2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Vasall des Midas]

Still waiting for the example of a President seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate was less than six per cent.

Still waiting for the example of an incumbent president who won when the Redskins lost their final home game before the election.

I don't recall EVER alledging a football based prediction.

I DID use as part of my prediction the unemployment rate.

The poster to whom I had responded tried to argue imperfection of data.

I had given him numerous examples of the proof of my method, and he provided no contrary examples.

So, since you entered the discussion, do you have ANY examples of an imcumbent president seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor department) was 6% or lower?

Are you trying to misinterprete everything you are told or does that come to you naturally?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You seem to be losing it.

Your post is totally non-responsive.

I posted a question to you to which you have yet to respond.

BossTweed posted a response to my post to you which had nothing to do with the previous question.

I realize one of the techniques of the left is to try to change the subject.

Try answering the question in the first place instead of trying to change the subject.

[Vasall des Midas]

Virtually all data used in the social sciences is imperfect, as such absolute precision is impossible.

However, one can make projections with the data with a relatively high confidence level when other independent variables closely correspond with the projections made by the methodology.

BTW, instead of double talk, please cite me one example of an incumbent President seeking reelection when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor Department) was below 6%.

Yeah, sure.
a) Yes, exactly. That's why mathematical models using them should be treated as nice ideas that may even point something worthwhile out, but not as portents of the truth.
Anyways, your prediction is not based solely on that, nobody has claimed that.
b) In plain English? Which independent variables?
c) "Double Talk"? Me? Never.
As you word the question, 1996. However, I think you meant one seeking it and losing. I guess you'd have to go back to 1912 or 1892. This is *very much* a change of topic, btw. I know you're a registered Democrat but claiming yourself as a member of the left is more than just a bit thick.

Yes, my post was unresponsive. That's because yours was.

What miami was saying is, of course, "you can always find some chance unrelated event that looks like it's related". I don't agree that unemployment rates have no effect on elections (of course not...I'm from Germany), but "I don't recall ever alleging a Football based prediction" is a very weird way of answering that if answering it was indeed what you were trying to do. Don't you agree?

BTW: Part of this whole irritation is this: As your prediction is obviously off (why? because I say so ) my reply was pointing out possible causes of the error, something I never actually said. That much is my fault...

[CARLHAYDEN]

Virtually all data used in the social sciences is imperfect, as such absolute precision is impossible.

However, one can make projections with the data with a relatively high confidence level when other independent variables closely correspond with the projections made by the methodology.

BTW, instead of double talk, please cite me one example of an incumbent President seeking reelection when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor Department) was below 6%.

Yeah, sure.
a) Yes, exactly. That's why mathematical models using them should be treated as nice ideas that may even point something worthwhile out, but not as portents of the truth.
Anyways, your prediction is not based solely on that, nobody has claimed that.
b) In plain English? Which independent variables?
c) "Double Talk"? Me? Never.
As you word the question, 1996. However, I think you meant one seeking it and losing. I guess you'd have to go back to 1912 or 1892. This is *very much* a change of topic, btw. I know you're a registered Democrat but claiming yourself as a member of the left is more than just a bit thick.

Yes, my post was unresponsive. That's because yours was.

What miami was saying is, of course, "you can always find some chance unrelated event that looks like it's related". I don't agree that unemployment rates have no effect on elections (of course not...I'm from Germany), but "I don't recall ever alleging a Football based prediction" is a very weird way of answering that if answering it was indeed what you were trying to do. Don't you agree?

BTW: Part of this whole irritation is this: As your prediction is obviously off (why? because I say so ) my reply was pointing out possible causes of the error, something I never actually said. That much is my fault...

First, don't know if you're doing drugs or simply flipping out.

Second, I posted a methodology (specifically stated) where Zero exceptions (the unemployment model).  You derided it by alledging the unemployment data was insufficently accurate.  You provided NO example of where the model was wrong!

Third, mathematical models have proven their worth over the years and are more than just "nice ideas."

Fourth, if you went back to my original post, you would see that I used a number of factors (explicitly stated) to arrive at my result.  To cite just one of them, no incumbent President seeking reelection has been defeated unless he had significant primary opposition for the period going back to the end of the second world war (Bush had no significant primary opposition).

Fifth, with respect to your "word question," I can only wonder if you are referring to a post by another poster (perhaps BossTweed).  I never had a 'word question' on this thread.

Sixth, where do you get the idea I ever claimed "myself of the member of the left"?!?

Seventh, my notation that I had never used a football prediction was a response to BossTweed.

Eighth, so your ultimate basis for disagreeing with my prediction is simply "because I say so"?

Suggestion, go back and reread the posts on this thread.

[phk]

what a dumbass.

[skybridge]

Prediction

oops, i cant charge the map... Well 274(D) - 264(B) (the gut)
269-269 tie , (the map).

B: FL, WI, CO
k: MN, IA, MI, OH, NH

Under what scenario would they have been tied 269-269?

[Vasall des Midas]

Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.

1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

Ok.. I guess I should respond to this.  I am, as others have said in this thread, rather cynical and do believe in 'realpolitic', etc.  But I think its a bit much to call me a Nazi!  I think there's a big difference in being a bit Nixonian (and an admirer of Kissinger) and being a Nazi.  
Seriously though I never thought Bush would really fake bin laden's capture, I was just hypothesizing.  But I think the reason it would never happen is more because it wouldn't work than because its 'wrong'.

What you're missing here is that THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has called you a Nazi. The LEAST you can do to protest is adopt a red avatar...

See? SEE? SEE??? I turned Opebo around! Mwaahahaha! Mwaahahaha! Mwaahaha!

Relax. Nothing to see here.
I'm just going through old posts of mine deleting stuff, stumbled upon this.

[Platypus]

btw, Godwin's law came into effect via Opebo, it seems.

[© Tweed the Younger]

nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Told you so

[Grad Students are the Worst]

nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Told you so

Way to sock it to someone who is in Iraq and hasn't posted in months.

[© Tweed the Younger]

nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Told you so

Way to sock it to someone who is in Iraq and hasn't posted in months.

Thank you.

But that's when I was good at picking postseason football games.  Now all these road teams are winning and I'm like a hick on 5th avenue.