Posted on 08/11/2004 2:48:37 PM PDT by Republican Red
Economist: Forget Polls; Bush Easily Wins
By E&P Staff
Published: August 11, 2004
NEW YORK For all you pundits and political reporters out there who think the Iraq war will have a major influence on the fall election, or who think the Bush-Kerry race is a toss-up, Yale University economist Ray C. Fair has a message for you: forget both. Iraq won't matter and Bush will win in a landslide.
In an interview to be published in next Sunday's "New York Times Magazine," Fair told Deborah Solomon, "My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5% of the two-party votes ... the chances that Bush loses are very small."
Fair, who claims to be a Kerry supporter, is described by the Times in the Aug. 15 issue as being known for creating an econometric equation that "has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy." His most recent book, in fact, is titled, "Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things."
How does he explain media expectations of a close race? Polls are "notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election," he said, while his model has allegedly proven accurate to within 2.5%.
Economic growth and inflation are really the only things that matter in a presidential race, he argues, with the current war and social issues such as gay marriage having negligible impact.
Asked if his prediction will boost Bush's prospects, Fair replied, "If Kerry supporters see that I have made this big prediction for Bush, more of them could turn out just to prove an economist wrong."
Beating the Polls
http://www.hpronline.org/news/2004/05/04/UnitedStates/Beating.The.Polls-672911.shtml
"Fair's predictions have proven remarkably accurate. Using after-the-fact predictions based on real data, Fair's model accurately predicted the winner in all but two elections since 1916. Between 1916 and 1996, the standard error was statistically miniscule.
The worst prediction, George H.W Bush's 1992 re-election effort, was about four percent off, and inaccurately predicted Bush as the winner.
The other time in that span that the model failed was in 1960, when Richard Nixon lost a tight election to John F. Kennedy that was within the Fair model's standard error. In 2000, the Fair model was almost dead-on from a statistical perspective regarding the popular vote, yet failed to predict the winner of the Electoral College.
While Fair's model is remarkably accurate, the times it failed do reveal its limitations. The model acknowledges only two parties because Fair assumes that third party candidates draw about equally from each of the major parties. The Fair model's failure to take third parties into consideration may account for its failure to predict Bush's 1992 loss, when third-party candidate Ross Perot disproportionately hurt Bush, and Al Gore's loss in 2000, when Ralph Nader disproportionately hurt Gore. Also, in testing the model's validity Fair used after-the-fact predictions, which involve known quantities about the economy. In projecting forward, Fair must predict future quantities, which of course are not certain. Finally, like the IEM, Fair's model is national-only and does not predict state-by-state results."
The only poll that matters is the vote on election day. Forget all the rest.
Flashback to Fair's prediction in 2000...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/money/quin141.shtml
Goofy post-mortem analysis.
No matter what happens in the next election, there will be somebody with a completely different theory that is also fantastically accurate, until the election after that.
Every war time president has been re-elected.
No Democrat has been elected President in recent history unless they were a Governor from the south.
No Democrat has won the white house without carrying the south. Ask Gore about that one. If he had won his OWN home state, or Clintons for that matter.
No challenger has won without at least and 8 point gallup bounce ofter their convention. Kerrys gallup bounce was negative numbers.
Anyone know of anymore historical indicators?
The economists and the electronics markets have been good indicators of election wins. I believe him because he has a known track record. ALL the economists are predicting a Bush win but I won't become complacent
Same here. I say 40 states. Remember folks, the Prez hasn't played all his trumps yet.
After his statement about Iraq yesterday Kerry is in deep doodoo with the anti-war crowd. I read a thread last night at DU and about half are not going to vote for him and the other half want the DNC to provide clothespins on election day.
Was Perot included into the equation?
My wife says 55% for W and over with time left in the evening to watch the Hollywackos commiting suicide, and
She was right with Arnold, 2002 Senate, 2000 Bush, 1992 & 1996 Clinton (arghh), 88 Bush, 80 & 84 Reagan (I'm not making this up)
She predicted Reagan to win in 80 during the 1976 GOP convention!. She's a Southern gal from Kentucky with common sense (lucky me).
Keep painting Kerry......Win the debates.......Keep painting Kerry......Middle America will turn out in a huge way my father says.....Mass Libs Beware!
Just read a link on Drudge that said a majority of Israelis believe that Bush's reelection would be better for Israel, than a Kerry win. Wonder what the American Jewish leaders think about that statement?
i will believe him
There are 83 days until the election. Bush and Cheney need to make Kerry explain his position on Iraq everyday. This is his albatross. Still the only people who will vote for Kerry are the ones who would never vote for Bush anyway - we need to get the undecideds and reduce the anti-war turnout.
Kerry's stance for the war will tick off the Dean supporters - they will either not vote or go to Nader. This may help in Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire.
His stance for the war but against Bush doing it "effectively" will tick off moderate voters who want a decisive commander in chief and help in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania.
His response on Iraq is like a man trying to explain why he was caught with lipstick on his collar.
As far as I can tell, the Prez hasn't played any of his trumps yet. The big one I'm waiting for is a final official report (of sorts) on the whereabouts of Saddam's WMDs, which will completely deflate the "Bush lied!" argument.
"Possibly. But I think it's more of a ploy to get the GOP'ers to 'ease up'."
In a full campaign cycle, you ALWAYS "play" politics as though you're behind. Always.
1. Bush supporters will turn out for Bush.
2. Kerry supporters will turn out for Kerry.
3. Anti-Bush voters are more likely to stay home than anti-Kerry voters.
4. Therefore, Bush wins.
-PJ
Great strategy. Send that to Karen Hughes.
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.