Sure. Go to BugMeNot.com so you won't have to worry about registering for any newspaper you don't want.
Posted on 08/14/2004 4:15:09 PM PDT by quidnunc
As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.
My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.
The polls are suggesting a much closer race.
Polls are notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election, and there is a limit to how much you want to trust polls.
Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?
It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points.
In your book ''Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things,'' you claim that economic growth and inflation are the only variables that matter in a presidential race. Are you saying that the war in Iraq will have no influence on the election?
Historically, issues like war haven't swamped the economics. If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush loses are very small.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Albert Wang has, in the face of polls predicting otherwise, boldly stated that November will be a 45 state Bush blowout.
Theres no way I'm signing up on the NYtimes web page. Can somebody please give a breif summary of the rest of this interview?
I wish.
It's only bold if it turns out he is right.
Period!
The only chance of another outcome would be complacency of Bush supporters to the point of not going to the polls.
Cripplecreek thinks Albert Wang may be onto something.
His theory is that elections follow the economy, and predicts that because the economy is so good Bush will win in a landslide. The reporter is snippy because the professor is a Kerry Democrat predicting a Bush landslide.
Such a Wang Wowee, if true, or even just a Fair Frolic of 57.5%, would surely include substantial legislative coattails.
me either, but I'd sure like to see it
"don't give valid answers"
Part of the problem is that many pollsters ask such loaded questions.
For example "Should the Federal Marriage Amendment be passed, or should it be up to the states to ban gay marriage?"
Well wait a minute! Somebody who beleives in the state deciding isn't necessarily against the FMA. Why not just ask the question straight:
"Should the Federal Marriage Amendment be passed?"
If they asked the question that way, you would see that an overwhelming majority answer YES! So why do pollsters ask it the first way, which is less accurate? Need I even ask?
If it even begins to look that bad for Kerry you can bet he's going to get a bad case of Toricelli-itis and drop out of the race in favor of Edwards.
go to www.bugmenot.com - it has passwords for all the MSM websites.
Sure. Go to BugMeNot.com so you won't have to worry about registering for any newspaper you don't want.
For once, I want what the NYTimes said to be true!
How did he do in 2000?
He predicted Gore. His answer is that he was right about the popular vote (different article).
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.
