Astrologers: Obama (54 People) vs Romney (24 People): predicts this race will be much like the Al Gore/George W. Bush mess back in 2000, with a "too close to call" race.
A Victory For Obama Will Be Very Bullish For Financial Markets.
Obama historically shares a sign with more presidents, who tend to be Aquarius, Scorpio or Leo.
The forecast was made by two professors at the University of Colorado who used economic data and unemployment figures from each state to predict a Republican win come November. Political science professors Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry’s study predicts 218 electoral votes for President Obama and 320 for Romney with the Republican candidate winning every seat currently considered to be on the fence.
If you have any experience of my writings then you will know my view of academic theories and models as being more or less worthless, as they live in ivory towers creating intricate back tested models that FAIL over 90% of the time going forward, as every experienced market trader knows, you CANNOT TRADE FORWARD on the basis of BACKTESTED models! It just does not work in the real world, instead systems have to be adaptive and skewed in favour of the most recent data.
The Economist - Which One?
America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill
The devil we know
New York Times - Back Obama for Re-election
The New York times has recently thrown its hat behind the Barack Obama giving a string of reasons from economic recovery, foreign affairs and Obamacare.
For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need.
The New York TImes - New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages
I had been assuming that the New York Times would be a relatively independant voice as illustrated by waiting to throw their hat in towards the end of the campaign, however they have also published an interesting piece which shows the Times endorsements for the presidency since 1860 to the present.
As the below graphic illustrates, the New York Times stopped being impartial in 1960 since which time it has ONLY picked democrat candidates, and thus their accuracy has been 46% (less than a coin toss) due to a clear inbred political bias against Republicans and in favour of Democrats which illustrates the tendency of US media sphere to be highly polarised.