Posted on 02/14/2004 5:20:01 PM PST by nwrep
The highly accurate "Presidential Vote Equation" created by Ray Fair, a Yale economist, continues to predict a Bush landslide victory in November, despite several recent polls showing a decline in President Bush's popularity.
The model is updated every quarter with the release of quarterly economic statistics by the government.
The latest update to the model was made on February 5, 2004 based on data for the 4th quarter of 2003.
The model prediction is as follows:
Presidential Vote Equation--February 5, 2004
The predictions of GROWTH, INFLATION, and GOODNEWS for the previous forecast from the US model (October 31, 2003) were 2.4 percent, 1.9 percent, and 3, respectively. The current predictions from the US model (February 5, 2004) are 3.0 percent, 1.9 percent, and 3, respectively. In the previous forecast 2003:4 was predicted to be a GOODNEWS quarter, but it turned out not to be. For the current forecast 2004:1 is predicted to be a GOODNEWS quarter, so the total number of GOODNEWS quarters is the same at 3. The prediction of GROWTH, the per capita growth rate in the first three quarters of 2004 at an annual rate, has increased to 3.0 from 2.4 for the previous forecast. Given that the coefficient on GROWTH in the vote equation is 0.691, an increase in GROWTH of 0.6 adds 0.4 to the vote prediction.
The new economic values thus give a prediction of 58.7 percent of the two-party vote for President Bush rather than 58.3 percent before.
This does not, of course, change the main story that the equation has been making from the beginning, namely that President Bush is predicted to win by a sizable margin.
*********************************************************************
The equation, based on Ray Fair's economic model has an excellent correlation percentages of two party popular votes. The only times it has significantly deviated from the November election results was in 1992 due to the presence of a strong third party.
The equation has worked as follows since 1916:
Table
Presidential Elections Since 1916
Party Actual Predicted
in Vote Growth Infl. Good Vote
Power Share Rate Rate News Share
1916 D Pres. Wilson beat Hughes 51.7 2.2 4.3 3 50.7
1920 D Cox lost to Harding 36.1 -11.5 16.5 5 38.9
1924 R Pres. Coolidge beat Davis 58.2 -3.9 5.2 10 57.9
1928 R Hoover beat Smith 58.8 4.6 0.2 7 57.3
1932 R Pres. Hoover lost to F. Roosevelt 40.8 -14.9 7.1 4 39.2
1936 D Pres. F. Roosevelt beat Landon 62.5 11.9 2.4 9 64.3
1940 D Pres. F. Roosevelt beat Willkie 55.0 3.7 0.0 8 56.0
1944 D Pres. F. Roosevelt beat Dewey 53.8 4.1 5.7 14 52.9
1948 D Pres. Truman beat Dewey 52.4 1.8 8.7 5 50.5
1952 D Stevenson lost to Eisenhower 44.6 0.6 2.3 6 43.9
1956 R Pres. Eisenhower beat Stevenson 57.8 -1.5 1.9 5 57.3
1960 R Nixon lost to Kennedy 49.9 0.1 1.9 5 51.1
1964 D Pres. Johnson beat Goldwater 61.3 5.1 1.2 10 61.2
1968 D Humphrey lost to Nixon 49.6 4.8 3.2 7 49.6
1972 R Pres. Nixon beat McGovern 61.8 6.3 4.8 4 59.8
1976 R Ford lost to Carter 48.9 3.7 7.7 4 48.6
1980 D Pres. Carter lost to Reagan 44.7 -3.8 8.1 5 45.6
1984 R Pres. Reagan beat Mondale 59.2 5.4 5.4 7 61.4
1988 R G. Bush beat Dukakis 53.9 2.1 3.3 6 52.4
1992 R Pres. G. Bush lost to Clinton 46.5 2.3 3.7 1 50.9
1996 D Pres. Clinton beat Dole 54.7 2.9 2.3 3 52.7
2000 D Gore lost to G.W. Bush 50.3 3.5 1.7 8 50.8
In the past there was a strong correlation between GDP growth and Job Growth. What makes you think there still isn't? Six months is not a long time for these things. Here are quarterly GDP growth rates from the Reagan era: 1982 02 5173.6 1.901% -1.534% 1982 03 5159.9 -1.055% -2.395% 1982 04 5171.2 0.879% -1.024% 1983 01 5204.7 2.617% 1.076% 1983 02 5311.9 8.497% 2.673% 1983 03 5393.7 6.304% 4.531% 1983 04 5484.0 6.867% 6.049% 1984 01 5590.0 7.959% 7.403% 1984 02 5656.0 4.807% 6.478% 1984 03 5698.7 3.054% 5.655% As you can see, the growth spurt started in the 2nd quarter of 1983, with four months of absolutely booming (and unsustainable) numbers in the 6-8% range. Here are the unemployment rates for 1983. Where the GDP data was quarterly, the unemployment stats are by month: 1983 01 10.4 1983 02 10.4 1983 03 10.3 1983 04 10.2 1983 05 10.1 1983 06 10.1 1983 07 9.4 1983 08 9.5 1983 09 9.2 1983 10 8.8 1983 11 8.5 1983 12 8.3 Six months after the spurt in growth became apparent in the GDP numbers, the umployment rate had not gone down even one point. It then dropped another whole point in the following 3 months. I think it's hilarious to watch these so-called economists from the left calling this a 'jobless recovery.' If they are even minimally competent, they know about this lag effect. It's in the numbers from every recession & recovery since dirt, and it's intuitively obvious why it occurs. So here they go on TV to throw a spear at Bush, knowing for certain that what they have to say will be overrun by events within just a few months. But they do it anyway. Why? Because they don't care about their own credibility. They only care about throwing near-term spears at Bush. |
And YOU anticipate the red carpet of victory to be rolled out for YOU?
Thank you God for giving me a personal sense of perspective that includes common sense.
Good enough, AntiGuv, I wish you the best in your quest of obtaining a thirst quenching half empty glass of water.
I'll be thinking of ya', in April, when I file my taxes.
Oh, and no need to say it, however, your welcome.
Is that an insult?? LOL
If it matters, I am fairly confident that GWB will win, I just don't think it'll be with 58%. More like something between 49% and 51%, with 53% at best.
Some recent articles have pointed to drawbacks in the current BLS method of estimating employment. For one thing, it underestimates the number of self-employed individuals, which has gone up over the last generation.
No. If I went farther back in time in the Reagan era, I would find the same thing. There were two quarters of 6%-plus growth in 4Q80 and 1Q81. Then the numbers got sucky again until the sustained growth of 2Q83 started. Following your methodology, I could say that the Carter Recession ended in late 1980. But the unemployment rate was still in the 10% range 28 months later.
If you look at the Bush-era numbers, it's the same deal. I could, as you have here, declare the start of the recovery to have been 4Q01. But as they did in 1980 and 1981, things went back on slow simmer until 2Q03 -- about 7 months ago.
The pattern is almost identical.
Maybe so, however I do believe it's time to discard the horseshoes and rid one's self of hand grenades for in the quest for the Presidency, neither are relevant.
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.