Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yale Economic Model Still Predicts Bush Landslide in November
Yale - Fairmodel Presidential Equation ^ | February 14, 2004 | nwrep

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; catholiclist; electionpresident; tdids; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: raloxk
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.


21 posted on 02/14/2004 7:03:20 PM PST by Nick Danger (Give me immortality, or give me death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tubavil
Two can play at the "jobless recovery" game.

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.

22 posted on 02/14/2004 7:04:30 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
The trouble with models like this is that the parameters are selected to fit past data, so a fit is assured. Therefore, an excellent fit doesn't necessarily mean that the model has excellent predictive value. Still, Bush ought to be favored to win.
23 posted on 02/14/2004 7:07:27 PM PST by december12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses; EGPWS
Thank you , but I am not myself interested in personal anecdotes from either the employed, the unemployed, or the friends of the employed. The employment and income statistics are what they are and they are not even remotely in line with historical patterns of growth.
24 posted on 02/14/2004 7:09:11 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Did you overlook the fact that the recession has been over for about 28 months?
25 posted on 02/14/2004 7:12:52 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Thank you , but I am not myself interested in personal anecdotes from either the employed, the unemployed, or the friends of the employed. The employment and income statistics are what they are and they are not even remotely in line with historical patterns of growth.

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.

26 posted on 02/14/2004 7:20:23 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: raloxk
BUMP
27 posted on 02/14/2004 7:25:35 PM PST by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
I'll be thinking of ya', in April, when I file my taxes.

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.

28 posted on 02/14/2004 7:26:10 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: raloxk
Last 6 months of 2003 had 6.1% GDP growth but only about 250,000 new jobs.

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.

29 posted on 02/14/2004 7:27:38 PM PST by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Did you overlook the fact that the recession has been over for about 28 months?

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.

30 posted on 02/14/2004 7:28:16 PM PST by Nick Danger (Give me immortality, or give me death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
My methodology is that of the National Bureau of Economic Statistics, which tells me that we were in recession from July 1981 to November 1982. So, while I could say that the Carter recession beginning January 1980 ended in July 1980, I would be dissembling if I ignored the second dip. Try again.
31 posted on 02/14/2004 7:33:12 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Enjoy.
32 posted on 02/14/2004 7:34:15 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
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.

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.

33 posted on 02/14/2004 7:35:08 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Make that National Bureau of Economic Research (not Statistics). Oh, and here's a helpful, though outdated graph:


34 posted on 02/14/2004 7:47:15 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
You're forgetting that under Reagan in one of those months we had almost one million jobs added to the economy... an unprecedented number. We have to see a number like that soon or perhaps this will be the first time such a model has failed.
35 posted on 02/14/2004 7:53:03 PM PST by Schattie (-censored-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't this model err in predicting a GHW Bush victory in 1992? (50.9% Predicted [win] vs. 46.5% actual [loss])
36 posted on 02/14/2004 7:59:35 PM PST by So Cal Rocket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
This is awesome! bumb
37 posted on 02/14/2004 8:14:40 PM PST by JohnBDay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
This is awesome! bump
38 posted on 02/14/2004 8:14:48 PM PST by JohnBDay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
No doubt you prefer ignorance. You should be aware that the statistics offer wildly different views. One government survey shows a massive set of job losses, another government survey shows robust job growth. You may prefer statistics, but ask yourself how many people YOU know who are unemployed, how many are employed, and WHY. Use your senses and your brains rather than "statistics" and your conclusions may have more real world validity.
39 posted on 02/14/2004 8:27:57 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Can you comment on the divergent government reports on unemployment?
40 posted on 02/14/2004 8:36:07 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson