Aw, don’t be mad. Your joke passed fine. I thought it was pretty funny, myself. But you have to admit, the comeaback was also pretty funny.
We’re all just trying to have a few laughs here while we learn stuff.
toadspittle:Here’s the May 25 (!) Washington Post story announcing the models and their conclusions.
manhattan: I agree, both lines were pretty funny. But BrothaTJ is right too. Four digit post totals equal immunity.
Great article. Thanks.
I have to take issue with the study quoted in the Washington Post. This seems to have correlated economic data with the odds of the party in power being reelected. However, this rides on a crucial assumption that the VP can be compared to a president being elected, for purposes of elections.
In the last 13 elections (the ones that the models are based on) there is exactly one instance of a VP being elected president. As a result, I am convinced that these “models” are worthless.
Not that it’s horribly important, but to become a “recently former resident” of a state all you have to do is have moved out of state recently.
Enough of the state bashing (are you man enough to say where you’re from and let us hash it to bits? <<warning- that was rhetorical>>)
jcgmoi and toad spittle:
I read that entire article and didn’t read one mention of any of my favorite models. At least they could have done was include a picture of Elizabeth Hurley.
And dtilque:
Oregon is really a half and half (or half and two quarters) kind of state. Portland and surrounding area will split for gore and nader. The rural areas will vote bush, and a few will be writing in for Lon Mabon.
And brotha:
If our voting system is the only thing Oregon has going for it WHY DOES EVERY ONE WANT TO MOVE THERE???
Sorry for getting back in so late… Managed to sprain both wrists in one night and couldn’t type…foolish me…
Sue
More issue to take with the study.
1: It only accounts for changes in GNP and popular opinion of the President during the last quarter of '99 and first quarter of '00. Changes since then are considered irrelevant, which will be amusing should the stock market tank (how much is it falling today?), or economic bliss come undone (wait- are people suggsesting that rising oil prices might bring a recession? Or massive inflation?)
2: “Most of these models have picked the winner correctly in years since 1952 when the winner got 53 percent or more of the vote.”
That would be 6 of the last 12, all but one of those 6 being the re-election of a successful President. Geez, a freaking coin could accurately predict the winner of 6 out of 12 elections; if I just modify it to be “the President seeking re-election will win- if no President is seeking re-election, I flip a coin” then I win 7 out of 12 times on average, which is better than their results.
3: “All agree that third-party candidates have no palpable impact on their models, and history bears them out.”
Unless, of course, the end result is a victor with less than 53% of the vote (as Gore is polling now).
All in all, what this is is setting up a formula, throwing some numbers in (“time for a change factor”) and tweaking both the numbers and the formula until it reasonably gets the same results for several elections running. This is in no real way any more of a forecast of the coming results than the stipulation that Bush will win because the winner will be President #43, and every prime numbered President since the inception of the Republican Party has been a Republican.
Obviously Brotha forgot about Oregon’s other prominent feature: doctor-assisted suicide…