Posted on 10/29/2004 7:15:05 AM PDT by KrazyEyezKillah
The famour Fair model has been updated for the new GDP numbers. Strong economic growth caused Yale economist, Ray Fair, to boost his prediction of President Bush's share of the vote. The prediction of his economic model: Bush wins with 58% of the vote.
58% of the vote? Seems awfully high to me. We'll see on Tuesday, I suppose.
Yalue University is a real value.
Hmm... I think this election could be an anomoly. Bush has failed to inform voters of this economic growth, and only 40% in polls think the economy is getting better. Yes, the media bias is a big problem, but Bush had an opportunity to show off this economic growth in the debates and he didnt mention it ONCE.
Thanks I have been looking for math since I first read of this guy in the NYTimes.
Btw, the field of study is called Econometrics. And Ray Fair has wrote some books. I have one and am gonna read it after the election.
If the media were fair.. Bush would win 58-41..
I see 53% as a real strong possibility.
I'm very confident of a Bush landslide.
I put my money where my mouth is and sold all but 1% of my miners and metals this morning. I've held those positions for four years.
I'm positioned to take advantage of a booming economy.
I'm often accused of being the most ridiculous optimist in the office concerning election predictions, and even I think 58% is absurd.
This model doesn't have a way to figure in cheating and fraud.
Yeah, but the beauty of strong economic growth is that it breaks through the MSM bias. People may hear about hoovervilles, and soup lines from CBS/NYTimes, but in the aggregate the American people know that they have more money in their pocket. On the margin it makes each individual voter more likely to pull the W. lever in the voting booth.
The MSM is 100% against him and have no problem in smearing him in this fashion. And the economic ignorance of a great number of Americans will allow them to be easily swayed.
Does the model say the candidate must mention the good economic growth?
My important take away from the strong economy and economic analysis is that a JFK victory is very, very, very unlikely. Don't take the 58% of the vote square in your office pool. Also, don't hate the model just because it says your guy is in very, very good shape.
Oh yeah, because they're a bunch of f***ing commie slobs.
Newt Gingrich predicted 58% too.
GDP rate, not vote.
"Does the model say the candidate must mention the good economic growth?"
I am merely pointing out that this method doesn't apply when the people do not KNOW that the economy is growing.
The word is NOT out on the economy. You know it's good.
I know it's good. But the masses don't.
In a phone conversation last Sunday morning with a relative who is retired, who lives in a state where unemployment is below national average, and gets her news from the newspaper and TV, she said she would vote for Kerry because the economy was bad.
My wife, who is in an industry that highly responsive to economic conditions exclaimed "No!"
Her company, and the companies they deal with, are at record levels right now. She said that many of the contacts she works with at other companies say they have NEVER seen the volume they are seeing now.
But to the people who are not out there, and who get their news from the local paper, Rather, Jennings, Brokaw and CNN - the economy is in the pits.
I agree the Bush campaign has not trumpeted this, when in other times, this would be be one of the cornerstones of a Presidential campaign.
Did they always KNOW in the past?
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.