Bush-Kerry 2004: The Numbers Game

I tend to agree with the statistics listed in the article, but the one big factor in this election that might factor in more than you mentioned is that the war is still going on in Iraq (and Afghanistan). This hasn't been something we've seen in a presidential election since Vietnam. I think many Bush votes will hinge on the state of the war in late October/November. Especially since the American death toll is (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) nearing that magical number "1000" that is certain to gain unwarranted press when it arrives. He could easily come off looking like a hero or a butcher depending on the recent events at that time.

I do agree that Kerry may have started his campaign just a bit too early. It seems that everyone is getting tired of hearing about him. It'll be interesting to see if his new wears off by the time the election rolls around. I'm also interested to see where his ratings go when he's forced to start taking a more well-defined stance on certain issues. It seems to me that he's been tap dancing for some time now. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I'm glad all of this is transpiring though. When I run for the presidency in 2016, I won't make the same mistakes. :-)

Good point, Mark. Historical precedent is a great way to analyze, but we should keep in mind that this is a different America than in the past. That said...consider this:

The last time a hated Republican president sought re-election during a war that was unpopular with the left-wing, New York Times-reading Hollywood crowd? 1972. The result? Nixon 47 millon, McGovern 29 million. Pauline Kael, NY theater critic, could not believe Tricky Dick had won. "Nobody I know voted for Nixon!" she said. This quote best demostrates the myopia of those who hate Bush and/or write the news (the "and" is far more common than the "or" in this case).

Granted, some things are different in 2004. Learning the lesson of McGovern (and Dean), Kerry is not running as an anti-war candidate.

The operant question is this: does the "silent majority," that 61% of Americans that wasn't burning the flag and eating mushrooms while singing "Give Peace a Chance" and re-elected Richard Nixon, still exist? Considering the tightrope John Kerry has to walk to pacify the wackos to his left (Dean, Moore, et al.) without alienating the "swing voters" to his right, I believe that silent majority does still exist.

We'll see who they vote for on Election Day!

Davison, it's great you wrote what is probably a really good article. How's bout you just sum it up in one sentence and tell us who's gonna win so we don't have to read the whole thing. I'd much rather read an article about something cool.....like Quake. 5-Tree-Duece

W.

I found this to be a very interesting and well thought out article.

This is an incredible interview from the New York Times Magazine that deals with predictions and the upcoming election. It adds another dimension to what I wrote about, both in terms of predicting elections and the “media bias” debate.

The link is: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/magazine/15QUESTIONS.html, but you need to register to view it. What I did was copy it all and denote who’s speaking in the interview with “NYT:” for New York Times and “RCF:” for Ray C. Fair. Nothing else has been changed.

Please post your thoughts!

Mark

Bush Landslide (in Theory)!

Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON

Published: August 15, 2004 in New York Times Magazine

NYT: As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.

RCF: My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.

NYT: The polls are suggesting a much closer race.

RCF: Polls are notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election, and there is a limit to how much you want to trust polls.

NYT: Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?

RCF: It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points.

NYT: 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?

RCF: Historically, issues like war haven't swamped the economics. If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush loses are very small.

NYT: But the country hasn't been this polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society.

RCF: We throw all those into what we call the error term. In the past, all that stuff that you think should count averages about 2.5 percent, and that is pretty small.

NYT: It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways.

RCF: I will be teaching econometrics next year to undergraduates. Econometrics is a huge deal, because it is applied to all kinds of things.

NYT: Yes, I know one of your studies used the econometric method to predict who is most likely to have an extramarital affair.

RCF: In that case, the key economic question was whether high-wage people are more or less likely to engage in an affair. They are slightly more likely to have an affair. But the economic theory is ambiguous because if your wage is really high, that tends to make you work more, and that would cut down on how much time you want to spend in an affair.

NYT: Are you a Republican?

RCF: I can't credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?

NYT: I don't want to do game theory. I just want to know if you are a Kerry supporter.

RCF: Backing away from game theory, which is kind of cute, I am a Kerry supporter.

NYT: I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.

RCF: I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain voting behavior.

NYT: But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.

RCF: It could work the other way. 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.

NYT: Perhaps you could create an equation that would calculate how important the forecasts of economists are.

RCF: There are so many polls and predictions, and I am not sure the net effect of any one of them is much.

NYT: Yes, everyone in America is a forecaster. We all think we know how things will turn out.

RCF: So in that case, no one has much influence, including me.

Note the interviewer’s blatant attempt to dismiss and discredit Fair’s scientific model. Then, when that doesn’t work and Fair claims he’s a Kerry supporter, the interviewer implies Fair should somehow dishonestly manipulate the results of his equation—and compromise his integrity—so that the model will support Kerry.

This interview reflects a mistaken belief that polls will influence voters, and seems to suggest this:

People who are supposed to be objective ought to be dishonest in order to advance their political beliefs.

If some people are actually doing what Deborah Solomon, of the most widely-read newspaper in the world, wants Dr. Fair to do, it’s a great explanation for why the polls show the race as dead-even (or slightly in Kerry’s favor). If the polls are legitimate, we should remember that the only polls that matter are the ones that open and close on the first Tuesday in November.

>Does it seem strange to anyone else that so much energy is spent on trying to make the other candidate look like a downright horrible person?

It's sad but true, Brandon. The attacks are not going to go away, in spite of (I mean thanks to) the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform."

And I segue into a great example of media bias: this Swift Boat Vets thing. Irony of the week: Famous rock stars, GEDs in hand, join together to raise millions to finance ideological attacks on Bush's presidency and are praised for their courage. 200-odd Vietnam Vets, Purple Hearts in hand, join together to raise millions to finance attacks on John Kerry's war record and are ignored or vilified as Bush pawns.

Bush has made his first 4 years a central part of his campaign. Kerry has made his Vietnam service a central part of his campaign.

Why is an attack on Bush by people who don't know much besides the 7 major notes somehow more virtuous than an attack on Kerry by people who served in Vietnam with him?

In the end it doesn't matter. The Dems picked the wrong horse this year, as they are apt to do. I say this out of pure educated intuition: John Kerry's dead in the water. I don't care if Elvis comes back to hold concerts for him.

I am putting all my chips down right now:

We have just seen the turning point in the 2004 presidential election. The American electorate is getting to know John Kerry, and they are deciding in increasing numbers they don't want him to be president. This is the exact same thing that happened in 1988 when another Massachussetts liberal ran against a guy named George Bush.

This is going to go down as one of the worst-run presidential campaigns since...well, Bob Dole's 1996 bid. Gephardt, Lieberman, or Edwards (even that black sheep USMA grad) could have done better. I don't know why they picked Kerry, but I suspect it was because they thought his Vietnam record would make Dems look strong on defense.

Because of the Swift Vets (www.swiftvets.com), Kerry does not look so strong on defense anymore. But if it wasn't the Swift Vets, there are a myriad of cases to make against a President Kerry. What a stupid choice.

Full disclosure: I prefer Bush to Kerry. That said, I disagree with Bush on 90% of his domestic agenda and 50% of his foreign policy, and I would love to see a real conservative as president. With astronomical budget deficits and a grossly overextended military he is using to "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy," W. is doing more than just burning the candle at both ends- he's taken a flamethrower to both ends of the candle.

Unfortnately with our 2-party system, there is no option for a conservative like me but to choose Bush (who says he's a conservative but doesn't act like one). On the other side, there is no option for a liberal but to choose Kerry (who acts like a liberal but says he isn't one).

Although those issues are very important to me, I will vote for Bush because he has been a remarkable leader in a time of great crisis for our country. I don't give a damn what Gerhard Schroeder or Michael Moore think about Bush's personality, but I do care about strangling anti-American terrorism in its cradle. I can't see John Kerry strangling anything but (insert sarcasm here).

Back to the election: I really feel this recent momentum shift is the turning point and Bush is headed toward a 55-60% popular majority and electoral landslide. When this happens it will be deeply satisfying to know that The Boss, George Soros, Janeane Garofolo, and all their buddies have wasted countless hours and dollars.

Mark McB, please leave this post up. If I am wrong come November, I will eat any and all crow required.

Ok...now that the 2004 election is over, let's get a true multi-party system in place before 2008.

Mark, I think this report may help support your claims:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/21/news/funny/prez_masks/index.htm

Too funny.

I don't understand these polls that are always used on CNN and the like. For example, today there is a story stating that the candidates are in a dead heat (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/poll.monday/index.html). But when you read farther down the page, it says that only 793 people were polled. 793??? My graduating class was larger than that. Can a poll that size accurately reflect the opinion of the nation?

Any statistics experts out there that could shed some light on this for me? Perhaps I'm just missing something.

Remember that the popular vote doesn't determine who wins- the Electoral College does.

Personally I put little stock in polls (case in point: the polls saying Kerry won all 3 debates- a Bush supporter is going to say Bush won, a Kerry supporter will support his man, and the media is going to slant Democratic- Dan Rather, anyone?).

Who really has not decided who they're going to vote for? Most of us who read this site have already sent out absentee ballots in.

News item: An informal Military times (Army Times, et al.) survey has Bush up 55% over Kerry (73% Dubya, 18% Kerry). Nobody polls the 200,000 soldiers/sailors/airmen in Iraq, many of whom are voting absentee, come from huge states like OH, PA, and FL, and--by virtue of their having the common sense needed to survive in the military-- are going to overwhelmingly support President Bush. That's right, I said anybody who votes for Kerry is flying in the face of common sense. If anybody has a contradictory opinion I'd love to hear it. I have yet to hear a liberal make an argument that wasn't primarily emotional.

If you do care what the polls say, pay more attention to the state-by-state polls. www.electoral-vote.com keeps an updated electoral map, and despite their pro-Kerry bias, Bush has almost continuously led in the Electoral College ever since the GOP convention. Today it's 284-228, Bush, with NJ, NH, and IA tied. It's an interesting site.

I still firmly believe people will come to their senses on election day and it's Bush with a landslide, including over 55% of the popular vote.

But I could be wrong- as H.L. Mencken said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I love that line.