MSNBC- Polls may show the presidential race in a dead heat, but for a small band of academics who use scientific formulas to predict elections, President Bush is on his way to a sizable win.

That’s the conclusion of a handful of political scientists who, with mixed results, have honed the art of election forecasting by devising elaborate mathematical formulas based on key measures of the nation’s economic health and the public’s political views.

Most of these academics are predicting Bush, bolstered by robust economic growth, will win between 53 and 58 percent of the votes cast for him and his Democratic opponent John Kerry.

Their track record for calling election outcomes months in advance has often been surprisingly accurate. In 1988, the models projected Bush’s father, former President George Bush, would win even though Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis enjoyed a double digit poll leads that summer.

And in 1996, one model came within a tenth of a percentage point of Clinton’s actual vote share.

“You can look at certain fundamental indicators and anticipate how the campaign will play out,” said James Campbell, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

If memory serves, I read about this in American Dynasty, which I lent to a friend and so can't consult.  If I recall correctly, these academics are funded by either the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute, and are as often wrong as they are right.  And we know that vote totals don't mean diddly.  Gore "won" by over 1/2 a million votes.

If memory serves, I read about this in American Dynasty, which I lent to a friend and so can't consult.  If I recall correctly, these academics are funded by either the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute, and are as often wrong as they are right.  And we know that vote totals don't mean diddly.  Gore "won" by over 1/2 a million votes.

Yes, you always must question the motives of the pollster and look where his money's coming from.  Heritage and Cato specialize in getting "middle America" to believe ultra-right propaganda by telling middle America that middle America believes ultra-right propaganda.  Do you see?

How are these people biased, they projected Clinton a democrat to win in 1996.  In 2000 they projected Gore would win by a small margin (and he did, the popular vote which is what they do, they don't project electoral vote.)

And, as we know, the popular vote means jack squat, so why bother?


It means a lot.  You can't win a electoral vote without a states' popular vote.  Back in 2000 Bush got something like 47% and Gore 48% with the rest to the other three.  Thats not a big margin.  If Bush like these people predict gets 53-58% he wins, case closed.

They can, but the potential electors placed on the ballot are quite unlikely to change their votes. The candidates for elector are selected by the political parties based on some demonstrated loyalty to the party. When you cast a vote for a presidential candidate, you're voting for an elector who has more or less sworn to vote for that candidate. There's nothing legally binding about it, but it would be hard to get the attention of a particular party without making some sizable contributions, and there aren't too many people who would contribute heavily to a political party just so they could become an elector and cast a vote for the opposing party.

Sure you can.  The electoral college can vote for whomever they wish.  Especially in a state where the % is close.


Technically, you are correct, but it might have happened once, with Hayes/Tilden.  But who knows?  It could happen.  If I were an elector in a 1 vote collage, and someone offered me bazzillions and an island in the Caribbean, I guess i would be tempted - tempted I say, not convinced.

But, I guess that's a question for another thread....(see my new thread ;))


I agree, and I did. :)