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."
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
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.
And in fact, that is why the Democrats will lose the election. Out of all the people they could have selected, they select a flagrantly elitist blowhard with no definable position and an obvious lack of charisma. Ugh. There really is nothing to get excited about there, and it is apparent that a lot of Democrats don't really believe in Kerry. Other than the libertarian wing of the Republican party (which is, sadly, fringe), the Republicans genuinely seem to like Bush, for better or worse. I've definitely noticed an erosion of support among the old school blue collar life-long Democrats, many who feel that Kerry is completely out of touch with their reality.
The Democrats had a real shot, right up until the point they selected Kerry. Mind you, I don't think it was obvious just how lousy of a candidate he was going to be before they selected him. Howard Dean would at least have been interesting, and even someone like Gephardt would have done better shoring up the base. Right now, they are chasing down votes they should have already owned.
Which kind of begs the question as to how we ended up with a couple of clowns to choose from in the first place. What happened to really great candidates that you could feel good about voting for?
Democrats aren't infatuated with John Kerry, but he's more than capable. And Dems are angry like I've never seen before: they feel that they won in 2000 and yet have had to endure four years of the most incompetent and arrogant presidency in generations. I had no great fondness for Bush Senior but you had to respect him. I have not a shred of respect for W.
In the debates, Kerry seemed like a president. Bush came off as arrogant and petulant. Bush can be charismatic, but if he was during those debates, I didn't see it. He struck me as a spoiled child who needs to be taught a lesson in responsibility. When confronted with all the failures of his administration, he had this whining tone of "You just need to see it from my perspective". No, I don't. You're the president, you're supposed to be responsible. He isn't. He's an alcoholic cokehead trying to tell other people how to live their lives, he's a failure as a president, and he serves only to make the rich more rich, and the powerful more powerful. I'll vote for a lobotomized chimp before I'll vote for George W. Bush.
When did the Republicans convince the nation that anyone to the left of Genghis Khan was "liberal"? You don't have to be liberal to loathe George Bush for what he's done to this country. You just have to be informed and care about the values he claims to promote, like liberty and justice. For many of us, it's not that we're left- we're in the center, same as always. It's that George Bush has taken the nation too far to the right while claiming to speak for the whole nation.