Economic models predict Bush win (CNN)

[kysrsoze]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite an embarrassing failure in their forecasting four years ago, political scientists and economists are again predicting the outcome of the presidential election, and most foresee a win for President George W. Bush.

"If this election follows historical patterns, it looks very likely that Bush is going to win," said Ray Fair, a Yale University economist whose model is built mainly around gross domestic product growth and predicts that Bush will take 58.5 percent of the vote.

Current polls show a very close race with many suggesting that Democratic nominee John Kerry may be slightly ahead.

Chris Wlezien, a political scientist based at Nuffield College at the University of Oxford in Britain, is predicting Bush will win 52.5 percent of the vote in a model that combines income growth with presidential approval ratings.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/23/news/election_models/index.htm?cnn=yes

Ummm....what income growth? GDP based on military spending? What kind of garbage is this?

[Trajan]

1. How silly ....

Can they be wronger ? ...

They can ...

[lebkuchen]

8. Is America bright enough to rise above the Bush slime campaign

and FOX/Limbaugh/CNN 24/7?

For Kerry to be tied with Bush inspite of all of the above is remarkable indeed.

[Born Free]

40. lattest poll: dung Beatles prefer bush (bull)shit

moronic observers noticed more dung Beatles eating bush (bull)shit, have concluded it means he is more popular among dung Beatles - the bush team is now cultivating the dung beatle vote to get more dung Beatles to vote. ( sorry couldn't resist)

http://www.stock-photography.co.za/stock-photography-dung-beatle.htm

[aquart]

2. Is this the economic model that doesn't include jobs? Yup, it is.

Ray's model is painfully faulty and he's not going to cope with defeat very well.

[Beetwasher]

3. Has CNN Ever Ran A Story W/ Experts Predicting a Kerry Win?

I'm sure they're out there...What a load of disgusting propoganda...

[aquart]

9. It's good. Lull them, energize us.

The one thing we do NOT need is to be complacent come November. Not with Nader waiting like a coyote to pick off stray votes.

[tridim]

4. Uhm.. economic numbers (especially faux ones) don't vote

People do. Diebold notwithstanding.

[leftchick]

5. they actually printed this absurd hypothosis a month ago....

<sigh>... :eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

6. keep telling yourselves that, repukes

58% lead?
no need even to vote! ;)

[Birthmark]

7. Bwhahaha! Best laugh all day! Thanks.

58.5% for Bush...lololol

Them Canadian prescription drugs must be realllll good!

[bluestateguy]

10. Their track record is not a good one

Many of them forecast Bush in 1992, and convinving margins of victory for Gore in 2000. They did better in 1996. They also have a tendency to go back and retroactively change their formulas after their numbers come out wrong and say, "See we really were right. We just forgot to take XYZ into consideration."

[IA_Seth]

11. Sure he will...

I swear, it seems like there are a million groups out there that all think they have found the key to predicting an election...and they all seem to agree/disagree for different reasons.

The key is to VOTE, and get others to VOTE too! The candidate with the more energized backers, the candidates with the motivated voters will be the winner.

And that, my friends, is certainly NOT Mr. Bush.

[baldguy]

12. Another biased anti-American story from the vile Liberal Media.

[legin]

13. Chris Wlezien picture and email adress below

http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/Wlezien.htm

[Rambis]

14. Another source

I don't know how credible it is but...
http://www.campaignline.com/oddsmaker/index.cfm?navid=12

[dArKeR]

15. Minn. Faces Overcrowding in Nursing Field - This model or the BUSH WHORE

MODEL?

Kirsten Kaufmann spent four years and $100,000 pursuing her nursing degree, expecting a job in what forecasters had long predicted would be a field with plenty of demand. But after graduating from Gustavus Adolphus College in May, the 22-year-old still hasn't found a permanent job.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x771542

[Gothmog]

16. These are same idiots who predicted Gore would win easily

The fact that these idiots are predicting a Bush victory is actually good news for the Democrats. These models do not take into account the fact that Bush has reintroduced stagflation and a jobless recovery.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

31. Aside from voter fraud

Gore did win easily.

[Swamp Rat]

17. They are starting the "paper trail"...

This November, they are going to steal the election - again.

[chromotone]

18. Yeah, sure CNN...And David Letterman faked the "yawning boy" viedo...

Give it up, CNN, your credibility is shot!

[0007]

19. The new FAUX

[Fovea]

20. Of course, the historical data from Hoover somehow

does not apply.
That's right, jobs mean nothing. The unemployed will look at the Dow and vote PNAC.

[krkaufman]

21. Oh for dog's sake...?

Boosh will take 58% of the vote?!?! Yes, and Alan Keyes by 10%.

Their models are excrement.

[Nambe]

22. I posted this identical article last week. It sure has legs.

I looks at short term economic realities as does bush. Dems and people that actually care about the country look at the long term economic trends during this admin and see a true/different picture.

[autorank]

23. I'll get my predictions at Astroworld!

Unlike the practitioners of the dismal science, they are 'sensitive' to what's really happening. The economists show what happens in a system where after "x" years, you get a job for life...no matter how ridiculous you are.

[mconvente]

24. Yeah, and Dewey was supposed to win as well

The GDP numbers are misleading, and this is why. The growth of wealth is occuring in the wealthy class already, not a movement from lower to middle, middle to upper-middle, etc. So when mega-CEOs add millions to their incomes (IE - GDP goes up through selling products), jobs are being lost to overseas competition. The numbers don't lie - President Bush is going to be the first president since uber-screw up Hoover to lose jobs during a term. That fact is undeniable. And after the crazy election bullshit that happened in 2000, it's way too early to call the election. Hell, networks called the election for both candidates in 2000, and that was on election day, not two months before!! If anything, this fuels Kerry people to get out there more and grab those swing voters.

BTW - my mother gets her Kerry lawn sign in a few days. We can't wait!

[htuttle]

25. Economic models predict we'll never run out of oil, too

Economists believe, solely on the basis of 'supply and demand', that oil will always be available -- somehow. Of course, they are ignoring, geology and basic physics in the process, but those aren't taken into consideration in their 'economic model'.

Just as this Yale 'economic model' fails to take anything but a small number of economic indicators into consideration.

Yale? :eyes:

[Zynx]

26. This was discredited in 2000

It's a garbage model.

[progressivebydesign]

27. Oh.. this shit again?

This was peddled around early last week. Despite their embarrassing forecast. Hello?? That's because GORE WON, you ninnies! Duh!

[Dickie Flatt]

28. If they're wrong, will they go away?

Wrong again, that is.

[Selwynn]

29. It just goes to show you that statistics are relative bullshit

I know truthisall has put together some nice optimistic statistical data predicting a Kerry win, and I look at it with interest. But with all due respect, I remain convinced that the numbers can be crunched virtually any way you want to crunch them to deliver basically any result you want to see. Much statistical analysis has some roots in some key assumptions (which I'll call biases) that influence a long statistical chain of events.

I tend to take all statistical data models with a grain of salt. I also continue to say that despite however much we might want things to be otherwise, the race for the white house remains basically too close to call.

[Ghetto_Boy]

30. Mark Twain: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics

[Champion Jack]

32. Consider the source

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[nolabels]

36. That would be best for all, but...........................

It's time for cover the options scenario and before you move a herd you must create a motive for going that way. There is still enough people with jobs to kind of believe things are turning around (while they cook the books)

Two Voting Companies & Two Brothers Will Count 80% of U.S. Election -
Using BOTH Scanners & Touchscreens

by Lynn Landes 4/27/04

Voters can run, but they can't hide from these guys. Meet the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Todd. Their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count (using BOTH computerized ballot scanners and touchscreen machines) about 80% of all votes cast in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Both ES&S and Diebold have been caught installing uncertified software in their machines. Although there is no known certification process that will protect against vote rigging or technical failure, it is a requirement of most, if not all, states.

And, according to author Bev Harris in her book, Black Box Voting, "...one of the founders of the original ES&S (software) system, Bob Urosevich, also oversaw development of the original software now used by Diebold Election Systems."

Talk about putting all our eggs in one very bogus, but brotherly basket.

Even if states or counties hire their own technicians to re-program Diebold or ES&S software (or software from other companies), experts say that permanently installed software, called firmware, still resides inside of both electronic scanners and touchscreen machines and is capable of manipulating votes. For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'firmware', here's a definition by BandwidthMarket.com: "Software that is embedded in a hardware device that allows reading and executing the software, but does not allow modification, e.g., writing or deleting data by an end user."

The ability to rig an election is well within easy reach of voting machine companies. And it does not matter if the machines are scanners or touchscreens, or are networked or hooked up to modems
(snip)
http://www.ecotalk.org/UrosevichBrothers.htm

Riverside County Security Breach

Section 18575 of the California Elections Code makes it illegal for anyone other than an election officer to handle, count, or canvass ballots:

Every person is guilty of a felony, and on conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years, who at any election: (a) without first having been appointed and qualified, acts as an election officer, (b) not being an election officer, performs or discharges any of the duties of an election officer in regard to the handling, counting, or canvassing of any ballots.

This section provides that only authorized people, such as an election officer, may count votes. To the extent that an unauthorized person handles or counts votes, he or she is in violation of section 18575
(snip)
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/riverside-county.htm

My guess, living in this county and observing this official responses (very evasive), I would say more than likely there is some funny business there. After watching my Friend and several others get railroaded in traffic court (like the rest of California)It would not be too hard to believe the other reports because not too much fair is going on around here

And McJustice for All

How traffic court is still the best place in the land to watch the system run over your rights


By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.04.97/cover/traffic-ct-9749.html

[devinsgram]

33. First of all

this upcoming election is unlike any other presidential election ever in history, so lets keep the historical part out of it. There is definitely no history that you can compare to it. Second, these same people admit failure four years ago, so what the hell are they trying to do it again for. It just doesn't even make any sense.

The only thing they are right about is the fact that any time someone comes out to try to forecast what will happen they are always wrong. I take reference to the guy last year that tried to say that Gore would be the next president because he read it in his astrology chart. Now basically he was right, but there are so many variables that can change this as we all know now. Then there was Sylvia Browne who also predicted that Gore would win and later when questioned about it, she said she didn't know about the electoral college. That kinda amazes me, because I thought anyone who has lived over 50 years and gone thru umpteen presidential elections and doesn't know about the electoral college, is definitely out of the loop.

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who is trying to predict the outcome of the election by using chart and graphs and historical data just has got to get a life.

[mistertrickster]

34. The one good thing--can you imagine the unmitigated disaster of

a second Bush term?

All those skeletons falling out of the closets--all those chickens coming home to roost--all those other shoes dropping.

If it weren't for the love that I have for my country, it would almost be worth it to see Bush finally fry in his own juice.

[Hawkeye-X]

35. are they holding the graph upside down? n/t

[Raster]

37. It's just more propaganda poorly disguised as news by one of the...

WHORE cable news networks.

[stevebreeze]

38. looks to me like a very flawed assumption on "income"

If they are using GDP( as it appears they are) they are counting the total of all income as a lump sum. While corporations, and those at or near the top who own them are doing very well, most of us working folk are not. Surprisingly I don't fell much better seeing the economic elite buying another yacht.

Retail spending is up at Sax 5th Ave and down at Walmart. With few exceptions the only people at the top who vote against their immediate economic interest are those who see the loss of CUSTOMERS as a concern for future profits.

[GaryL]

39. Right!

They goofed mightily with using GDP. Productivity has been increasing based on the 35.5 hour/week standard. Work your people like a dog and anything above 35.5 is "increased" productivity. And the decrease in retail spending is ominous. Home owner equity is just about squeezed out which financed consumer spending. And when consumer spending goes, you then depend on business and housing to pick up the slack. Anyone see that happening soon? Nope, we are on an economic precipice. All the hoping in the world isn't going to change that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. "Income GROWTH"???? What the heck are those idiots talking about?

[dArKeR]

42. US economy may be in for another oil shock - Recession -AFP

High oil prices, which have been a factor in virtually all US recessions over the past three decades, are surging again this year. And the higher crude-oil prices climb, the more risk energy costs pose to what, until recently, many expected to be a banner year for the US economy.

Some economists are even beginning to worry about an outright recession if oil prices, already at record levels, go much higher. And concerns are rising about the threat of "stagflation," a dreaded economic malady of stagnant growth coupled with rising prices that had the US in its grip during the oil shocks of the 1970s.

It isn't just higher energy prices that are inflicting the damage, but the ripple effect these higher costs have on such critical areas as consumer spending.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2004/08/24/2003200054

[dArKeR]

43. U.S. Existing Home Sales Fall in July

Sales of existing U.S. homes fell more than expected in July, as the housing market took a breather from its record-toppling run, a trade association report showed on Tuesday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20040824/bs_nm/economy_homes_dc

[Ilsa]

44. Yeah, well, the "Bible Code" predicted Gore would win...

and he really did, but it failed to mention that the SCOTUS would overturn that victory.

[gasperc]

45. I think these same models predicted Bush I would win

so we're safe, from these nutwads

[dArKeR]

46. Look at this yahoo pic of Shit-for-Brains! Drug addicts don't looke this

stupid!

[Endangered Specie]

47. Has anyone checked the track record of these predictions...

I trust their predictions about as much as an astrology nut's.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. You are getting very sleeeeeepy...

You love George Bush, you really do. It's only Satan's breath that whispers in your ear. Relax. He's homey and makes you feel good about being an American. Your eyelids are very heavy. We know what you think, let us tell you again. It'll all be fine...

[ProfessorGAC]

49. 58.5%!?!?!?!?!?!?

Obviously, these "economists" need to take my classes. There is no possible way a valid model would indicate a landslide. There is insufficient data over the past 20 elections to indicate a trend that drastically different than that of the last 4 elections and the overall results of 4 years of recent polling data.

Also, Wlezien's model is ridiculous. How did this idiot get a job at Oxford? Those two parameters (income growth and approval ratings) are autocorrelated. You can't put both of those in the same model. It's like arbritrarily squaring one of the factors you already know has mathematical leverage so you can strengthen that effect. Doing that has nothing to do with legitimate modeling.

This is the dumbest thing i've read in a while, and most of you know how i feel about the pinheads in my community of analysts and economists. Virtually everything they say is dubious, but this takes the cake!

The Professor

[JHB]

56. Thanks Prof...

If it weren't for you, Paul Krugman, and a few others, guys like this would have me completely convinced that "economists" were nothing more than palm readers with calculators.

Republican apologists may yet be the death of your profession. :cry:

[TahitiNut]

57. It's an area redolent of politicized pseudo-science.

To employ 'averaged' metrics while ignoring distribution is an a priori abdication of a fundamental precept of governance: justice. It's appalling to me that there's so little light shed on the macroeconomic fallacy of an "ownership society." Other than affirming an ownership equity in one's own 'means of production,' a segregated "ownership class" cannot be a positive aspect of a sustainable and just economy. It's feudalism: plantation economics.

[Claire Beth]

50. I don't buy that....

Dipwad's approval rating is not good and hopefully more people are going to wise up to his lies.

[MetaTrope]

51. A conclusion they no doubt reached via analysis of Diebold stock

:eyes:

[KelleyKramer]

52. Baghdad Bob: "Bush will take 58.5 percent of the vote"

That is hilarious! Just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard!

While Jon Stewart is doing a great job, I still say he has the easiest job in comedy.

The Daily Show doesn’t even need to pay writers anymore, all they have to do is play the actual CNN news reports and they'll get huge laughs from the audience.

And thats a Yale 'economist'?? ... I didn’t know they had such a bad crack problem at Yale.

[PATRICK]

53. Historical models

are hysterical. How old is this country? How late in the twentieth Century do these "patterns " apply? With failures and exceptions of course like...war....mumble, mumble, crushing future killing deficits, total unfairness in taxation and economic advantage in this "healthy" economy.

Anything beyond simply noting common sense that people vote their pocketbook as a top priority is simply pimping for Bush.

And what wise, fair network is bringing out these seers?

The GOP didn't care the economy was robust under Clinton. They stole and they raped. The economy somewhat, temporally endured- according to its own laws and cycles without benefit of anything Bush did but exploitation for his personal friends.

"Historical pattern" here is like picking one tea leaf and enshrining it behind glass. "When in danger of discussing important issues, please break."

How about the REAL long term patterns of tyranny and oppression? Power struggles, political allegiances of groups and types of people through the ages?

This is not science, but astrology by other means. Otherwise Gore, the real winner of the election, would be President. That was not an exception to be blamed on Gore somehow being the doofus that Bush demonstrated HE was, but evidence of another rule of brute power taking decent people unawares, blinded by greed and anger.

[well well]

54. Isn't this put out by one of the guys who drank the koolaid in order to

join the others on the Hale Bop comet a few years ago?

[Ghetto_Boy]

55. But what about the wholly Caterpillar prediction?