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

To: pjd; 1rudeboy; BenLurkin; boycott; COEXERJ145; carl in alaska; clintonh8r; Dan from Michigan; ...
Thanks, pjd. To all, a reprised quote along these lines:
'Scientific' view forecasts a big Bush win
Reuters
July 01, 2004
Polls may show the presidential race in a dead heat, but for a small band of academics who use scientific formulas to predict elections, President Bush is on his way to a sizable win... Most of these academics are predicting Bush, bolstered by robust economic growth, will win between 53 and 58 percent of the votes cast for him and his Democratic opponent John Kerry... But one glaring error is what the forecasters are perhaps best remembered for: They predicted in 2000 that Democrat Al Gore would win easily, pegging his total at between 53 and 60 percent of the two-party vote... The forecasters chalk up the 2000 error to Gore's campaign, which distanced itself from the Clinton record. All the models assume the candidates will run reasonably competent campaigns, said Thomas Holbrook, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee... Holbrook uses an economic indicator from the University of Michigan's survey of consumers. One question asks whether respondents are better or worse off financially than they were a year before. In May, 45 percent said they were better off. That is lower than the all-time election year high of 54 percent in 2000, Holbrook said, but higher than the 39 percent in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
posted to: pjd; 1rudeboy; BenLurkin; boycott; COEXERJ145; carl in alaska; clintonh8r; Dan from Michigan; devolve; dougherty; drhogan; ER_in_OC,CA; Frank_2001; Graybeard58; GVgirl; Happy2BMe; Jet Jaguar; JoeSixPack1; Klein-Bottle; labard1; ladyinred; lainde; MeekOneGOP; maestro; no dems; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; paul51; potlatch; Smartass; smoothsailing; Texasforever; tang-soo; ValerieUSA; zarf
38 posted on 07/06/2004 11:14:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SunkenCiv; PhilDragoo; Ragtime Cowgirl; Cindy; SusanTK; AdmSmith; Valin; Luis Gonzalez; ...



46 posted on 07/06/2004 11:40:41 PM PDT by Smartass ( BUSH & CHENEY IN 2004 - Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv

bump and thanks!


51 posted on 07/07/2004 1:17:49 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv
"The forecasters chalk up the 2000 error to Gore's campaign, which distanced itself from the Clinton record. All the models assume the candidates will run reasonably competent campaigns, said Thomas Holbrook, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee."


Most models don't assume that God will intercede, as surely as He must have in 2000 to save the U.S. from what was to come.
61 posted on 07/07/2004 8:18:55 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

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