Posted on 06/06/2008 9:30:09 AM PDT by The_Republican
IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.
This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.
Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.
This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii.
That remarkable success left me wondering what result this method would give if I applied it to the 2008 presidential race. So I examined the past six weeks of polls, taken in 19 important states, that separately pitted Clinton against McCain and Obama against McCain
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The truth is that Obama got the nomination by some lucky votes in a few caucus states, Clinton is the much stronger fall candidate.
The Democrats are simply terrified of taking the nomination from an African-American. They fear riots in the streets and at their convention.
Interesting article, but it doesn’t (and really can’t) take into account the ‘rage’ factor if the nomination is ‘stolen’ from Obama and given to Hillary. That is very hard to measure, but it isn’t hard to envision the myriad of ways it could alter the vote.
The dems rather consult astrologists than astrophysicists...LOL
But we are not within weeks of the fall election.
Later in the article Tyson admits that this method doesn't predict November.
I was wondering the same thing. Being five months away from election day, lots can change, so it’s just speculation that Hillary would be the stronger candidate.
And since the only way Hillary gets the nomination now is through strong arms, back rooms, or Obama scandal meltdown, the unpredicable reactions of the voters if those things happened to give Hillary the nomination just can’t be measured.
Lucky? I can imagine few worse choices for the White House than Obama - perhaps Murtha, Hillary, and a couple others - but Barack Hussein Obama is a strong candidate who did not just get lucky. He planned, configured his campaign for the local rules, and won on organization. The GOP cannot afford to be overconfident, especially with the enthusiasm gap between Obama's and McCain's supporters.
I'll admit that I probably have less excitement over McCain than most of those who will vote for him (hard to imagine, I know), but I'll be there in the voting booth in November, voting for McCain. ~yawn~
You vote for McCain and I’ll vote for Bobby Barr or Chuck Baldwin...McCain is a big government liberal.
True.
But then the Democrat candidate usually does a lot worse in November than in the summer.
John Kerry was solidly ahead of George Bush in June 2004, only to lose in November.
Dukakis was ahead by a massive 17% in June and got blown out in November.
Goig back futher, I think if you go all the way back to 1976, in every single race, the Republicans improved on their July/August polling numbers:
- 1976 (large Carter lead -> small Carter win)
- 1980 (Reagan behind/even race -> big Reagan win)
- 1984 (small Reagan lead -> Reagan landslide)
- 1988 (Bush behind/Dukakis ahead -> Bush wins)
- 1992 (Clinton lead -> Clinton win smaller than Aug lead)
- 1996 (Clinton large lead -> Clinton wins by 7pts)
- 2000 (no change? Bush/Gore even in summer, then close election)
- 2004 (Big Kerry lead in summer-> Close Bush win in November
Obama’a marxist, rabidly antisemitic, hate-America pals and their race-hate vodeos will do to Obama what the Swift boat people did to John Kerry in 2004, and much worse, not to mention the economy will be much stronger in October than it is now,
So if the election is limited to only 19 of the 57 states, Hillary could beat McCain?
I agree. Barry’s terribly unqualified to be President, but being qualified and being electable are sadly two different things. I think McCain can win, but it’s going to be a very, very tough fight (though I’ll be the first to jump for joy if I’m proven wrong on this).
That is your right, and I understand completely, but depending on where you live I might disagree. The question is which vote will do the least harm to the country. If you vote for Barr in a state that is solid for either McCain or Obama, it's a positive way of expressing an important and accurate concern. If a few dozen votes for Barr give Obama a swing state that puts him over the top, that leads to a completely different analysis. Just how much domestic damage would McCain's liberalism and lack of respect for the Bill of Rights do in 4-8 years, and how much global damage would his exceptional qualifications for Commander in Chief prevent? Just how much domestic damage would Obama's even more extreme liberalism and lack of respect for the Bill of Rights do in 4-8 years, and how much global damage would Obama's total lack of potential as Commander in Chief do in that time period? When I weigh the two risks, I don't find myself favoring Barr/Baldwin.
Okay, I won't be writing any McCain commercials: "Vote for McCain, he's not much but Obama would be terrible." Still, that's my reasoning, and I'm sticking to it.
I live in Michigan which is in the midst of a depression...worst since the thirties...regardless of what the polls say I am certain Obama will win here easily...
...looking forward to rebuilding the GOP after this fiasco is over.
Your prediction that Obama will win in Mich is based on what exactly?
If Mich is in such a “depression” as you call it, its all the more remarkable that McCain is easily beating Obama three polls to zero in Mich isn't it?
Especially since the Republican candidate usually does a lot better in November than in June.
Obama is toast.
Of all the states to miss, they missed Hawaii???
What were the odds on anybody stopping the Clintons? Hillary was an overwhelming favorite. Obama had a very narrow line of possibilities. He hit her hard when she had the Solis-Doyle “I am woman” network in place, and held on after her husband's power team nearly brought her back. He had very little room for error. He had Limbaugh and Hannity doing three anti-Obama hours a day. He had Jeremiah Wright in our living rooms every day. And the Clintons were behind all that.
By the end of the campaign, Hillary was the “tough,” “seasoned,” “experienced,” candidate of working people, rednecks, and white males. This was a media created fraud, but it pointed out Obama’s blackness at every opportunity. The Clintons can get away with things that would destroy anyone else.
Hillary is a conservative as far as being the candidate of the old Politburo. She's the Brezhnev. Obama’s the Gorbachev, the new commie on the block. They are both political correctness fascists who are dedicated to their revolution.
We are now left watching politics as in in the Soviet Union. Stalin over Trotsky. Khruschev versus Malakhov, Brezhnev over Kosygin. That's all we have here, and the new guy beat the old girl.
Jeremiah Wight came out after Obama had already taken a solid lead over Obama in electoral votes. In fact since Jeremiah Wright came out, Hilary has won more primaries and by some pretty huge margins over Obama. The Hilary research team screwed up by missing on Jeremiah Wright back in January.
My prediction is based on nothing more than my gut. But I don’t think the current polls mean anything...in the end Michigan will go blue, it almost always does.
I will back off on this prediction only if McCain adds Romney to the ticket.
While I am sure you have a good gut, I wouldn't use that as a good predictor of elections results, over actual polls.
“But I don’t think the current polls mean anything...in the end Michigan will go blue, it almost always does”
Not with Michigan votes counting as half a vote with the Democratic Party.
And lets not forget that Reagan won Michigan by a massive 60% to 40% over an equally liberal Mondale(as Obama) in 1984.
And Mondale’s didn't have Bill Ayers(the terrorist and capitol bomber) as the guy that started off his political career, like Obama does.
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.