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."
I'm counting on him getting at least a modest bounce out of his convention which would put him up by several points. If he doesn't get it, then I will start to worry. Until then, as long as the race remains essesntially tied, I'm happy.
One thing that Kerry has done that damaged his chances is the fact that he blatantly lies about things he knows nothing about.
Nobody believes he's a farmer. Nobody believes he's a hunter. Nobody believes he knows anything about sports. The fact that he repeats the same old lie that Bush lied about Iraq proves him to be a liar.
Now the swift vets have come out and caused a lot of people to question his credibility on that front as well.
And the next day backed off a bit...(hehehe)
A More Sensitive Note(Kerry gets hammered in the note)
Yesterday, in full voice, we told you that the presidential race was John Kerry's to lose.
Some readers thought our analysis too dire for Mr. Bush, but we were clear in saying that the President can still quite easily retain the White House, through some combination of Bush winning it and — Note well — Kerry losing it.
Yesterday's aggressive Bush-Cheney playing of the national security, character, and judgment cards are obviously part of any Bush comeback.
~snip~
I say let'em continue to print this malarky. It'll worry enough real people that they will turn out to vote for Bush in droves to ensure that he stays in office.
When pollsters say that President Bush "must win" certain states, I know they aren't thinking too deeply. Sure, he does - if Kerry carries every single state that Al Gore carried. I think it highly likely that there will be a surprise or two among OR, WI, MI, MN, IA, PA, NM, ME, even NJ. To think that all that Kerry has to do is peel off a state here or there - that's silly. He has his work cut out for him just holding all of Gore's states. one loss for him in WI, MI, PA, MN and all these analyses that fight the last war again go out the window.
This is a very loose assessment of the race. There are a number of significant problems for the RATs and Kerry, not the least of which is they ought to get the muzzle on Mama T as soon as possible. It doesn't take a genius to see that she ought to be locked up until after the election. She isn't helping Johnny in middle America. Bush hatred alone is not going to get Kerry elected. It didn't work on Clinton in 1996. This election is going to be about one thing: the War on Terror and nothing else. So the only question to be answered by voters is "Who do you think will do a better job defending the US"?
Or even NJ???
Real Clear Politics projected in October, 2000, that Bush would get 356 electoral votes to Gore's 182.
It is simpler than that. America is not going to elect the most liberal senator from the most liberal state in the country to be President.
I am confused....After the Dem convenion and the non-bounce for Kerry, all the pundits and polls seemed to be doom and gloom for Kerry-Edwards. Now a few brief days later, it's all over for GWB?! What exactly is going on here?
Exactly. I'm confident Bush will pick up OH, FL, WVA, and NV again this year. He could pick up IA or MN and still win while losing NH. At this point, its still too early to pick a winner. We don't know how the GOP Convention will turn out and the media sophisticates and Kerry Campaign spinners lazily assume Bush will receive little or no bounce out of his Convention. What if there's a spurt of good economic news in September and October? Its too soon to declare Kerry our next President on the basis of summertime polls. The media in particular once all but anointed Howard Dean the Democrats' nominee and he imploded. And they've forgottem THAT embarrassment. This election is still President Bush's to lose.
What's amazing to me is that he is even close enough to be considered to have a chance to win. How half the country can support that boob at this crucial time is beyond me.
The other half of this country needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Now that the Dems have a real candidate for governor in Missouri, there is a decent chance that they can win the state. All the polling Ive seen has been very close and Kerry and Bush campaigns have both spending a lot of time here.
Virginia has been getting less and less Republican by the year. You got a ton of federal employees and lobbyists living in the northern part of the state. Colorado is in play with Ben Nighthorse Campbell not running for reelection. You can bet the Dems will spending a lot of money on getting out the vote for the Senatorial campaign. Louisiaia has two Democrat Senators so with fraud and a little luck they could come close there if things really go bad for Bush.
Your comment about the difficulty of Kerry winning the new states that he needs (outside of Florida and/or Ohio), also holds true for Bush. Bush won a number of states by small margins. It will almost be as difficult for Bush to hold all the states that he won before if Iraq and the Economy continue to drag him down.
I have a very bad feeling that this election is goign to go to the House of Representatives for resolution. 269-269.
The Pentagon is already worried that they are going to have difficult time getting ballots out to the troops in the field (which by the way is where most of them are). In Missouri this has been further complicated by the Dems currently having the results of the election two weeks ago in limbo. Secretary of State cant print absentee ballots until the court case is resolved and that may not be until sometime after Labor Day. Im sure they will figure out a way to get ballots out for Nov 3 but the military on active duty could get disinfranchised.
On Florida, I wouldnt be so optimisitic. Blacks had huge turnout in 2000 but the idiots that bussed them to the polls gave them bad instructions. They told them to vote for Gore and to write in Liebermen. They lost over 25,000 votes statewide because idiot voters voted twice. I find it hard to believe many Republicans would be that stupid.
The predictive models all are on Bush's side. The polls mixed, but slightly on Kerry's side. Who'se right? Based on what we've seen in Missouri and Colorado, I think that the pollsters are simply (for some reason) not getting their "mix" at all correct.