Statistics calculate a Bush win

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Bare statistics have it: President Bush will win the election, according to political scientists who based their forecasts on data-driven "vote models."
    Six out of seven of these models — feasible scenarios formulated around scientific and historical data — predict Mr. Bush will win over John Kerry with an average of almost 54 percent of the popular two-party vote.
    "In a nutshell, a president who is not challenged for renomination within his own party gets re-elected, a precedent which has been measured for about a century," said Helmut Norpoth, a political science professor at State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    He gave the president 20-to-1 odds that he would defeat Mr. Kerry, based on data from presidential elections since 1912, including voting patterns in primary elections, long-term partisan support and the role of presidential incumbency.
    "But even with all the numbers, I also believe Bush has an edge in such things as personality," Mr. Norpoth continued. "I think many Republicans feel warmly towards him, and none felt compelled to offer him a challenge."
    Mr. Norpoth presented his findings with eight other political scientists in the October issue of Political Science and Politics, a journal of the American Political Science Association, a District-based academic group with 15,000 members in 80 countries.
    Mr. Norpoth was also the early bird, making his pronouncements nine months ago.
    "The earlier the forecast, the greater the value," noted Brad Lockerbie, another contributor from the University of Georgia who released his own prediction in May.
    He said he believes Mr. Bush will win with almost 58 percent of the vote, after analyzing the power of incumbency and an index of consumer sentiment that tracks voter feelings about their economic future.
    Thomas M. Holbrook of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee predicted the president would garner 55 percent of the vote, again based on economic trends, consumer satisfaction, incumbency and presidential popularity.
    Emory University's Alan Abramowitz also forecast a Bush win with 54 percent of the popular vote after gauging whether the nation sensed it was "time for change," Mr. Bush's approval ratings according to Gallup and variations in the gross domestic product this year.
    Using combinations of economic indicators, income growth, approval ratings and other polls, Oxford University's Christopher Wlezian and Columbia University's Robert Erikson gave Mr. Bush the victory with just under 52 percent and almost 53 percent of the vote, respectively.
    But one combined forecast made in late August by Michael Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa and Charles Tien of Hunter College predicts a "paper-thin defeat for Bush," predicting the president will get 49.9 percent of the two party-vote and 241 Electoral College votes.
    Their conclusions were based on "economic voting and the institutional features of incumbency" along with "a variable that has been hitherto unstudied in the election forecasting world — jobs."
    Ideally, all the predictions should be judged by the accuracy of the voting percentages, according to project director James Cambell of the University of Buffalo, who added, "Still, these benchmarks provide some bearings."

Link to story: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041019-103119-7584r.htm

Number of partisan Republican U.S. Supreme Court justices who made up their minds on Bush V. Gore before the first word was spoken: 5

That was the determining statistic last time.  I wonder what it'll be this time?  If Kerry gets inaugurated in January, I'll eat my sneakers.  There is no question in my mind a Kerry presidency would a lifeline to this flailing republic, but I just don't see it happening.

Wait a minute...I thought the stock market thingy predicted that Kerry would win ???  ::)




I was thinking the same thing.



Cat

Let the man rant, and don't forget to vote (as if anyone reading this would).  Then we'll see, and then we'll know.  His silly prognostications are meaningless.

Yeah, wow Statistics, cus they always tell the truth huh  ::)

There hasn't been anything easy about this campaign season, or hadn't you noticed?

Yeah, wow Statistics, cus they always tell the truth huh  ::)




There are 3 kinds of people who don't tell the truth, liars, darn liars, and statisticians.  Figures lie and liars figure.

Check out Paul Krugman's editorial today.  Can't provide a link, the page woun't come up.  The gist is that he thinks Kerry is fairly far ahead, and that the polls are skewed toward Bush.

The most obvious thing that came to mind when reading that article was that the jounalist has no idea what "statistics" are and how they can be used.

Modelling and extrapolation software is statistically based, but applies rules which are very unlikely to be statistically significant (obviously, if you think about it - otherwise they'd all give the same result).

In this case, "Statistics" say nothing, other than it's close... extrapolation models like this can be tweaked to show whatever you want them to, and the article doesn't relate what assumptions were made in the modelling - that's the one thing I like most about www.electoral-vote.com: all his methodology and assumptions are explained in about as clear a language as is possible to use.

You notice they always say "likely voters". It's those "unlikely voters" that have the boys tossing
there cookies. :D

You notice they always say "likely voters". It's those "unlikely voters" that have the boys tossing
there cookies. :D


LOL!! ;D That is so funny and true.

In my own personal poll investigations, I have noticed that "official" polls have Bush at a very small lead. However, any and all the "real people" polls, the regular average Joe, you and me polls, Kerry's always in the lead. I mean, really. Let us all remember that Gore won the popular vote in 2000. It is fairly obvious the majority of us regular folks want and need Kerry to win the presidency.

In my opinion, this election hinges on the matter of preventing election fraud; for if not the Supreme Court will end-up picking our president for us all over again.

I was watching CNN the other day. They were in Philly (I think) with a bunch of people with their political posters and such. They had two people-one from the Bush campaign and one from the Kerry campaign talking about the polls. One person said that they have been in politics for many, many years and has NEVER been polled. They asked the crowd (I'm not too sure how many people were there-a couple dozen probably) if any of them have been polled. Not one of them raised their hands. So my question is, who are they polling? Like I, and so many others have said, the only poll that counts is the one on Nov. 2nd.


I am Cat and I approve this message.



Cat

I was watching CNN the other day. They were in Philly (I think) with a bunch of people with their political posters and such. They had two people-one from the Bush campaign and one from the Kerry campaign talking about the polls. One person said that they have been in politics for many, many years and has NEVER been polled. They asked the crowd (I'm not too sure how many people were there-a couple dozen probably) if any of them have been polled. Not one of them raised their hands. So my question is, who are they polling? Like I, and so many others have said, the only poll that counts is the one on Nov. 2nd.


I am Cat and I approve this message.



Cat


I was polled on a local election this time round, but I think it is clear that this is a strange election, with lots of factors not taken into account by the polls - and I do know something about sampling, having an ABD is sociology, and having done some.  I think the polls are wrong.

I'm Don Carlos, and I approve of Cat's message!

Has anybody actually seen the Figures, stats etc that try to prove that it was the democratic Congress that made Regan lose so much of the countrys money.. during those...'days'... and not Regan wanting to spend the rest of the world in to oblivion. LOL, i looked for them to show but couldn't find them, if anyone has them or knows where to look, tell me or stick them up, they paint a hilarious picture if you have any mathamatical, sociological and rudimentary english skills.

Same thing goes for the Republican Tax cuts of the last how ever many years, you know how the poor always benefit.  ::)

Trickle down my.. arse  ;)

Statistics calculate a Kerry win!!!!!  Now think of it... The Patriots against all odds have won 21
in a row, the Red Sox same deal.  Now Massachusetts is going for a triple play in the "no
way it can happen" game.  I consider this just as scientific as anything anyone else has brought
to the table. :)

Statistics calculate a Kerry win!!!!!  Now think of it... The Patriots against all odds have won 21
in a row, the Red Sox same deal.  Now Massachusetts is going for a triple play in the "no
way it can happen" game.  I consider this just as scientific as anything anyone else has brought
to the table. :)


I have to add to this, last nights win was in Busch Stadium, which rhymes with Bush.

Grrrr don't associate Busch with Bush  :(

Grrrr don't associate Busch with Bush  :(

If you like Bush, you have bad taste in presidents.
If you like Busch, you have bad taste in beers.
;D

We'll if you can even call that piss poor stuff that comes out of the states beer then Busch breweries are the best of a bad bunch. I'm sorry man, but English Beer (and Larger, these is a big difference) is by far the best.

  You know, if it weren't for the inevitable bolt of lightning I fear, I'd say I have a sneaking suspicion and growing confidence that Kerry will win:

• Some pundits note that when the undecided voters break late in the election cycle, they tend to break for the challenger and fall against the incumbent. However, much like the question of an OJ Simpson or Ollie North juror, who's left?" I do, however, respectfully disagree with President Bush, who compares the undecided voter to an insect. Nonetheless, I think the tight polls at this point spell bad news for W.

• Voter turnout is expected to be higher than usual; this tends to favor the left side of the aisle.

• New voters, voters returning after a hiatus ("unexpected" voters) promise to be a wildcard; so far the Democrats have outpaced the Republicans.

• 18 - 29 vote: While many of these are included in the prior category, it should be noted that they're approximately forty-million strong, and tend to run more liberal than conservative. Michael Moore and his guest Rep. McDermott, I read, both appealed to this age group during the filmmaker's recent stop in Seattle; I would imagine the refrain is the same nationwide.

  It's well enough to point out national polls, but I do wonder what the purpose actually is. The nationwide result has no bearing on the outcome. The real mystery is whether unexpected voters and what's left of the undecided crowd will turn out in the appropriate locations to, er... carry Kerry.