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

Nothing new

[vijaya_chandra]

Here in India, we have been having parrots that tell your fortune from hundreds of years

and ppl say it's actually them that decide who the prime ministers'd be over here

Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

Polly Parrot's opinion can easily be manipulated using a cuttlefish.

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.

[bladernr]

I'm British. I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. I am no Bush fan, but supported the Iraq war

Kerry supported the war as well, and believed Saddam had WMD. He thought the situation was serious. Here are some relevant Kerry quotes:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

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!)

It's interesting to note

[antifoidulus]

how much the rules have changed from the 70's. For instance, although the author notes that the "bread and peace" index both hurts and helps Bush.
Start with the bread. The economy has been going, and for certain sectors of the economy, things are picking up. For others, it's been a disaster. Income levels are increasing slightly, with less taxes, but prices for fuel and healthcare have skyrockted. You really can't say Bush did a stellar job on the economy, but you really can't say he totaly bungled it either.
Same with the peace problem. Iraq isn't nearly as bad as Vietnam, but it's not a bed of roses either. I think this is why John Kerry is having a tough time differentiating himself from Bush on the issue of Iraq. It's obviously far from perfect, if Bush were doing a stellar job like he claims, then Iraq would be a non-issue for this election. But it's not an unmitigated disaster either. If so, John Kerry could really pounce on that.
This election is looking to be as hard to predict as 2000 was.

Re:It's interesting to note

[Awptimus Prime]

Same with the peace problem. Iraq isn't nearly as bad as Vietnam, but it's not a bed of roses either.

Right now, I feel Iraq is artificially good. From what I have gathered, we have large camps of our troops outside Iraq's major cities. On a regular basis, they leave camps and do SWAT-like raids on individual homes and then get out quickly.

The casualties in this war will come after the elections. I believe, in November, we will start trying to take ground inside cities, then this war may become quite a bloody mess. No president in his right mind would start a ground invasion prior to an attempt at re-election.

You have to remember, Vietnam was supported for quite a while. It wasn't until a couple of years into the conflict that we started taking huge numbers of casualties and those came as a suprise. The average american thought the technological advantages of helicopters, lightweight rifles, and jet fighters would destroy the communist army.

But just as with Korea, they wanted us out more than we wanted to "fix" their government issues.

better projection site

[Trepidity]

The best projection site I've found so far is race2004.net. It takes into account multiple polls, while most seem to call the states based on whatever the most recent poll is. Since there is such huge volatility in polls this year, that strategy doesn't work to well.

Re:better projection site

[demaria]

Federal Review does something similar.

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

[whovian]

Here are two sites that attempt to predict what the Electoral College votes will be:
Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
Election Projection - 2004 Edition

A nice complement to the submitted article is the per state breakdown of the pollsters' data:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/pollsters/ind ex.html

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

[coaxial]

Yeah, Election Projection is obviously wrong. They have Oregon going for Bush. There's no way those latted drinking flanel wearing hippies :) are going to vote for Bush.

I used to look at electoral-vote.com too, but I decided that it's predictions were to volatile, so I made my own. [url:http://www.cs.siu.edu/~jkoren/electoral_vote. html]

Mine averages the assorted polls roughly based on "trustworthiness". For instance: Gallup is weighted lower than Zogby, but not because Zogby polls Kerry consistently higher. It's because Zogby was the most accurate poll of 2000, and made a strong argument about what was wrong with Gallup's polling this year.

It's updated daily.

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

[Thunderstruck]

Actually, I'd prefer it if I could just let my electors look at the record, values, vision, and plan of each candidate and decide based on that. I figure its better to elect someone I know from my state to sift through all the 1/2 truths and spin, to actually read the voting records, to really research all the candidates and then make a vote for my state.

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.