As of today the Electoral vote tally would be: Kerry 327, Bush 211

[DLR'sCock]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Warham]

Sure.

[Satan]

What exactly are you disputing? The map seems pretty self evident to me.

Of course it is also self evident that several of those states aren't firmly in one camp or the other, but it's a statistical fact that voters who are undecided late in an election often end up voting in favor of the challenger. After all, if the incumbent was doing a good job, they wouldn't have been undecided in the first place.

[knuckleboner]

well, kerry's predicted to win his home state, so it's already a start...

[John Ashcroft]

Not true according to this guy:

From a NY Times interview.

Bush Landslide (in Theory)!

Liberal Interviewer: 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.

Liberal Interviewer: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.

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

This part's important, listen up liberals...

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

Liberal Interviewer: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.

Liberal Interviewer: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.

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.

And get this! Can you believe this is an "objective" interviewer???

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

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

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

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.

Liberal Interviewer:Are you a Republican?

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?

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

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

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

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.

Silly bitch is giving away press secrets here:

Liberal Interviewer: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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Link:
here

[ODShowtime]

The real surprise comes when thousands if not millions of people come out of the woodworks and vote for the first time. No one can measure the boot in the ass Bush is gonna get in November until the imprint of the sole is visible. On his ass.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
From a NY Times interview.

This part's important, listen up liberals...

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

well, i'm not going to say that it's COMPLETELY independent events, but the past performances don't really lend as much credence as if they were past predictors of the moon's orbit, or of the chance of hitting 00 in roulette.

these kind of votes, though, aren't quite as simplistic.

in any event, i'm happy to double-or-nothing our bet that bush does NOT win by 57.5% (+/- 2.5%) of the popular vote, including or excluding nader.

...wait, scratch that. if we split the double-or-nothing, then nobody wins. that's no good. but i'd make a completely seperate bet

[CyberDust6]

Come on, that electoral map is flawed.

First, in this map almost every state has a different polling company taking a sample. Every polling company has different ways of coming up with their samples and determining who they think is a likely voter.

Second, almost every state was polled over different periods of time. Some polls could have been taken when the news was favorable for Kerry and others for Bush.

Third, we have no way of knowing how many Republicans, Democrats, and independents were sampled in each sample. More republicans in one poll could taint the results in favor of Bush and visversa.

Fourth, my biggest problem with this map is the fact that in Florida if you add up kerry and nader 51% vs. 41% for Bush? As a person who lives in Florida, and follows Florida politics that just doesn't make sense. Every state wide elected office, with the exception of our two US senate seats, is held by Republicans, a majority of our state house and senate seats are held by Republicans, and a majority of our US House seats are held by Republicans. Plus in 2002 when Jeb Bush was up for re-election he defeated his Democratic opponent by 6%, and somehow now the democratic/liberal candidates have a 10% lead on Bush. It just does not add up. 5% I would believe, but not 10%.

Bottom line is the Republicans have not had their convention, and we have not had a single presidential debate yet. So this election is anybody's to grab, and no one can say for sure, as of now, thier candidate is going to win.

David Lee Roth for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by CyberDust6
Come on, that electoral map is flawed.


Bottom line is the Republicans have not had their convention, and we have not had a single presidential debate yet. So this election is anybody's to grab, and no one can say for sure, as of now, thier candidate is going to win.

David Lee Roth for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You wouldnt call it flawed if it had shown the Shrub in a landslide I bet.

The debates?

You hope to pull ahead on the debates!?!

I can't WAIT for the debates. Hot lights, no prepared speech written for him, forced to conjure up MULTI syllabic words?

Bush/Cheney SHOULD be leading by double digits.

Just keep praying for Nader, he's your ONLY chance at victory

[FORD]

Originally posted by CyberDust6


Fourth, my biggest problem with this map is the fact that in Florida if you add up kerry and nader 51% vs. 41% for Bush? As a person who lives in Florida, and follows Florida politics that just doesn't make sense. Every state wide elected office, with the exception of our two US senate seats, is held by Republicans, a majority of our state house and senate seats are held by Republicans, and a majority of our US House seats are held by Republicans. Plus in 2002 when Jeb Bush was up for re-election he defeated his Democratic opponent by 6%, and somehow now the democratic/liberal candidates have a 10% lead on Bush. It just does not add up. 5% I would believe, but not 10%.

Well, since you live in Florida, you are also no doubt aware of how Jeb, Kate and Teresa LeWhore corrupted the 2000 election and how they used electro-fraud to corrupt 2002 where Jeb's opponent easily had 5 points on him in election day exit polls.

No offense to you, but Florida's not a reliable example to prove the electoral map wrong.

[CyberDust6]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You wouldnt call it flawed if it had shown the Shrub in a landslide I bet.

The debates?

You hope to pull ahead on the debates!?!

I can't WAIT for the debates. Hot lights, no prepared speech written for him, forced to conjure up MULTI syllabic words?

Bush/Cheney SHOULD be leading by double digits.

Just keep praying for Nader, he's your ONLY chance at victory

I would say the same thing if Bush was leading, just like John Kerry has said the entire time the polls are flawed. I don't believe them because of how easy they are to taint the sample, as how I illustrated in my first three points.

How could you debate the effectivness of the presidential debates swinging voters in one direction or another?

Maybe when John Keryy is on stage he'll actually tell us some of his plans as to how he proposes to cover everyone with Health Care and bring more allies into Iraq. Instead of just giving us goals like cutting waste and improving efficiency, and saying he is going to bring more allies in. I can't wait untill he tells us how he plans to do all of these things.

[LoungeMachine]

Regardless, the BCE has shown the world that the electoral college is a sham anyway.

I never said the debates would swing voters. I said I COULDN'T WAIT to watch the Shrub make an IDIOT of himself.

And let's be honest, REGARDLESS of what John says in the debate[s], you will not be swayed.

He could declare that upon taking office he would broker a deal between EVH/DLR for a free club tour open to all Army members and you'd still vote for the Shrub.

Bush is a dolt. a dangerous fool run by puppetmasters and his own inner demons. HE THINKS GOD TALKS TO HIM.

Maybe God told him to eat the pretzels.....hmmmmm

[CyberDust6]

Originally posted by FORD
Well, since you live in Florida, you are also no doubt aware of how Jeb, Kate and Teresa LeWhore corrupted the 2000 election and how they used electro-fraud to corrupt 2002 where Jeb's opponent easily had 5 points on him in election day exit polls.

No offense to you, but Florida's not a reliable example to prove the electoral map wrong.

First off if you believe that Bush stole the FL election, then I will probably never be able to convince you that he didn't. However, I can get the USA Today, Miami Herald, and the Knight Rider Newspaper, which all studied the ballots after the 2000 election and showed that even under the most lenient standards of accepting ballots, Bush still won. Here is the link to prove it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-02-25-recount.htm

Second, your electro-fraud charge has no factual support anywhere. Jeb Bush won the election 56%-43%. So are you trying to tell me that Gov. Bush stole 13% of the Florida vote? Show me one article from a credible newspaper that backs up your charge, and not some op-ed article. I can't wait to see it.

I also have an article here from Time Magazine about how efficient the 2002 voting process was: "Meanwhile, the state, which as recently as the botched September primary races looked as though it still couldn't vote and chew gum at the same time, finally pulled off an election without a hitch. So efficient and smooth was the voting that within an hour of the polls closing, enough precincts had been counted to call Bush's landslide victory."

Check the quote here in the last two sentences of the second paragraph:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,387688,00.html

Third, what exit polls showed Mcbride up by five points? I have a poll here taken right before the election showing Bush winning by five:

http://www.surveyusa.com/2002Elec.html

Finally, to put the final nail into your coffin, the Voter News Service, who does the exit polling for all the major newspapers and networks, did not produce any exit polls for the 2002 Florida governors’ race. So I don’t know where you pulled that 5% number from because there is no information anywhere to back it up, since there were no exit polls.

Check CNN if you don’t believe me:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/data/epolls/states/FL/G/00/epolls.html

As much as you hate President Bush, if you are going to question his legitimacy as President, and his brother as governor, then you should at least have some facts to back you up other than numbers you made up and your “they stole the election” conspiracy theories. I think you have been watching a few too many Michael Moore films. Within a few minutes of searching Google I was able to pull up all the articles, which refuted everything you said. Can’t wait to see your response.

I’m your ice-cream man, stop me when I’m passing by!

[CyberDust6]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Regardless, the BCE has shown the world that the electoral college is a sham anyway.

And let's be honest, REGARDLESS of what John says in the debate[s], you will not be swayed.

I don't know who the BCE is, and I don't care what they think about the electoral college. The founders set up the electoral college so Presidential candidates had to campaign in small states as well as big ones, because as the 2000 election showed us, regardless of your feelings about it, states like New Mexico, Rhode Island, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Arkansas all made a difference. If we switched over to a popular vote system, then the candidates would mostly ignore small states like those, and spend most of their time trying to sway big states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

You are right in one respect though, there is nothing John Kerry could say to sway me to vote for him. However, I am not one of the 8-10% of the electorate who is undecided. . At the same time however, since to me as of this point there is a 50% chance Kerry will become President, I don't think it is asking too much for him to actually tell the American public the steps he plans to take to carry out and finance a lot of the ideas he has proposed, other than the nice goals he has given us of creating 10 million jobs in 4 years, and free healthcare for everyone.

[DLR'sCock]

update as of August 24: Kerry 307, Bush 211

http://www.electoral-vote.com/