Skip to comments.Chapman University predicts Obama election loss
Posted on 12/06/2011 3:34:48 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Chapman Universitys economics brain trust has run a formula they say predicts presidential winners and it shows the Republican will win next year, regardless of the nominee.
Chapmans formula, developed at the Orange schools Anderson Center for Economic Research, works out to predict every presidential election winner but one, dating back to 1944. The exception was picking Richard Nixon to beat John F. Kennedy in 1960. It accurately picked Al Gore to win the popular vote in 2000, although George W. Bush won via the Electoral College.
Chapmans model, which takes into account party but not the candidates, is based on three variables:
- Approval rating of the incumbent partys sitting president on year prior to the election.
- Percentage change in real GDP in the election year.
- Percentage change in employment in the election year.
All that adds up to Obama losing by 8.1 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at totalbuzz.ocregister.com ...
Dittos!! And, I hope that their formula works.
They need a correction factor for Democrap voter fraud.
The 1960 election can be a good data point.
I hope Chapman’s model took voter fraud into account also.
And yet we have a lot of cowards that want to compromise conservative principles and support a RINO when an actual true conservative could win easily.
It doesn’t matter who the GOP nominee is. That person is pretty much guaranteed 219 Electoral Votes from the McCain State + NC+IN+VA. Win OH, FL, and one other toss-up state and it’s game over.
No one has yet provided an argument for why Bachmann or Santorum wouldn’t be able to pull this off. Why then settle for less, when you can get the real thing?
They probably had it right in 1960 as well. If you took away all of the fraudulent votes (over 100k in Illinois and Texas) Nixon probably did win the popular vote and would have been given the EC votes.
It's really simple.
I do believe that any of them could beat Obama (Paul being the exception).
With the possible exception of Perry, I just don’t think any of the remaining candidates will make a very good president.
All that adds up to Obama losing by 8.1 percent
WEL. MEBBI SO, BUT youall STAY WITH THE PROGRAM and work hard, take nothing for granted this guy has to be gone soon while there is something left to fight for, good luck
In 1960 they didn’t take into consideration the Chicago shenanigans.
And Nixon knew he had been had and decided for the good of the country not to contest it. Funny thing is he was enlisted to fix JFK and LBJ's messes which some still haunt us today...
I will crawl over broken glass to vote this commie out
That is true there are alot of the dead that come back to life and vote democrat.
Man are you ever right on the 1960 Voter fraud! That election was my first taste of a presidential campaign. Although just months short of being of voting age, working for the Nixon campaign was one of the most exciting associations for me up to that point in my life. There was voter fraud all over the state in Texas which was not unusual when LBJ was involved. The election results nationwide were close as fine hair on a gnat’s a... Things never change regarding democratic fraud.
Even if Obama loses his ass, the wrong candidate can still win.
....which only proves that the formula is racist. < /s >
“which was not unusual when LBJ was involved”
They didn’t call him “Landslide Lyndon” for no reason.
I was about to say Nixon won that one... voter fraud in South Texas and Chicago made the few electoral vote difference.
It doesnt matter who the GOP nominee is. That person is pretty much guaranteed to get us to 2016, at which point perhaps our side will finally be able to field a set of truly conservative candidates which are somewhere above a Bill Maher guest "witch" if not on par with the accomplishements and hard DECADES Ronald Reagan put into his run-up to 1980.
Now you run a pizza company and chase some skirt, and by God, you're a conservative savior!
No one has yet provided an argument for why Bachmann or Santorum wouldnt be able to pull this off. Why then settle for less, when you can get the real thing?
Well, why don't you pick between those two and then we'll all vote for them? It would be that simple. Except, that the primaries are intended to allow a Bachmann or a Santorum to make their case to everyone, create a consensus, and build that wave you speak of.
And as you've shown by not picking between those two, the answer isn't obvious.
If you'd think about the cast of "characters" who are running as compared to a Reagan, I think it's pretty clear that we're all about to eat a @!$# sandwich no matter what happens.
My son is going to apply to Chapman, and he wants to major in economics.
Don’t know much about the school. Hope it is okay.
Oh, boy! The old “Our special formula has predicted every winner since _______ (except one or two)”.
There is no formula... there is no sure-fire indicator.
Work for the result you want, people. That’s the only “formula”.
Obviously they haven’t consulted with quin-a-pee-ack and learned how to get the polysci department to rig a poll.
I’d like to believe that, but next year’s election fraud and shenanigans, plus an all out media blitz against the Republican nominie could easily put nobama back in for another 4 years.
Looking at what we have to pick from on the Repub side, I see nobama walking away with the election and possibly the House.
Chapman is an excellent school.
Thanks! He’s applying to Chapman next month. He’ll only be able to go if he gets a scholarship. We’ll see.
It’s the only private school he’s applying to. He liked Pepperdine a lot, but I have heard too many stories about housing problems when you get out of the dorms. After finding out how strict they are about drinking and other issues, he also decided that it may be too strict for him.
Chapman can offer him a good education. The daughter of one of my friends graduated from Chapman’s film school, they call it Dodge College. She works in Hollywood doing graphics for several network shows.
Chapman is a nice sized school. Not nearly as big and impersonal as the UC schools.
My son has a friend in the film school. My son has been involved in theater during high school. He would like to work in the industry somehow. He’s thinking he might try to double major in economics and theater. (interesting combo)
However, economics is the top choice for a major because it is more practical.
He’s pretty conservative, so I don’t know how that all fits with the whole acting/entertainment industry these days. He loves the old-time classic plays. He was the male lead in Arsenic and Old Lace, and that is the type of character he likes to play. He’s like Jimmy Stewart, and they just don’t have those types of actors these days.
“However, economics is the top choice for a major because it is more practical.”
Well maybe. My youngest niece is a sound tech in the television industry. No college at all, just learned her craft running sound for her high school theater. Makes a much better living than her college educated sisters, works when she likes and meets the rich and famous. So while a degree is a nice fallback it’s not necessary. Networking, getting known inside the industry for good work, is how you get work and stay employed.
“Hes pretty conservative, so I dont know how that all fits with the whole acting/entertainment industry these days”
There’s loads of conservative people working in the industry. But you’re smart to keep a low profile. Leftwing creeps like Ed Asner will get little people blackballed when he discovers that they are conservative.