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.

[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

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: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.