Economist: Numbers Add up to Democratic Victory in '08

[babylonsister]

Economist: Numbers Add up to Democratic Victory in '08
By CQ Staff | 11:01 AM; Sep. 24, 2007 | Email This Article

By Clea Benson, CQ Staff

Yale University economist Ray C. Fair uses a mathematical formula to predict the outcome of presidential elections based on the state of the national economy. He plugs in numbers accounting for the growth rate, inflation rate, influence of incumbency and other factors, and he projects the winning party and margin. In most election years, he’s close.

Right now, Fair is forecasting that the Democrats will come out on top in 2008 by 2 percentage points. Still, he and others say there’s time for that to change in either direction.

“The die is not yet cast, because we do have about five quarters to go before the election.” Fair said last week. “The vote equation says that people do wait until those quarters to decide.”

While pollsters and experts say that a critical cross-section of voters are increasingly anxious about long-term problems such as how they will pay for health care and college for their children, there is another layer to the economic-political equation. Trouble in the broad economy could exacerbate that anxiety sometime before Americans head to the polls 13 months from now. With housing in turmoil, the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, stock prices gyrating and the latest statistics showing unexpected job losses, even experienced prognosticators aren’t certain what shape the economy will be in then.

But if the economy worsens, voters would suddenly be focused not just on retirement and college costs, but on more urgent needs, such as keeping their homes and jobs.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/economist_numbers_add_up_to_de.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The Model Didn't Work Very Well In 00

eom

[Kelly Rupert]

2. What are you talking about?

It worked fine in 2000. It predicted, "The election is thus predicted to be very close, with a slight edge for the Democrats," with 50.8% of the vote, but "According to the equation it is just strong enough to have the Democrats squeak by, but given the standard error of the equation of 2.1 percentage points, the election is essentially predicted to be a toss up."

A toss-up breaking very slightly Democratic. That would, indeed, reflect the popular vote, since Gore won the popular vote with 50.3%. I don't think a discrepancy of 0.5% is " very well."

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote/index.htm

He fucked up 2004, though, claiming Bush would get 57% of the two-party vote, when he actually got 51.6%. However, the model couldn't fully take the effect of the war into consideration, being weighted almost entirely on the economy, from what I read.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Gore Didn't Get 50.3% Of The Popular Vote

The last Democrat to get a majority of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter..

[Kelly Rupert]

4. He got 50.3% of the two-party vote,

which is what this is predicting, as you'd see if you click through and read about his methods.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. These One Dimensional Models Are Right Until They Are Wrong

eom

[melody]

6. There's no way you can win when the house is against you lol

With our awareness of Diebold, things will be different this time.