Wharton Professor Weighs In On The Elections

Caesar S. writes "Recent research directed by Wharton School Professor J. Scott Armstrong takes political forecasting to the next level by using innovative techniques to combine forecasts from polls, enonometric models, betting markets and predictions by experts (Delphi surveys). Check out Polly's page to hear Polly the parrot objectively predict this year's presidential election. There's lots more interesting stuff on this site about how electronic markets and Delphi surveys can be used for forecasting. Definitely worth a read."

Comments

Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details.

[Futurepower(R)]

There are a lot of people, on TV and on the Internet, who overanalyze the details of politics, and show no interest in the big issues.

For an example of one of the big issues, consider this: The U.S. government is borrowing money to kill Iraqis.

Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and U.S. taxpayers are supporting the violence. Do you consider that an improvement?

The violence helps rich people like the Bush family and Dick Cheney's friends to profit. (The Bush family says they have sold their interest in Carlyle Group, and they no longer are connected. However, the company is privately held, and there is no way of verifying statements made about ownership.)

A lot of the problems in the U.S. seem to be connected with karma. Make trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.

Those are big issues that are not sufficiently discussed. If they were discussed, many of the complicated projections being made now would be worthless. The U.S. government's system of violence depends on ignorance. Those who discuss politics while avoiding the big issues become part of the system of violence.

--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud

Re:Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details.

[rcs1000]

Excuse me.

I'm British. I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. I am no Bush fan, but supported the Iraq war (although the administration's lack of planning for what might happen afterwards has depressed me, and I am increasingly turning against it.)

But.

But.

Cynicism has gone too far. Do people honestly believe George W is so stupid, that he'd sacrifice a few million bucks to be damned by history?

If Bush still has an economic interest in the Carlyle Group, it will come out. Not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day someone will talk. (As Nixon found out, conspiricies are tough to maintain.) If Bush is solely in the war for the profit of hist friends, then history will judge him poorly.

While I do not consider "W" to be the most intellectual of men (certainly not against his predecessor), I do not believe he is so willing to damn himself for 30 pieces of silver.

The Iraq war was misguided (I belatedly realise). And the Presiden hid (or more likely suffered from cognitive dissonance) evidence that contradicted the view that Iraq had weopons of mass distruction. But I do not believe the "W is smart and evil and dumb" simultaneously. I think - misguidedly - he is trying to do the best for America and the World.

Unfortunately, I think his view is wrong. But that does not make him some evil man who grabbed power, solely to line his own, and his friends pockets.

Just my 2c (or 2p, as we say in England)

Re:Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details.

[csguy314]

While I agree almost completely with the parent, I don't think you can make an argument about karma here.
I don't think responsibility for the violence and suffering in the word necessarily causes more violence and suffering on the perpetrators. In fact, in most (if not virtually all) cases, it is individuals not directly linked to the conflict that suffer.
Iraqis are suffering and dying now because of the US occupation. They were suffering and dying before because of sanctions, bombing and Saddam. And before the first invasion they weren't all suffering (physically anyway), but some were because of Saddam. And, one thing that is always forgotten, is that those that suffered because of Saddam did so because of our help to him.
Now I just said 'our help', but it wasn't you or me. And I don't blame the average US soldier for the terrible strife of the Iraqi people. US soldiers are dying too, but certainly not anyone among Bush's family. Or Cheney's family... or Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. What was that statistic? That only one person in the house/senate had a family member in the army.
Similarly, Putin and the Russian government have inflicted intense suffering in Chechnya. And when some vile individuals there wish to inflict suffering on others, it's not Putin that receives it, it's the people of Baslan.
What have the individuals that really suffer done to receive such poor karma? Bush, Putin, officials and terrorists are the ones who are trolling.

Re:Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details.

[rcs1000]

I think this is to some extent a matter of competence:

Bush is seen by the world as having unilaterally invaded Iraq is search of (as it turns out) non-existant weopons of mass destruction. The rest of the world is in no particular hurry to bail the Bush administation out - and some governments that supported the war (i.e. Spain) have been replaced.

There cannot be fair and reasonable elections in Iraq without security, and the belief of the Iraqi people that their view counts. Bush, I believe, is incabable of providing security, and security cannot, in all probability, be provided by the US.

In Bosnia, the UN High Commission has done a good job (relatively) in pulling together that damaged country. Bush has upset too many, both in Iraq and in the (admittedly often un-elected) International Community, to heal the wounds in Iraq and ensure fair elections, and a sustainable transfer of powert.

Whatever Kerry's speeches in the past, he will be favourably recieved in Ankara, Beijing, Paris, and London. Whether he can convince these countries to help with the policing of Iraq is another matter; but Bush - who used reconstruction contracts to thank friends, not build bridges - cannot, an all probability, rescue Iraq without terrible loss of America life.

That is why - for Iraq and for the US - I support Kerry.

(Even though I'm a Brit!)

Re:Interesting site, but there's a fatal flaw

[bladernr]

Unfortunately, popular votes do not elect a president; Electoral College votes do.

Why is it "Unfortunate"? Small states would not have much of a voice without this system. CA, TX, FL, and NY would decide elections, and all those farmers without a coast (feeding the rest of us) wouldn't matter.

I like the Republic/Federal system that we use, as opposed to actual Democracy. I am firmly against the Tyranny of the Majority that Democracy can cause (watch what happens in Iraq if they use an actual Democracy), and I believe that the minorities need representation (be they minorities of race, gender, or geography).

with a little luck, Republicans will implode, leading to a Democratic landslide in 2008

Wouldn't that only be good if the Democrats had a good candidate, and Republicans had a bad one? What if the Democrats nominated [insert-favorite-historical-villian-here]? Blind loyalty to a party is not something to be proud of.

You should look at the record, values, vision, and plan of each candidate and decide based on that. You are voting for a person, not for a party or against another person.

Re:Interesting site, but there's a fatal flaw

[overunderunderdone]

It's because Zogby was the most accurate poll of 2000

But Zogby did pretty poorly in 2002. He nailed in in 2000, but was that because he really nailed it or because he was the low end of the range for Bush and the last minute DUI issue hadn't had a chance to fully factor into any polls (including his)... Was he smart or was he lucky?

Also, while I think Gallup definitely has had major sampling problems, I think Zogby is too rigid in adjusting his sample to conform to a hard-wired percentage break-down by party identification. People shift their self-identification, not as much as the Gallup polls are suggesting but a lot more than Zogby is willing to concede. There are a lot of people that are major-part/independent. Their self-identification will depend on how they feel about the party in question at that moment. Kerry does something great, and the guy on the fence proudly says "I'm a democrat". Kerry stumbles, flubs a debate, whatever and it's "I'm an independent". The same is true of fence-sitting Republicans..

Take me as an example: In my state an independent can vote in either primary - you affiliate (briefly) with the party whose primary you want to vote in on your way into the poll, you vote, on your way out (if you remember) you disaffiliate. I'm a dyed in the wool Republican, but I'm in a one-party Democratic state where the only election that counts is the Democratic primary - so i remain a registered Independent who half the time registers temporarily as a "Democrat". If I forget to disaffiliate on my way out I'm legally a Democrat (by accident) but I'll identify myself to a pollster as either a Republican or Independent depending on how I feel about the party at any given moment. Zogby's rigid party-counting method doesn't account for me, and I'm far from being alone.