Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Predicts The Presidential Election
Can Sar writes "Today is the official launch of Stanford Predicts, a non partisan group trying to predict the 2004 Presidential Election. This project is led by and based on research by Professor Samuel S. Chiu of the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. Stanford Predicts is solely interested in predicting the likelihood of either candidate winning, for purely scientific purposes. While the formulas themselves were developed in previous years by Professor Chiu all data analysis is being done by undergraduate students. Stanford Predicts will be continuously updated with new predictions until election day. Please check out Stanford Predicts for more information."
American University Professor Allan J. Lichtman, author of Keys to the White House uses a 13 key system to predict the Presidential winner (popular vote), and right now, the keys system favors Bush (9 to 4). Gore won his analysis in 2000 and the popular vote, but not the Presidency. It's possible something similar could happen again.
Wasn't it a public knowledge that the election will take place? It was all over the news.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
"I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin..."
This should read "I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that he'd win by such a margin..."
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
According to the site, there is a 76.4% chance Bush will win the required states. It does not state (or even imply) that Bush will get 76.4% of the vote. Basically, it's saying it's approximately 3:1 odds bush will win, but that is far from predicting Bush will win 3x as many votes as Kerry.
This guy has the same sort of daily predictions. Funny his prediction for today is the opposite that Stanford predicts. I sent him an excel file demonstrating the use of error estimates and probabilities to get a better prediction, but haven't heard back. Though even with that the prediction would still be in Kerry's favor, so I'm not sure what all Stanford is and isn't taking into account. He apparently gets a lot of crap in his email from opponents.
You're absolutely right.
I'm a fucking moron. Ignore this Jew from now on.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Bush is more likely to win the Presidency, even if he doesn't win the popular vote.
Bush with 76.4% and Kerry with 21.0%?
That's a probability estimate, not vote %.
I'm a Bush supporter
You already told us that.
I've been following along the election with www.electoral-vote.com, and while it's good to have predictors, I wonder how much impact these have on the outcome, do sites like this have a detremental effect on the election by creating a self fulfilling prophecy? Have there been studies on this effect, say a voter sees that bush has a 72%chance of winning, and decides that the country can't be wrong and goes along with it.
Anyway, I like electoral-vote's way of going about it better, shouwing actual state polls and the number of electorial votes each candidate has rather than a straight up prediction of the outcome in a percentage. Lets you see how close the race is as far as votes and what your effect based on your state can be, it's a lot more empowering when you see your state is very close and has a lot of electorial votes, and how close the candidates are.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
For everyone who says "I want to vote for a winner" there may be someone else who says "Well, I'll need to make sure I go out and vote for my guy so that doesn't happen!"
Can I come over for some red hot chili?
Sounds like my old sig, "Re-elect George W Bush because nothing is as amusing as angry liberals."
And it's true, for mouth-foaming incoherent rage, just wait till Bush wins. If Kerry wins, Bush supporters will be disappointed and concerned, but most of them won't be complaining about impeachment or disenfranchisement or how the election was rigged, blah, blah, blah. In fact, I'll be somewhat optimistic because Jimmy Carter made the country ready for Ronald Reagan. Kerry's a lot like Carter without the honesty, or southern charm, or pulse..., but I suspect his administration will be about as successful.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I couldn't find info on which polls they used. Of course, some pollsters do a better job than others, and some even engage in push polling?*
So, it seems to me that feeding a different subset of polls will garner different results, and that the equilibruim is very stable -- change the Ohio or Florida poll by two percentage points toward Kerry and I'd bet the odds go from 3:1 to 1:1 pretty damned quickly. Likewise, fudge the CO, NH, and MN results toward Bush 2 points, and it might go from 3:1 to 5:1.
Surely they could do a better job about releasing their data and their polling selection methodology...
* baiting an answer. For example: Would you vote for George Bush even though he lied about WMDs and his wife once killed a man? Clearly not a good idea if one seeks accurate polling, but it's done all the time nevertheless. Just ask wiki about Sen. McCain's black baby born out of wedlock.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
> I'm a Bush supporter
Ahh, so you are an idiot and eat babies?
I'm no computer scientist, but -- wouldn't a Monte Carlo technique do this reasonably well?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This site does the same thing only they're much more trasparent about their methods. They have also started to use poll data from multiple sources to minimize bias.
Damnit! My mod points just expired this morning. Somebody please mod the moron flamer down.
Danke.
why? forty-two.
I predict that I may not be the only one that is completely fed up with people wasting too much time and energy on predictions, especially innocuous and chaotic issues such as the election a week before the fact. If you want to predict Earthquakes and weather patterns, cool, but no matter what you predict, things are still going to be chaos because it doesn't take a PhD to figure out one side is going to be unhappy about losing. Thank you professor Obvious.
Why don't you academics stop jerking off over week-early predictions and do something productive like research a cure for cancer, or at least see if you can predict the number of people who could possibly care about this big waste of resources and ask yourself if your time and talent are not better served elsewhere?
Bush with 76.4% and Kerry with 21.0%?
l ection,_1988), and that was considered a landslide. Reagan beat Mondale 59-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1984), which is an even bigger landslide, but George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and it's not the 80's.
I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin...
But, as expected, Kerry wins the West and East coast states while Bush wins in "flyover" states. I expect a GWB victory this November -- but I think it'll be more along the lines of 57% to 40% in terms of the popular vote with the third parties picking up the rest of the slack.
1. The site is predicting that Bush has a 76.4% chance of winning, not that he'd win with 76.4% of the vote.
2. 57 to 40? Are you on crack? Bush beat Dukakis 53-46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e
I hope you're right- because whoever wins I'll be running against both major parties in 2008.
However- I disagree with your conclusion on what would happen with a Kerry Win. I agree that the Bush Supporters won't be complaining about disenfranchisement or rigged elections, because that's not their style. But nor do I think this will be a peacefull trasistion of power if Kerry wins- far more likely the Bush admin will do *something* to attempt to maintain power. I'm not sure what that something will look like- but it probably won't be a court challenge.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sounds like my old sig, "Re-elect George W Bush because nothing is as amusing as angry liberals."
And it's true, for mouth-foaming incoherent rage, just wait till Bush wins. If Kerry wins, Bush supporters will be disappointed and concerned, but most of them won't be complaining about impeachment or disenfranchisement or how the election was rigged, blah, blah, blah.
Duuuude, you must be smoking crack. If Gore had won in 2000, the republicans would have made a much bigger fuss (at least in the media which would have seemed a lot larger than the democratic protests).
Hell hath no fury like a bunch of angry conservatives. That's the party that spent $50+ million dollars of taxpayer money to expose the fact that Clinton got a blowjob. If you think liberals are more whack than conservatives when it comes to getting uppity, you're nuts.
Interesting. Unlike the candidate you support, you can admit a mistake.
In other words,
We, and the rest of the world, are screwd.
This is my problem with these sorts of things. While the polls are always statistically sound i have a 800-lb gorilla-sized sneaking suspicion that the polls being conducted do not accurately represent the electorate, in which case the statistical rigor gives way to a sort of bias in these results.
I've thought for a long time (since last spring) that Bush will lose by a not unsizable margin and people may actually be surprised on election day by the way the polls had failed to capture the public's true intent.
This is all purely anecdotal of course but i just think that since all of these polls are via land-lines (at who knows what time of day), they no longer capture a validly random sample. After all a shrinking percentage of people i know (all of whom vote) even have a land-line, and far fewer actually talk to any pollsters or their ilk - the urge to hang-up on these sorts of callers is just too overwhelming...
Though it may very well be me who is surprised on election day this is what has been brewing in my head lately...
We'll see, although i would bet that there'll be partying in the streets around the world on Nov. 2nd/3rd should Bush lose.
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
Either Bush or Kerry will get into office. They will spend our federal tax money however they want, generally kissing the ass of big business. We will continue putting hundreds of thousands of people in jail for drug use. We will continue pushing a litigious society with no hope for tort reform. Illegal industry groups (MPAA, RIAA) will be given even more power. And no matter what, Bush's friends will become much richer, and Kerry's friends will become much richer.
Feel free to supply your own!
These type of things are bad for two reasons:
1) They meddle with the elections. If a Kerry supporter sees this, it may discourage him to actually go and vote, because "awww... this scientific poll says that Kerry already lost, I don't even need to vote"
2) How can a poll really claim to be scientific when it gives 100% chance to any canditate for a state? Sure, its pretty safe to assume that Kerry will win CA, or Bush TX, but you really never know what could happen in a situation like this. Saying 100% percent means that there is no way that this could happen any other way under any conditions.
I've been following elections for over 20 years in over six countries and various states. In that time I've learned two things (a) generally polls are eerily accurate (ignore them at your own peril) and (b) every so often there are certain elections which one can tell, almost from the get go, that previous historical norms won't apply and hence polls will mispredict the outcome.
The 2004 presidential election is one of those elections in which participation rate of voters will be way out of the norm, on the coat-tails of the 2000 stalemate and the strong anti-Bush feeling from the democrats.
Using historical data, Bush is slightly ahead as reported by the Stanford poll or electoral-vote.com. If we correct the data assuming a slightly higher participation for the democrats, the polls give an edge to Kerry of 284 electoral votes vs 254 for Bush.
In fact, I'll be somewhat optimistic because Jimmy Carter made the country ready for Ronald Reagan.
Does that mean Bush has made the country ready for another Jimmy Carter? Uh oh.
Seriously, I wish there were more Reagans and Carters around. They both were, in their hearts, genuinely good men.
Can you say the same about Bush and Kerry? I don't think so.
And yet Bush and Kerry were both nominated.
Something is wrong with the primaries when it produces these Bozos. There are better people out there. There have to be.
We all get along together like tornadoes and trailer parks.
I'm rooting for Bush because I'm looking forward to the Civil War.
Besides the UMN site already mentioned above, I highly recommend everyone regularly visit RealClear Politics (whose rolling averages have become a de facto barometer for journalists), The Horserace Blog (Jay Cost crunches the numbers in a way that puts the mainstream press' attempts to shame, and explains every step of his analyses), and Daly Thoughts (the best single state-by-state analysis of poll trends).
They use the results of a number of polls. Since these polls are more or less independent of each other, it's mathematically acceptable to aggregate them (provided you do the simple stuff like weighting the polls according to sample size, etc.).
You say that the polls themselves are all biased in the same direction, reflecting the viewpoint of likely voters who answer their landline. While I can't invalidate that completely, the fact that multiple polls find similar results tends to weaken the idea. The question is open whether people who don't answer their landline lean toward one side enough to change the results. Also, polls of kids, who usually tend to track their parents' viewpoints, agree with the telephone polls.
It's possible that your friends think the same way you do, so to you it feels like everybody hates the President, when in fact most people like him.
sigs, as if you care.
I believe that Kerry is a "good person" in the same way that George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton are good people. They don't measure up to Jimmy Carter (or even Reagan), but I believe their faults come more from good convictions worn down by the years rather than malice. Kerry is a decent guy. He won't be a great President, but he'll get us by.
Our current President, George W. Bush, shares company with men like Richard Nixon. He is not a good man. I honestly doubt our country will survive another four years of him.
Perhaps, but if Gore had won Florida, it would have been because the rules were changed mid-game. I wouldn't agree with that either.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
far more likely the Bush admin will do *something* to attempt to maintain power.
I don't believe that any more than I did when they were saying it about Clinton. That would destroy the country.
It's bad enough the Democrats are doing everything they can to undermine our confidence in our election process, guaranteeing four more years of the stupid and loud complaining Bush isn't legitimate, should he win.
I don't see how anything you seem to be suggesting would do anything other than make 1968 look like a picnic.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Well, the incumbent is the incumbent, but the Democrats were clearly trying to find someone who could "beat Bush", not someone who would actually be a good candidate. What they ended up with is someone who almost nobody likes and whose standing in the polls is 80% from people who are opposed to the incumbent. The DNC just panicked when Dean started looking (more) like a fruitcake.
There are better candidates out there, and I hope see and vote for one of them someday soon.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
This guy's clearly an example of an earlier story on slashdot.
(I kid, I kid.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Like organizing a military coup? Yeah, I could see that.
that partisan supporters on both sides will wage a vicious court battle, which will be cut off halfway through by the supremes, who will say, "Didn't you hear us four years ago? Any contestation of Bush's victory could do harm to Bush's presidency. Therefore, Bush is the victor." See p152, recursion adj.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Once those first two states have made their choices, candidates start dropping like flies. By the time 5 or 6 states have voted there might be only 1 or 2 candidates left in each party. By the time half the states have voted, the decision has been made because if you aren't the leader, you get no press and no money.
I live in Alabama and our primary isn't until June. We had a choice on our ballot in that we could choose the Democratic or Republican primary, but there wasn't but one candidate on each ticket for us. Now how was I supposed to tell anyone how I felt?
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
As a wise man said to me as we were standing in line at a job fair back in 2001- this ain't 1992, this ain't 1986, This ain't 1972, This ain't even 1968- This is 1929 baby- and this is the modern eqivalent of the soup line.
When it came to high tech, that guy was right. Completely right. This administration has already destroyed everything I liked about America- and showed me what a hollow shell puppet show our political process actually is.
Clinton had his 8 years and was worn out- quite litterally we found out this year. The people behind Bush are not the kind of people I'd want to meet in a dark alley. I'm convinced that something very much like organized crime is behind Bush- only slightly more legal, because they've manipulated our laws to make their schemes legal.
The division in this country over this election is far more violence prone than any I've ever seen before- or even can find anywhere in our history. It won't matter which man wins really- we'll either be tied up in court for a month or more, or we'll be sitting on a civil war, or most likely, both.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The polling methodology is flawed. All of these predictions are based on data collected from these polls. You might as well just watch the Redskins this Sunday or check out Tradesports.com.
Where's the polling data to back these numbers up? Just clicking on the link to Wisconsin shows Bush with a 92% likelihood of winning, even though the headline states, "Kerry and Bush Remain Tied Among Likely Voters in Wisconsin". I wanna see sources, not magic numbers.
With the election being likely another 50/50 split, the real deciding factor is going to be how much voter fraud is going to occur, how much electoral fraud (Diebold is looking forward to delivering Ohio's votes to the President!), the margin of error with the voting machines, margin of error with the humans checking the voting machines, and the likelihood of another Florida.
Actually, if we can determine the probability of another Florida, we already know the outcome of the election (5 Bush, 4 Gor...er, Kerry) and we can all sleep in on Nov 2!
Here come da fudge!
Stanford predicts Bush will win the swing states, including New Mexico, and Kerry will win Colorado. Anyone want to bet?
--
make install -not war
That's the party that spent $50+ million dollars of taxpayer money to expose the fact that Clinton got a blowjob.
This is the United States. If it were put to a general vote the people would have allowed any amount less than the defense budget to be spent learning about blowjobs in the Whitehouse.
Direct away from face when opening.
I do hate both candidates. If there is a reason to vote for Bush, is that there is only 1 sector of the economy left for him to destroy "Real Estate".
If he's president for 4 more years, I am sure the interest rates will stay low. But because the unemployment will be so severely high, every other person will be forced to move. Forcing a drop in Real Estate prices because everyone is moving out forcefully. Afterwards, we are back to affordable housing when everyone is scaling down.
Oh come! When was the last time you saw a big Republican protest? Thousands of white men in business attire marching down the street with giant paper maché puppets chanting slogans? It just doesn't happen.
You're not disillusioned a bit are you?
I'm convinced that something very much like organized crime is behind Bush
Um, the unions are still Democrat.
The division in this country over this election is far more violence prone than any I've ever seen before
I don't see it. I hope you're wrong.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
if you truly believe bush & co. would do that, please state why
also, you said something about running in 2008, is that for real?
go you if it is, we could use more choices
if you truly believe bush & co. would do that, please state why also, you said something about running in 2008, is that for real? go you if it is, we could use more choices
In hopes that a Kerry or a Bush presidency will get people pissed off enough for a real populist to get some traction again- my hero is Huey Long.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
HULK: 9,151 BUSH: 8,910 KERRY: 8,391
This is despite at least one "Kerry-Bot" which tried to stuff the ballot.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Both support the war in iraq.
Both have spending plans that are in the red and both say they'll cut their deficit spending in half within four years.
Both support the patriot act.
Both support curtailing the 2nd amendment.
Both have increased the size and scope of the federal government.
The differences are Kerry wants to tax and spend while Bush wants to borrow and spend.
Kerry - Pro choice, Bush - Pro Life
So in conclusion I'd say yes they are both asshats.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
If Gore had won in Florida, it would have been because all the unambiguous votes in Florida were counted. That never happened.
(And Gore's team never fought for that, not that it would have made any difference if they had; the Supreme court disallowed anything resembling a full count.)
The Orlando Sentinel (not exactly a bunch of radical lefties) was among a group of news organizations that did real substantive work on what the results of a full vote count would be; for example, here and here. You do the math.
Ancient history now, I suppose, but those that do not remember history... :-)
You're not disillusioned a bit are you?
a sp?letterID=2888&postdate=10/14/2004 0 38992c.html e ws/1438518.html l l5.htm / NH_004.htm p osts f ?/base/front_page/1096459546252200.xml
Very- I voted FOR Bush in 2000.
Um, the unions are still Democrat.
I suspect that modern organized crime is on the other side of the paycheck. It's far more lucrative to skim off the top.
I don't see it. I hope you're wrong.
The sad part is that it's not limited to the Presidential race, to any one location, or to either side. The problem is nationwide, covers almost all races, and is getting uglier by the day. A few examples (so far, pre-election, it's pretty much been limited to PROPERTY damage as opposed to personal damage, but that could easily change quickly):
http://www.sungazette.com/letters/letter_details.
http://bakersfield.com/elections/story/4975842p-5
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20041019/n
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/june_2004/reca
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20040326
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236613/
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ss
My area is in that last section- and is particularily bad across the rural/urban divide.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
From one to another, i s'pose... :P
After all, we don't hear much these days about Bush's promise in 2002 to "[balance] the budget by 2005 without endangering the war against terrorism and homeland security efforts and without raising taxes."
These days, he likes to blame his inability to keep this promise on the 2000 stock market correction and the 2001 terrorist attacks, neither of which he could reasonably have foreseen in 2002. I'd like to see Bush have four more years of opportunity to be a man and take responsibility for his stewardship over the federal budget.
The recounts were done in accordance with State Law. A really bad state law that screwed Gore out of the election.
The Florida Supreme Court figured since the law was poorly made it should be changed in mid-stream which flies in the face of any sense of fairness.
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the matter, although the fact that it wasn't unanimous iis troubling to me. Cleary Rule of Law only counts sometimes.
All we can hope is that Florida got their act together, especially the county election officials (who are largely Democrat), who helped set up the screwed up system that caused 2000 in the first place. That the Secretary of State rubber stamped these butterfly ballots and other nonsense was irresponsible, but there is enough blame to go around.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I can't mod, so I'm telling you what to think instead.
I'm rooting for Bush because I'm looking forward to the Civil War.
How the heck are we supposed to have a civil war when we can't even have a civil peace?
Stop the world; I need to get off.
I feel that it would be impossible for Bush to win the popular vote yet lose the election, due to the lock he has on a number of small states with much greater elector/population ratios. Can anybody make up a scenario where this is remotely possible? I don't think this is going to be an inverse of the previous election, but a repeat.
I think whatever it is will be far less flamboyant and far more sneaky- like staging a fake terrorist attack in January to prevent the transfer of power.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Actually interest rates are going up steadily and the Fed cannot keep them low for much longer because it is causing the bond market to dry up. There was a recent issue of TBills that went nowhere due to our skyrocketing deficits. As the debt grows and takes a larger percentage of our governments income (Look at the GAO reports (graph) (simulation)) the only way to get outside (foreign) investors to buy our governments bonds is to raise interest rates. The other problem is the devaluation of the dollar which helps the debt to be worth less *real dollars* but negatively affects foreign investment.
If you had cashed out all your stocks in 2001 after the crash (9/11 & Bush Economy combined) and converted your money to English Pounds at a 0% interest rate you would have gained around 25% over 3 years. Beats the hell out of the stock market. The monitary policy of this administration is very poor and is making the prospect of a bright future very unlikely.
I agree with you. Many Americans would truly be confused. For Stanford to try and predict the election based on a mathematical formula, is like when the Super Bowl outcome is prdicted by allowing the computer to play the two teams in a game of Madden 2005. I really do not think that it will work, too many variables.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Picture of George Bush waving a peace sign and the slogan "I'll bet you'll vote this time, Hippie!!"
No, no, he said "Bush," not "Microsoft."
...which won't be out until Wednesday or Thursday for people w/o subscriptions. Relevent to this topic are the two best stories:
"Countdown to The Recount 2004" ("How to make your vote recount", "When will your next president be appointed", etc)
"Republicans Urge Minorities To Get Out And Vote On November 3rd" (ouch!)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Well, out of your seven stories only one really concerns me, and despite the hysterical breathless murmerings about another Civil War on the forum there, I don't see this exceptional ugliness. Nasty? Yeah. Anarchy? Far from it.
4 stories were about yard signs, 2 stories were about petty vandalism associated with local races, the only one which would even blip my radar is the attacks against Republican campaign offices, but even the right wing media hasn't given that much attention.
Things are uglier than usual, and I think most of it has been caused by the relentless fear-mongering and hate-inciting on the left for the last 4 years and particularly the last few months. (The right does their share of fear-mongering but the party out of power usually wins the contest and this year they are the champs). It would be ironic to have suffered such a spectacular terrorist attack, have bounced back and then have civil unrest caused an abetted by Americans themselves.
I have seen the Democrats doing everything they can to incite anarchy and unrest... I'm just hoping that no one but a stupid and gullible few will fall for it.
I heard a quote the other day attributed to Richard Nixon, who very narrowly lost the election in 1960 by what is commonly attributed to voter fraud in Chicago and other places. Nixon said he wouldn't contest it because it would cause to much damage and undermine our faith in our democracy and election process. Today, the Democrats are doing exactly that before the election even occurs.
However, eventually people are going to realize they're mad as hell but don't really have a reason for it. The economy really is doing well, and there are no other domestic problems besides potential terrorism that we haven't been dealing with for decades.
I just hope the voice of reason and spirit of progressiveness of the American left isn't as dead as Dr. King, President Kennedy or his brother (the dead one, not the one who just looks it).
So, my feelings are mixed on this issue. The anger is there, and is largely misdirected or directed at imaginary things, but that doesn't make it any less real.
Funny enough, if Kerry does win he won't be any more of a uniter than he claims Bush has been. His and Edwards' attacks have been so over-the-top, to the point of getting personal (and not leashing his or his running mates' crass, loudmouth wives) that they have ruined any chance of being perceived as moderate or likeable (which they aren't anyway). Kerry makes me miss Bill Clinton. Now that's scary!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Oh man, you've got to take that show on the road. That is funny. Hell hath no fury like a bunch of angry conservatives.. Yep. It is always the conservative you see battling police, storming barricades, cutting up, and vandalizing property. You've either got a great writer, or really bad powers of observation. On second thought, I guess it must be observation since you think the entire Clinton thing was about oral sex. Are you going to be here all week?
Jeb Bush.
92% chance that he'll manage to give Florida to his brother.
All you have to do is wait a couple of weeks, and you'll know who has won. It's the voters who decide the outcome in (at least in most cases - we might hope we don't see a repeat of the last election fiasco), not the pundits spinning their wheels.
Heh. You don't go to college in South Carolina. Here we had tons of protests FOR war and only one or two for peace. I mean I can understand how people could be for the war... but I thought it was a bit weird to protest for it really.
There were pro-troops rallies all over the country last year... not pro-war but rallies to show support for the troops. They were pretty big, but didn't get much media attention because a) No one was angry, and b) No one was killed.
Of course, the real reason you don't see white men in business attire marching down the street protesting is because they have better priorities... like working.
Let all the twenty-somethings with communications degrees or journalism degrees, flannel shirts and bad hair do the protesting, at least it keeps them out of jail and out of the Starbucks.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The justification for the current state of affairs seems to be that it gives a candidate of limited means a chance to make an impact in the race for the nomination, so that he can get the money and publicity to carry him through the entire primary process. Clearly, if such a candidate has to announce his presence in every state at once, he's doomed.
But you know what? That's just what he has to do anyway, if he can't win in Iowa or New Hampshire. So those of us in the states with the later primaries need to do what we'd have to do if all the primaries were held at the same time -- examine the candidates as they make their IA and NH pitches, choose the one we want to back, and start pushing him right away back home. Write letters to the papers, volunteer for his campaign, get the word out, so that when the time comes for him to decide whether he wants to stay in the race or not, he can see he's got enough name recognition and support to make it worth his while.
Who knows, it might even give him an early advantage over his better-heeled competitors, who won't have the same incentive to hit those states right away.
Jeff
You know, Rush Limbaugh made a good point about all of this polling data. And that is, none of it's from calling cell phones. And with more and more people using their cell phones as their main line, who really knows who THEY might vote for.
I know it shouldn't matter. But cellphone users are general younger people and those always on the move.
Life is not for the lazy.
I have often thought of the polls and I consider them to be self fullfilling. Assuming there is one that everyone takes as a "standard", then I would argue that the votes would tend to lay out how the polls say they should. This is due to certain people going whatever way they were going to already, and a number of on-the-fence people wanting to pick a winner.
I am curious to see if anyone else agrees or disagrees with this notion.
Well, I don't think I could vote for a guy named "Marxist Hacker", but I agree that we need new blood in politics. I'm already pissed off at the Big Two! Neither one represents 90% of the country.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
That's the problem! Missouri was one of the early states, but by the time we voted, it was already clear that Kerry had won the nomination. If you were a Dean supporter, all you could do was scream in frustration (sorry).
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
This is based off the poll data - all polls this year have incorrectable sampling errors that inflate bush's numbers
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
The only thing I disagree with is this:
The economy really is doing well,
I don't see it. There's only ONE economic indicator that affects consumer confidence- the ratio of able workers to available jobs. This is NOT the unemployment rate- the labor pool is about 1/4th of the able worker population. I call this the labor utilization number. I estimate labor utilization in the United States to be somewhat south of 50% among citzens, and somewhat north of 90% among recent immigrants, guest workers, and illegals. That's a very volitile situation- it basically amounts to an invasion when nobody was looking because we were all worried about terrorists. Real disabled aren't a part of it- but the idle rich are a part of the problem, as are all the workers who are faking disabilities because they've run out of unemployment benefits, as well as the discouraged worker population (those people who have been looking more than 18 months for a job and who are dropped off the roles for not looking hard enough), as well as "contract" workers like myself who don't have a permanent job or benefits.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, I don't think I could vote for a guy named "Marxist Hacker", but I agree that we need new blood in politics. I'm already pissed off at the Big Two! Neither one represents 90% of the country.
Believe me- I won't be using that old Internet nick when running (it's pretty outdated anyway- I've held this nickname for more than a decade, and long ago I discovered that Marx was really plagerizing St. Luke (Acts 4-5)).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Wasn't it a public knowledge that Pentagon was struck by a American Airlines 757 plane, but this is not what really happenend http://www.sodaro.com/Plone/ps/
I estimate
Can you show statistics to back this up? I realize the 5.4% percent figure is misleading or contrived or something, and there are many other statistics you need to consider, but I was perusing the Labor Department statistics recently and it didn't make much sense to me, but I got the impression things were pretty good.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Reading the methodology on the site, it seems like they figured out a probability for each state, then ran a simulation where each state independently has its given probability of going each way.
This seems utterly ridiculous! If swing state #1 goes one direction, then it is much more likely that swing state #2 is going in the same direction. Because of this, their model will have results centered artificially close to the expected value (swings in their methodology cancel each other much more than in the real election), and the probabilities of each candidate winning are closer to 50% than the site indicates.
After the election- when I have more time, I'll turn it into a Journal Entry (because I'm absolutely sure that a Kerry Presidency, should it happen, will not reverse this before then). Labor utilization is a very complex topic- but you should be aware up front that just because somebody's labor is under-utilized does NOT mean, in our economy, that they're not making money. In fact, some of the most idle people in our economy make the MOST money- those people living entirely off investments.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'd really appreciate that. One thing I seem to hear a lot is the small businesses tend to be underrepresented in employment estimates. It's getting ridiculous when one party says the economy's good, and their Kool-Aid drinkers believe it fully, and the other party says the economy's bad and _their_ Kool-Aid drinkers believe THAT fully.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'd really appreciate that. One thing I seem to hear a lot is the small businesses tend to be underrepresented in employment estimates. It's getting ridiculous when one party says the economy's good, and their Kool-Aid drinkers believe it fully, and the other party says the economy's bad and _their_ Kool-Aid drinkers believe THAT fully.
Small businesses are underrepresented in Labor Bureau statistics in three major ways, one of which is good for the strong economy side, the other two of which support the bad economy side:
1. Small business owners are not covered by unemployment insurance in all 48 states in the union, and therefore do not show up as a part of the labor force.
2. Small business owners are really often just single individuals working on independant contracts for other businesses- and as such are doing a job while not being counted as an employee.
3. Small business owners usually have no health insurance coverage or other benefits, yet have to pay double their own standard taxes.
Thus, as a rule, small business owners would be in the "underemployment" category, counting the same on the labor utilization scale as a part-time employee, yet usually working four times as many hours for equal reward.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Found this. He uses a slightly different definition than I would (he includes non-citizens and even really old people in his definition of labor), but his numbers are better than mine- His LUCY is running in the low 70s right now.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.