2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[minionofmidas]

The 2004 presidenial election is one of the most difficult to predict for a variety of reasons.

Very true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 36 year cycle never was a natural law. 1824 and 1968 are really only included in that "theory" to make it look rounder - if they weren't in a line with 1789, 1860, 1896 and 1932, nobody would include them. But that's just an aside.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extremely imperfect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

fair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

extremely imperfect due to uncontested races etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure what you mean - I guess I'll just have to read on (I'm commenting and reading at the same time)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes difficult to quantify, but usually impossible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean, as in trends?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(note: stuff I've deleted is stuff I don't have anything to add to/complain about) By my count, the 2002 House election result, as opposed to the reapportionment and redistricting result, was a Dem gain of 1 - this is despite the fact that the Reps did increase their share of the national vote by about 1.5 percentage points, the biggest move since 1994. I don't recall that about the gubernatorial elections either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the problem with analyses like that - everybody's bound to see exactly what he wants to see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That came pretty suddenly. Also, what was the electorate in 2000?
All in all, yeah, some food for thought here, but not a convincing case that Kerry will get stuffed (which is what I would call it if your numbers came true).

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the post to which I previously refered you to, I briefly listed numerous criteria which I used in developing my projection.

Due to limitations on the length of posts, I did not elaborate on the methodology of each of these criteria.

I will begin listed them in order, starting with the key economic statistic, "unemployment rate."

If you review the unemployment rate statistics back to ther 1932 election (they are not available for prior Presidential elections), you will see that every single President renominated by his party forreelection with an unemployment rate of less that 7.1% has been reelected.

In those Presidential elections during the period involved where the incumbent was renominated and had an unemployment rate of 7.1% or higher, in a majority of the cases, they were defeated (the exceptions are FDR in 36 and 40, and Reagan in 84).

Based on a statistical analysis of this data, it seems to me that Bush would be reelected by a margin of 4.48% or higher.

[stry_cat]

In the post to which I previously refered you to, I briefly listed numerous criteria which I used in developing my projection.

Due to limitations on the length of posts, I did not elaborate on the methodology of each of these criteria.

I will begin listed them in order, starting with the key economic statistic, "unemployment rate."

If you review the unemployment rate statistics back to ther 1932 election (they are not available for prior Presidential elections), you will see that every single President renominated by his party forreelection with an unemployment rate of less that 7.1% has been reelected.

In those Presidential elections during the period involved where the incumbent was renominated and had an unemployment rate of 7.1% or higher, in a majority of the cases, they were defeated (the exceptions are FDR in 36 and 40, and Reagan in 84).

Based on a statistical analysis of this data, it seems to me that Bush would be reelected by a margin of 4.48% or higher.

How does this change if you use change in unemployment rate instead of the unemployment rate?

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the post to which I previously refered you to, I briefly listed numerous criteria which I used in developing my projection.

Due to limitations on the length of posts, I did not elaborate on the methodology of each of these criteria.

I will begin listed them in order, starting with the key economic statistic, "unemployment rate."

If you review the unemployment rate statistics back to ther 1932 election (they are not available for prior Presidential elections), you will see that every single President renominated by his party forreelection with an unemployment rate of less that 7.1% has been reelected.

In those Presidential elections during the period involved where the incumbent was renominated and had an unemployment rate of 7.1% or higher, in a majority of the cases, they were defeated (the exceptions are FDR in 36 and 40, and Reagan in 84).

Based on a statistical analysis of this data, it seems to me that Bush would be reelected by a margin of 4.48% or higher.

How does this change if you use change in unemployment rate instead of the unemployment rate?

Good question.

Even though the unemployment rates in 36, 40 and 84 were of a magnitude to disturb the electorate, the unemployment rates were NOT increasing in the year before the election, and were generally decreasing.  In short, the incumbents in those years (FDR and Reagan) were NOT blamed for the relatively high unemployment rates.

[minionofmidas]

Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared.

In the real world, no data is perfect.

Please note that I did NOT base my prediction solely on this particular factor.

You approach seems to be that unless data is perfect its worthless.

I suggest that the data speaks for itself for those who are reasonable.

[WMS]

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=10896

Final prediction for this election. Title: 'It's Gonna Be A Long Night'.

[minionofmidas]

Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared.

In the real world, no data is perfect.

Please note that I did NOT base my prediction solely on this particular factor.

You approach seems to be that unless data is perfect its worthless.

I suggest that the data speaks for itself for those who are reasonable.

Yeah, I know that...imperfect data isn't worthless o/c, but mathematical models based on imperfect data are likely to produce misleading results - and have the potential to produce entirely bogus results. Of course, such minor problems may cancel each other out - they'd have to be tugging in all directions though.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared.

In the real world, no data is perfect.

Please note that I did NOT base my prediction solely on this particular factor.

You approach seems to be that unless data is perfect its worthless.

I suggest that the data speaks for itself for those who are reasonable.

Yeah, I know that...imperfect data isn't worthless o/c, but mathematical models based on imperfect data are likely to produce misleading results - and have the potential to produce entirely bogus results. Of course, such minor problems may cancel each other out - they'd have to be tugging in all directions though.

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%.

[Platypus]

I am fairly confident the upper midwest will stick together again-it has since 1988. Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota will almost certainly vote together, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's slightly more likely that they'll all vote for Bush then Kerry, but it's definently not by a large amount.

[2952-0-0]

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=11362

[Platypus]

Probably my final, depending on events over the next bit.

[Platypus]

If the upper midwest IS going to split, this is probably how.

[kevinatcausa]

Note that if the current "Most Recent Predictions" map is correct, we'll be stuck waiting for Hawaii to finish counting its ballots before we get the final result. 

[muon2]

Note that if the current "Most Recent Predictions" map is correct, we'll be stuck waiting for Hawaii to finish counting its ballots before we get the final result. 

I suspect that HI will not be the last state to finish counting ballots this year.

[minionofmidas]

Here's my weighted polls average, with thoughts and 2000 results.
ME Kerry by 4 (was 5). Sounds about right. 2nd CD will be close again but will go for Kerry too.
NH Kerry by 1 (was Bush by 1). Ditto.
VT Kerry by 11 (was 10). I think the lead's going to be rather larger here, actually.
MA Kerry by 25 (was 27). Based on polls underestimating Dem motivation, as often happens in safe states. Will be bigger than 2000.
RI Kerry by 21 (was 29). Will be bigger than that, though smaller than Massachusetts (or than 2000).
CT Kerry by 13 (was 17). I'm okay with that.
NY Kerry by 18 (was 25). LMAO. Won't move much from 2000 result.
NJ Kerry by 6 (was 16). I'd guess it'll be a tad more than that, but closer 6 than 16. 8 to 10, say.
PA Kerry by 2 (was 4). I say 4, not that it matters.
OH Bush by 1 (was 4). Looking good, except that Kerry has to win either Ohio or Florida, else he's doomed. Fingers crossed...
IN Bush by 17 (was 16). Yeah, looks fine.
IL Kerry by 12 (was 12). ditto.
MI Kerry by 5 (was 5). ditto.
WI Bush by 2 (was Gore by 0.) Hate to say it, but I believe that's about right.
MN Kerry by 1 (was 2). I'm pretty sure Kerry holds it, not sure whether or not it'll be this close.
IA Bush by 1 (was Gore by 0.) Will be pretty much dead on the national average once more. I'm saying Kerry by 0.
MO Bush by 5 (was 3). Looks a tad high.
ND Bush by 25 (was 28) Looks too low. I'm saying 28 again.
SD Bush by 17 (was 23). I'd love to see that, but we won't. Bush by 20-22.
NE Bush by 29 (was 29). Fine.
KS Bush by 21 (was 21). Fine.
DE Kerry by 11 (was 13). Looks okay. Might be just about in single digits, even.
MD Kerry by 11 (was 16). I say MD will stay three points higher than DE.
DC Kerry by 73 (was 76). Based on 2000 result plus one single poll with too many undecideds. I look at the Nader vote and think it'll be more like 79.
VA Bush by 6 (was . Fine.
WV Bush by 3 (was 6). I'd a thought it'd swing a we bit more than Ohio...but I guess the Dems would have had to actually campaign in the state for that...I'm not quite writing it off yet, though.
NC Bush by 7 (was 13). Edwards sure having an effect here.
SC Bush by 15 (was 16). Why not?
GA Bush by 16 (was 12). Rich, southern, military. Yeah, might trend that far Republican.
FL Bush by 2 (was 0). Looks the more likely Rep hold by a whisper. Jeb'll manage. Somehow.
KY Bush by 17 (was 15). Fine.
TN Bush by 12 (was 4). Unmasking the Gore effect. Probably spot on.
AL Bush by 20 (was 15). This one looks too high to me. Closer 16, I'd guess.
MS Bush by 16 (was 17). Fine.
AR Bush by 5 (was 5). Looks a tad high.
LA Bush by 12 (was . That may well be.
OK Bush by 27 (was 22).The state's very well polled, due to the Senate race, so I'm taking their word for it.
TX Bush by 22 (was 21). Looking allright.
MT Bush by 23 (was 25). Ditto.
ID Bush by 36 (was 40). Ditto.
WY Bush by 39 (was 40). Ditto.
CO Bush by 6 (was . Ditto, even though that starts to look repetitive.
NM Bush by 0 (was Gore by 0). I say Dems hold it, but I really don't have a clue. Might swing pretty far in either direction actually, though more likely it'll be dead close again.
AZ Bush by 9 (was 6.) Sounds okay.
UT Bush by 43 (was 40). Yeah...looks mighty mighty, don't it now...but there's quite a couple of polls out...I'll take it.
NV Bush by 4 (was 4). Looking quite right.
WA Kerry by 6 (was 6). Okay, sure. Although I'd say 8.
OR Kerry by 4 (was 0). Whoever said Oregon was a battleground? Oregon is not a battleground.
CA Kerry by 10 (was 12). Okay.
AK Bush by 30 (was 31.) Based on 2000 result and one poll. I have an inkling Alaska is going to be a good bit closer than 2000 actually, though still a Rep landslide win. 20-25, say.
HI Kerry 9 (was 18). Sounds fair. Might be even closer. I say HI beats out NJ for strongest pro-Bush swing.
Overall, the maths says 296-242 for Bush. The gut says 274-264 for Kerry. Or, well, maybe the gut does say 296-242 for Bush after all. But the prediction says 274-264 for Kerry.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

[© tweed]

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.

[Esteban Manuel]

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?

[Jyrki]

Ranking swing states from most solid for Kerry to most solid for Bush

- KERRY :

(likely)
New Jersey
Hawaï
Washington
Maine 1

(lean)
Oregon
Minnesota
Maine 2
Pennsylvanie
Michigan
New Hampshire
Ohio
Iowa
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Florida

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

- BUSH :

(lean)
Nevada
Colorado
Missouri
West Virginia

(likely)
Arkansas
Virginia
North Carolina
Arizona

[minionofmidas]

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.