Posted on 09/08/2004 6:16:50 PM PDT by NYpeanut
You won't find a crystal ball in political scientist James E. Campbell's office at the University at Buffalo, but you will find a complicated formula he thinks works even better at predicting that President Bush will win a second term on Nov. 2.
After months of tweaking numbers based on polls and economic indicators, Campbell's version of the crystal ball uses a model that has accurately predicted the popular vote all the way back to 1948. This year, Campbell says that, barring any major gaffes or an "October surprise," Bush will capture 53.8 percent of the popular vote - enough to nail down the sometimes quirky electoral vote.
"If we were looking at something like a 51 to 49 percent popular vote, the Electoral College could go either way," Campbell said Tuesday. "But if I'm right, there's no way Bush won't win the electoral vote."
Campbell, dubbed by the Washington Post in 1992 as the "newly crowned king of election prognosticators," has drawn considerable national attention in recent years for his predictions based on opinion polls, the economy and incumbency. The model has never varied more than 3.7 percentage points off the actual vote and has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in every election since 1992.
His latest prediction, however, is bolstered by six other major political scientists who met in Chicago last month under the auspices of the American Political Science Association. Five others predicted a Bush victory, while the formula used by one produced a virtual tie.
"The . . . forecast model takes into account the historical context of the Gallup Poll conducted two months be fore the election and the contemporary context of the campaign as measured by the state of the economy," Campbell said. "The combination of these two factors, taken along with the advantage of incumbency, produces a forecast that historically has been quite accurate."
Campbell's formula takes the second quarter gross domestic product growth figure of 2.8 percent and combines it with the latest Gallup Poll. He then adds about 1.5 percent to account for the advantage of incumbency.
Campbell correctly predicted Al Gore's popular vote victory in 2000, but the final vote total was so close that it couldn't account for the electoral vote victory finally awarded to Bush by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This is simply a prediction of the popular vote," he said. "Historically, the two are highly corroborative. But we know from painful experience to both sides in 2000, that in a very close election, it can go either way."
Campbell calls the 2.8 percent second quarter growth rate a "neutral" factor in this year's equation but notes the president's incumbency and his standing in the polls give him enough to capture honors in the forecast. Even with earlier poll numbers that do not account for a Bush "bump" from the just-completed Republican National Convention, Campbell believes the model still forecasts another term for the president.
Campbell said the model's accuracy wavers only when retroactively applied to extremely close elections such as Harry S. Truman's upset over Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 - when it missed by only 0.05 percent. The formula also incorrectly predicted the outcome in 1968, when Richard M. Nixon narrowly beat Hubert H. Humphrey - by 0.6 percent, a margin that was still within the formula's margin of error.
He also does not foresee enough influence in the election by third-party candidate Ralph Nader to alter the prediction anything beyond the normal margin for error found in final polls on or just before Election Day.
let's not get overconfident....
I hope Team Bush isn't getting overconfident.
I totally agree! If "we" become complacent, the voter may stay home.
They just can't help themselves.
Roger that. This is no time to get cocky. The race may now be W's to lose, but there's still lotsa time between now and then and things can change fast in the world of politics.
I'm afraid of a setup, especially in the Time/Newsweek polls. I can actually imagine them overpumping the polls in Bush's favor now, only so that they can set up a story for a couple of weeks from now and make the whole thing about how Bush's lead has "evaporated"... or some such thing. They would do this.
I completely agree. The way I'm seeing this shape up, this election will be all about turnout. The Kerry camp has taken some serious hits lately... I think greatly affecting the morale of the dem troops. There seems to be some significant buyer's remorse setting in. Veterans, especially dems that are vets... are becoming disenchanted with him. The old wounds reopened really mattered to them. They might not find the way clear to vote for Bush, but they're less and less excited about turning out for Kerry.
It's not just dem veterans, either. My sense is that more and more people, even though they don't much like Bush, just can't get motivated to turn out for Kerry. They'll end up just not voting at all or maybe opting for some fringe party candidate, merely so they can say they didn't vote for Bush.
The inherent risk for Bush though is that if he gets too comfortable a lead, it might affect turnout for him as well. Some voters might think they don't need to turn out because their vote isn't needed.
We need to keep the faithful energized and get the vote out as never before.
An accurate computable election result would need, in my opinion, as a proportional factor to Kerry's vote, viewership of NBCCBSABCCNNPBS and circulation of WPOST_BGLOBE_NYT_LATIMES.
And if he's wrong, will he voluntarily submit to a beheading by Middle Eastern, uh, rebels?
BMP
I smell a set up.
I think it's in the bag, but we need a landslide in the hope of shutting the 'Rats up and allowing Bush to further his (our) agenda.
Bill Clinton won 49.24% of the popular vote in 1996.
Bush 4/7
Kerry 5/4
They were both at 10/11 a week ago.
The voters of Florida awarded President Bush their electoral votes. Sheesh. Recount after recount after recount has proven that over and over and over. The only thing the Supreme Court did was to prevent an unconsitutional theft of the election from its rightful victor...George W. Bush.
I just wishe news whores could keep the facts straight!
I don't trust any university types.
Remember that the writers at the Buffalo News get their marching orders from Warren Buffett.
This explains much of the anti-Bush slant.
Don't buy Geico or Progressive insurance.
Buffalo BTTTT!!!!
Historically, that never seems to happen. In 1996, Clinton "had it in the bag" and not only were we demoralized but all the Clinton-loving soccer moms made it to the polls.
It was the reverse in 1988 when Bush "had it in the bag" over Dukakis after Labor Day and never looked back. Ditto in 1984, 1980 and 1972 on an even bigger scale for our side.
Nobody in 2000, 1976 or 1968 was saying it was "in the bag" and all three were close elections.
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.