader Anthony Grisanti of GRZ Energy. "But we could be paying the highest gasoline price for the fourth quarter than we've ever paid before."

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Romney Calls Obama Out and Obama Gets Exposed

Great Video!! A fantastic summary how Romney destroyed Obama in the 1st debate.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Lets Not Forget that Obama is the Food Stamp President

Obama is making America poor and putting more people into welfare. Putting more people dependent on the government will guarantee the votes for the incumbent.

(Manhattan Institute) Three years after the end of the 2007–09 recession, which officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, 47 million people each month are using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the beginning of the recession, fewer than one in 10 Americans received SNAP benefits. Nearly 15 percent of Americans now use SNAP benefits, formerly called food stamps, a program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This translates to more than one in 7 Americans currently using SNAP benefits, a record non-emergency high.[2]

There is much concern surrounding this unprecedented increase in America's SNAP program, which began in 2008. Food stamp participation has always increased during a recession and in the initial stages of a recovery. The purpose of this report is to determine whether the recent increase in SNAP participation is comparable to increases during other recent recessions. Our results demonstrate that levels seen since the end of this recession are far higher than in prior recoveries (see Figure 1). While the 36 month periods following the recessions of the early 1980s saw decreases in food stamp usage, the recessions of the early 1990s and in 2001 saw increases between 1 and 2 percent over the same period, in comparison with an increase of 3.5 percent following the recession ending in 2009. In addition to the difficult job market, this is because of changes in the program that began in October 2008, including expansion of benefits and elimination of the cap for child care expenses.

Debate, Obama Looked Pathetic. Romney Won!

If Obama had a great plan, the president would have used it 3 and 1/2 years ago. Keep in mind Obama failed with unemployment, failed in rising deficit, failed in foreign policy, and failed the American people.

(Washington Times) Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter, President Obama flailed all around the debate stage last night. He was stuttering, nervous and petulant. It was like he had been called in front of the principal after goofing around for four years and blowing off all his homework.

Not since Jimmy Carter faced Ronald Reagan has the U.S. presidency been so embarrassingly represented in public. Actually, that’s an insult to Jimmy Carter.