trods ønsketænkning af Berlingeren og BT.
Berlingeren har Obama foran med 243 valgmænd
versus 206 til Romney i deres version af RCP
i http://www.b.dk/usavalg_stilingen af
http://www.realclearpolitics.com. RCP har
stillingen 201-206 med Obama bagud.
Berlingeren har den misvisende overskift:
Her er stillingen i USAs præsidentvalg - lige nu
Min forudsigelse: Romney vinder med en
rimeligt stor margen.
Det er et valg om to vidt forskellige
retninger fremover for USA, som også vil
påvirke resten af verden.
Jeg er dansk statsborger men føler mig
mere som amerikaner efter 17 år i USA.
Jeg har analyseret meningsmålingerne og
har fulgt med via artikler og
meningsmålinger.
De amerikanske medier favoriserer stærkt
Obama men der ER andre kilder for
analyse.
De fleste artikler i Berlingeren og
eksempelvis BT læner stærkt mod Obama.
Denne BT blog er direkte usmagelig
http://blogs.bt.dk/paulgazan/2012/10/17/romney-til-taelling
og viser kun, hvor ringe dansk
journalistik kan være.
Men det går ikke altid som præsten
prædiker.
Den første debat viste, at uden en
teleprompter fungerer Obama ikke ret
godt.
Den anden debat viste, at Obama ikke har
styr på fakta.
Joe Biden har frastødt en del vælgere ved
sin debattaktik.
Obama har ingen planer for de næste 4 år.
Fakta og baggrund:
Tendensen i næsten alle (mange) stater
er, at Romney vinder frem og Obama taber
terræn.
Sammenlignet med valget i 2008 er Obama`s
forspring i valganalyser for mange stater
nu langt mindre.
Gallup siger 52% til Romney. versus 45%
til Obanma. Altså langt foran.
RCP gennemsnitsmålinger afspejler ikke,
at amerikanerne først nu lærer Romney at
kende og derfor flytter deres stemmer.
Det ser ud som om, at de positive
argumenter virker og flytter stemmer,
mens virkningen af den demokratiske
valgmaskines negative og ellers
indholdsløse budskaber tager af.
USA's vælgere er 75% hvide og det KAN
godt være, at ellers demokratiske vælgere
vil tænke: Vi HAR givet Obama chancen een
gang. Det er nok.
Reagan var også i 1980 valget bagud, men
vandt med 44 stater. Næste gang vandt
Reagan alle stater undtagen 2.
Ud fra almindelig decisionsteori han man
lige nu med rimelig stor sandsynlighed
forudsige, at Romney vil vinde valget.
Derfor KAN Gallup's måling godt være
korrekt, selvom den afviger fra så mange
andre målinger.
Kilden til denne kommentar vil jeg afsløre,
når valget er overstået. Jeg synes den er
ret så præcis.
"Why has the presidential race changed so
dramatically?
The change in polling results, attitudes,
and news media coverage in the last three
weeks has been as decisive as any
campaign in my lifetime.
Just before the first debate President
Obama seemed confident, on offense, and
driving toward victory.
The Romney team seemed confused, lacking
in energy and potentially sliding toward
defeat.
The elite media was delighted with the
way 2012 was shaping up.
Their candidate, the good liberal, was
winning.
The conservative, already unacceptable as
a Republican, was losing.
Everything seemed just fine.
Then disaster struck in the first debate.
Mitt Romney entered the debate with three
great advantages.
First, he is a much more reasonable
person than the caricature the Obama
campaign had advertised for three months.
The very exaggerations of their attacks
made Romney seem more reasonable and more
acceptable. The same thing had happened
to Reagan in 1980 with the same result.
Second, Romney is smart and very hard
working. He had gone to Harvard Law
School and Harvard Business School at the
same time. He had simply prepared much
more methodically and more thoroughly
than Obama.
Third, Romney actually has thought a lot
about the country's problems and his
plans came across to a lot of Americans
as a lot more thoughtful than the four
years of Obama's failures.
The Romney advantages were dramatically
multiplied by the Obama failure.
It is hard to understand how Obama could
have been as lacking in energy, lacking
in engagement, and lacking in enthusiasm
as he was that night. He was just plain
bad. It was the worst debate appearance
by an incumbent president in the history
of debates.
Biden's performance was a disaster.
Bozo the clown is not a reassuring model
for Vice President.
Ryan was two years old when Biden was
elected to the Senate.
As the next generation candidate, Ryan
was cautious, controlled, and careful.
Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in 91
minutes. If your teenager was that
obnoxious you would send them to their
room. If your grandfather was that out
of control at the Thanksgiving table, you
would begin considering how to get him an
exam.
Kellyanne Conway of the Polling Company
suggested that Biden turned off women by
being the man who cut them off and
refused to listen.
My advisor Randy Evans said his son
reported that his friends all knew
obnoxious older people who showed no
respect for young people and they were
turned off by Biden.
Then came the townhall meeting. Obama
was energetic and engaged. He won on
style. He lost on substance. In a bad
economy substance matters more than
style.
Both Biden and Obama said things so
untrue that they guaranteed the debate
would continue for days after the event
as people corrected them.
In a few weeks Obama gave people
permission to vote against him while
Romney was winning their acceptance as a
credible alternative.
There is still one debate and a lot of
campaigning to go but the burden has now
shifted from Romney to Obama."
Hvad siger du?
Med venlig hilsen
Ejler Ottesen
Researcher
Forudsigelsen er baseret på research og decisionsteori.
Kontact information:
IP # : +45-36-965921 IP telefon/telefonsvarer
IP # PL: +48-91-881-4604
IP # US: +1-337-935-0211
Skype : ejlerottesen (VoIP og telefonsvarer)
E-mail : [email protected]
Alle 3 numre er direkte IP telefon numre med telefonsvarer
