Not sure if this will bear out this time with other concerns skewing the mindset of the electorate....Then again, I'm still expecting a clear Bush win.
Posted on 08/03/2004 7:02:20 AM PDT by veronica
BUSH BY A LANDSLIDE
A Yale economist, Ray Fair has constructed a model that predicts the outcome of presidential elections using economic data alone. The model’s predictive power? As good as that of any model and better than that of most.
What does the Fair model predict for 2004? Bush will win in a landslide, capturing more than 57 percent of the vote. To see for yourself, click here...
| Presidential Vote Equation |
| The following paper presents the November 1, 2002, update of the vote equation. No specification changes were made for this update from the previous update (in November 1998), which itself was unchanged from the update before that. The equation was simply reestimated using the latest data. This paper also contains the first prediction for 2004 using the 2002 update. November 2002 update paper and the November 1, 2002, prediction Compute your own prediction for 2004 using the 2002 update Predictions for 2004 using 2002 update: January 30, 2003, prediction April 25, 2003, prediction July 31, 2003, prediction October 31, 2003, prediction February 5, 2004, prediction April 29, 2004, prediction July 31, 2004, prediction Earlier update papers: 1982 1988 1990 1996 1998 Original paper: 1978 Non technical discussion: Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things (Chapters 1, 3, and 4) |
What was the prediction in 2000?
FYI...
I just open by eyes and ears to the non-filtered, non-biased news and it's clear.
But Zogby says Bush should start packing his bags and reserve a U-Haul for November.
The "click here" link will take you to the page with the hot links.
Ping.
But does it factor in people being brainwashed by Michael Moore and the liberal media? Wild-card.
A landslide of 57%? I've never heard it referred to as a landslide before.
"The actual outcome was that Gore received 50.3 percent of the two party vote. The last prediction on this site (October 27, 2000), which used actual values for all the economic variables, was that Gore would receive 50.8 percent of the two party vote. The error is thus 0.5 percentage points. The standard error of the equation is 2.15 percentage points, and so the actual error is well within one standard error. The presidential vote equation thus did extremely well."
I started out thinking this election would be a Bush by a landslide win. Then i became much less sure and even worried that Bush could lose this one. Now I'm back to thinking it will be a Bush win by a fair margin of at least 10%.
Not sure if this will bear out this time with other concerns skewing the mindset of the electorate....Then again, I'm still expecting a clear Bush win.
America is not going to elect a metrosexual gigolo. He is a faux war hero. A faux man. A pompous windbag. A liar and a hypocrite. Kerry will go down with a bang and cry when he falls.
Kerry by 2%
Too many folks are buying his "nuance" BS.
That's a 14 point spread in a two-way race. That is a landslide.
I agree, atomicpossum. This electoral cycle promises to be unusual. Bush should win, but not with 57% of the popular vote.
I only see one issue in this election. Who will win Ohio.
George Bush won a landslide in 1988 and got 53.4% of the vote. In 1984 Reagan won 58 to 40% and it was the biggest landslide in history. I would consider anything over 53% for GW a Kerry ass-whoopin'.
We should all pray this will be true. Not just because Bush will win but because it will give him a voter mandate, something that has been missing. It will give Bush the green light to "take care" of pending business in the Middle East. Then we will start seeing the political vampires slither back into their graves. A completely different landscape will emerge.
Under the conventional wisdom that the major party candidates get 40% no matter what, the election focuses on the middle 20% -- anything better than 55-45 is considered a landslide.
Besides, if Bush does get 57% of the vote, he'll probably get over 350 EV, which would also be considered a landslide.
I'd agree with the Electoral College rout being a landslide. I'm just not comfortable with the numbers; anything below 60% and the left will continue screaming that "Bush Has No Mandate!"
Willgetsome, I sense you Wontgetsome credibility with your prediction. W will not lose this election. Bill Clinton willssetothatsome.
A landslide of 57%? I've never heard it referred to as a landslide before.
Considering that the last three presidential elections didn’t have a single candidate with a simple majority, 57% would absolutely be a landslide of historical proportions.
Reagan only got 51% against Carter, and his 59% against Mondale was by all measures a huge landslide.
i want W to win by one electoral vote again... just to enrage the libs
Thnaks for the condensed version.
Interesting.
"Not sure if this will bear out this time with other concerns skewing the mindset of the electorate...."
Might, might not, but either way its a stick in the ribs to the liberals right now, and a constant pounding in doubt for their candidate is good for them.
I don't need an economist's model to tell me Bush will win by a good margin.
I just open by eyes and ears to the non-filtered, non-biased news and it's clear.
&&
But you and I -- and other Freepers -- keep ourselves informed. I shudder to think how many voters just make their decisions based on what Dan Rather or Wolf Blitzer or Al Franken tell them.
If Bush loses in November, I will be truly fearful because it will be the beginning of the end of our civilizaton. And I am not being melodramatic here. Kerry's reign would finish the job that Clinton began of destroying our ability to defend ourselves. The islamofascists would hereafter declare November 2 a sacred day of triumph.
Not to pee in your applesauce, but didn't America elect Clinton?
I hate threads like this. Not because of any one poster, but because I fear that overconfidence may cause some of us to become lax.
ALWAYS fight like you're ten points down.
Then Bush wins. I don't care what the national pundits say, but as an Ohioan I know that the state is too conservative to vote for Kerry. Outside of northeast Ohio (Cleveland), Bush has solid support.
Yes, but the good news is that number, as a percentage of population, is in constant decline.
That would be funny. On the other hand you cannot easily accuse your opponent of "stealing" the election if he wins by 10% of the vote
Even better would be to have it finish in a perfect tie, which would throw it to the sitting House of Reps, giving it to Bush.
I am never overconfident. Certainly not this year. I post this as an item of interest, one more thing to throw into the mix.
Presidential Vote Equation--July 31, 2004
The predictions of GROWTH, INFLATION, and GOODNEWS for the previous forecast from the US model (April 29, 2004) were 3.2 percent, 2.0 percent, and 3, respectively. The current predictions from the US model (July 31, 2004) are 2.7 percent, 2.1 percent, and 2, respectively. The current predictions are based on the NIPA data that were revised back to beginning of 2001. Given the revised data, there are only 2 good news quarters in the first 14 of the Bush administration: 2003:3 and 2004:1. The US model is not predicting that the current quarter (2004:3) will be a good news quarter, and so the total number of good news quarters is 2.
So the revised data and the economic predictions for 2004:3 from the US model show a slightly lower value for GROWTH, essentially the same value for INFLATION, and the value of GOODNEWS lowered from 3 to 2. These new economic values give a prediction of 57.48 percent of the two-party vote for President Bush rather than 58.74 percent before. This is, of course, still a large predicted share for President Bush, although 1.26 percentage points less than before.
Election night is going to be a nailbiter.
So, I predict a Bush landslide.
But I predicted one in 2000, too.
Oh, I agree with you. This could still go either way. Bush has to fight smart, do well in the debates, and get his message out in a way that resonates with voters. But I do think in the end, he'll win.
The left will not stop screaming no matter what, you should not allow that to discomfort you.
I always remind myself what Rush has been saying for years: The more power they loose the kookier they get. This election season we are seeing that play out in spades IMNSHO.
Which is what I hate about national elections now. they aren't national.
Reagan won a landslide at 55%. Anything more than 10 points is a landslide.
Does it take into account all the Democrap fraud that is bound to occur? . . . as happened last time in WI (union fraud; vote buying), IO (more people voted than were registered), MI (union s stuffed ballot boxes), MO (polls kept open late), PA (documented busloads of blacks going to several different polling places), NM (2 missing ballot boxes in Republican districts in a state decided by 500 votes), CA (millions of illegals registered; 1 million absentee ballots, including military, never counted), and FL (on my God!) . . . . O.K., so I am probably forgetting some states and some instances of fraud. But, remember that Bush "lost" all of these escept MO and, yes, FL. The point is: if the election is close at all, be afraid! Be very afraid!
and yeah, once again it'll come down to the debates.
Why don't you tell us what you really think of the guy.
And what happens when they realize they have nothing more to lose?
I'm just hoping the MSCA missions we've planned don't get used.
Voters will get into the polling booth and have their moment of truth about John Kerry, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and Islamist terrorism.
GWB wins.
Such a number would mean a landslide in electoral votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.