The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (34 comments)

  1. Bruce Bancroft

    From your pen to God’s ears!

  2. what swing states are going for Romney? can you list?

      1. Jessica C.

        Houston Chronicle switched over! :)

        1. Yeah, I saw that Chronicle made the switch from their ’08 position and I was a bit shocked considering the personnel they have on their editorial board…

          We’re living in interesting times…

  3. Finally! I have been waiting for your prediction.

  4. Similar to Seton Motley’s with 3 differences (MN, NH, PA switched).


  5. Jack White

    Exactly my prediction as well. Great minds and all that.

  6. 281 R to 257 O, … that is my prediction, most are more in the landslide senario, … I hope for the later!

  7. Very likely prediction.. And happy Romney can still win by losing IA and WI too.

  8. Ah, betting against Michael Barone when an election is on the line, one of the classic blunders. Right behind getting involved in a land war in Asia.

    1. Jessica C.

      …I like you.

  9. Bob from Texas

    Go minus from your picks, James. Obama will not win Minnesota. I read the poll yesterday showing him leading, but I question the credibility. Wisconsin will be razor close, but I do not think Romney will win. 281 electoral votes still wins, and that is good for our country.

    1. Wow, hit Minn. on the head. Romney won by -8%.

  10. Interesting. You have every single “in play” state going in favor of Romney despite recent polls favoring Obama everywhere except for Florida.

    Kudos if you’ve caught on to something everyone has missed. And I hope you issue a mea cupla is “they” turn out to be right and your prediction is way off.

    I’d be stunned if Romney wins the popular vote by 2%.

  11. Exactly my prediction as well, except for WI, IA, CO, OH, and VA going to Obama. And possibly FL, leaving us with a possibly 90% overlap.

    P.S. don’t take Michael Barone’s predictive powers to Vegas unless you’re just there to get drunk and lose a lot of money.

    1. Obama is going to have a tough time in coal states unless those voters are all of sudden struck irretrievably stupid…

  12. I believe Romney is going to lose. If I am right, it won’t be because he was too conservative, and it won’t be because he failed to connect the prospect of Obamcare to lost jobs (although that certainly
    would have helped). Romney is going to lose
    because he failed to point out Obama’s continuance and expansion of Bush’s most
    unpopular program, the one that gave rise to the Tea Party in the first place,
    the bank bailouts. In 2008, faced with a banking crisis that was largely
    avoidable, President Bush was told that unless he bailed them out, he would be
    facing riots in the streets and martial law. In response, he enacted TARP
    and used $350 billion to strengthen the capital of the largest banks.
    Obama, with three months to reconsider this policy, instead doubled down
    and used the remaining $350 billion under TARP to bailout everyone with a financial
    services arm from General Electric on down. He reappointed Ben Bernanke
    whose incompetence and lack of regulatory oversight allowed the financial debacle
    to occur (Bernanke is on record as stating it is better to clean up after
    bubbles burst than to try to proactively stop them). He made Tim
    Geithner, the head of the New York Fed at the time (the one who gave Goldman
    Sachs 100% recovery on their AIG losses even though GS had hedged themselves) a promotion to Treasury Secretary. He enacted Dodd Frank, which made the
    too big to fail banks even bigger. Lastly, he repeatedly accused the
    money center and trust banks of massive fraud, yet ended up giving them a wrist
    slap fine with no prosecution of any major individual (and this extends to Jon
    Corzine of MF Global who stole millions from Midwestern farmers). In the
    debates, he made one minor reference to giving the large banks a “big
    kiss”, but otherwise ignored the issue. This was the only major
    issue that the mainstream media completely agreed on. They would have made this
    an issue and would have fundamentally altered the race by painting by Obama as
    an extension of the worst of the Bush policies. I know some of you are reluctant
    to believe that there were any laws broken. All Mitt Romney had to say
    was that if his justice department concluded that criminal activity had occurred,
    he would prosecute those involved instead of turning a blind eye. If I am correct and Romney loses, there will be a huge post mortem nitpicking all of Romney’s lost opportunities, but this issue is the elephant in the room, the one issue that angers so many and the single
    issue that none of Obama’s friends in the media would defend him on. This is not an OWS argument or 99% vs. the 1%. It is crony capitalism plain and simple, and
    it should have cost President Obama the election.

  13. Jon Murphy

    I never learned how to vote. I just walk into the booth, count to ten, shout “DEMOCRACY!!” and scurry away.

  14. Statistical imbecile!

  15. Whoops guess the sky high repub enthusiasm was not enough to puch the same old deviseve policies thru. Sorry the trip thru fantasy land is over. Maybe now you guys can come back to the center and try to help this country instead of trying to destroy it

  16. Would love to see your reasoning in greater depth.

    I plan on thinking 180 out from that in the future and taking it to the bank. You PERHAPS could have been marginally more wrong, but it would have been difficult.

    This was more a wish-list than a fact-based prediction.

  17. Perhaps if the AEI weren’t formed on the basis of cherry picking data to support a predetermined conclusion based on ideology you might have come to a more correct conclusion. As it is, your predictions are about par for the course for intellectual quality at the AEI.

  18. Good call dingus!

  19. Doesn’t look like predictions is a good business for you! OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!

  20. I guess Nate Silver wasn’t as wrong as you thought he was. Perhaps you should get more acquainted with the data.

  21. Strange how political leanings can turn you into a statistical laughing stock. Sorry you lost all your credibility, James. Welcome to the trash heap of punditry.

    1. well… this was not “leaning”, this was hard right ideology that prefers denial to the realities.

  22. Jonthan Kapp

    Be smart in your next life. Be a moderate. When you die, heaven doesnt care if your blue or red so stop wasting your time on absolute. I guess you like to waste your life away on extremes. RIP, tea party.

  23. Wendy Peffercorn


  24. “teaparty” has been around for over 50 years. it isn’t going anywhere

  25. MT from CC

    You see, there’s this thing called “data.” And when it comes to a predictive model, it usually makes more sense to look at “data” instead of making predictions based on your “gut”, or the “reporting” that takes place in a conservative, anti-Obama echo chamber. It is beyond comprehension to me that the Romney campaign changed the data to “unskew” polls which made them think they were heading for a landslide win instead of a decisive defeat — what team goes into a championship game deliberately underestimating the opposing team? It makes one really wonder what kind of President Romney would have made, given his willnigness to ignore facts (“data”) to fit his predisposition (victory v defeat) ibn an actual election where being wrong means being defeated. A truly stunning case of cognitive dissonance, in which he was joined by the AEI and so many other conservatives who are so taken with the sounds of their own voices that they would believe complete garbage over raw numbers staring them in the face. Incredible.

  26. Jonthan Kapp

    Reply to thor1 –
    50 years & what do have to show “nothing” “nada” “zero” except the word”no”, Please, I dont care if it was around 100 years because your teaparty was 5 generations of zip. POWER FORWARD. (rip teaparty)

  27. shows with an exclaimation of how you and you’re extremist conservative base are so out of touch. I consider myself an Eisenhower centrist which would be considered very liberal by today’s standards.

    1) The change many years ago decreasing capital gains tax rates way below the marginal max tax rate fostered carpetbagging speculation vs long-term investment. Years ago, when capital budgeting manager for a large corporation in my mid-twenties, that change had a reverse impact to normal NPV’s, IRR’s and paybacks during a declining period of interest rates. The Wall Street investor mantra became “I don’t give a rat’s ass what my company’s R&D is doing for the company 5+ years, I want instant gratification.” Wall Street won over Main St. with R&D expeditures axed nationwide as unnecessary overhead. This was the lifeblood of our economic expansion of last century: innovation, requiring highly skilled labor force, and ultimately when products mature, it goes to cheaper labor sources. Your party fosters specuation over innovation when you cater to the 1% benefiting from 80% of total capital gains and .1% of 50%. These are comodity-managing, wall street vs main st. wealth, not the Bill Gates’s of yesteryear. Change captail gains to same as regular tax rates, provide stimulis for new business incubation and tax breaks for long-term R&D to bring us back to prior equilibrium.

    2. Patriotism has changed from love and devotion to one’s country to that of required military service today. Martin Luther King Jr. was a patriot, Oliver North was not. Eisenhower was dead-on is his warning of the growing industrial military complex as the greatest threat to our future democracy. We should not be spending one-half of the world’s military expenditures, once up to 8% of our GDP. That’s CRAZY, and we are in a resurgence of a Joe McCarthy-like scare towards terrorism form threats caused by our own miscue actions (we empowered the autocratic nutcases of Bin-Laden, Norriega, Saddam Hussein, Marcos, overthrew a democratically-elected prime minister and put the tyrant Shah in power, Mubarek, and more). Short term strategic decisions without knowledge of cultural anthropology-typical military “intelligence”-an oxymoron.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content