Stanford Predicts The Presidential Election

Can Sar writes "Today is the official launch of Stanford Predicts, a non partisan group trying to predict the 2004 Presidential Election. This project is led by and based on research by Professor Samuel S. Chiu of the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. Stanford Predicts is solely interested in predicting the likelihood of either candidate winning, for purely scientific purposes. While the formulas themselves were developed in previous years by Professor Chiu all data analysis is being done by undergraduate students. Stanford Predicts will be continuously updated with new predictions until election day. Please check out Stanford Predicts for more information."

Re:YES

[ConceptJunkie]

Sounds like my old sig, "Re-elect George W Bush because nothing is as amusing as angry liberals."

And it's true, for mouth-foaming incoherent rage, just wait till Bush wins. If Kerry wins, Bush supporters will be disappointed and concerned, but most of them won't be complaining about impeachment or disenfranchisement or how the election was rigged, blah, blah, blah. In fact, I'll be somewhat optimistic because Jimmy Carter made the country ready for Ronald Reagan. Kerry's a lot like Carter without the honesty, or southern charm, or pulse..., but I suspect his administration will be about as successful.

Re:YES

[mc6809e]

In fact, I'll be somewhat optimistic because Jimmy Carter made the country ready for Ronald Reagan.

Does that mean Bush has made the country ready for another Jimmy Carter? Uh oh.

Seriously, I wish there were more Reagans and Carters around. They both were, in their hearts, genuinely good men.

Can you say the same about Bush and Kerry? I don't think so.

And yet Bush and Kerry were both nominated.

Something is wrong with the primaries when it produces these Bozos. There are better people out there. There have to be.

Re:This vs. Electoral-Vote.com

[aralin]

I think the methodology of the stanford predicts is at best fishy. The problem is that they go for an immediate state, discarding previous results and this makes their predictions very sure. You can see that most of them are over 90%. Now tell me that Florida is anything further than 10% from draw? I don't think so.

The main problem is that he needs to take in account all the previous data and see how the state numbers vary and how far they swing up and down and take that in account when counting the chance that either candidate will win the election. I think it would reduce the probabilities and make all these numbers more realistic.

Re:YES

[Marxist Hacker 42]

As a wise man said to me as we were standing in line at a job fair back in 2001- this ain't 1992, this ain't 1986, This ain't 1972, This ain't even 1968- This is 1929 baby- and this is the modern eqivalent of the soup line.

When it came to high tech, that guy was right. Completely right. This administration has already destroyed everything I liked about America- and showed me what a hollow shell puppet show our political process actually is.

Clinton had his 8 years and was worn out- quite litterally we found out this year. The people behind Bush are not the kind of people I'd want to meet in a dark alley. I'm convinced that something very much like organized crime is behind Bush- only slightly more legal, because they've manipulated our laws to make their schemes legal.

The division in this country over this election is far more violence prone than any I've ever seen before- or even can find anywhere in our history. It won't matter which man wins really- we'll either be tied up in court for a month or more, or we'll be sitting on a civil war, or most likely, both.

Polling Data?

[WarPresident]

Where's the polling data to back these numbers up? Just clicking on the link to Wisconsin shows Bush with a 92% likelihood of winning, even though the headline states, "Kerry and Bush Remain Tied Among Likely Voters in Wisconsin". I wanna see sources, not magic numbers.

With the election being likely another 50/50 split, the real deciding factor is going to be how much voter fraud is going to occur, how much electoral fraud (Diebold is looking forward to delivering Ohio's votes to the President!), the margin of error with the voting machines, margin of error with the humans checking the voting machines, and the likelihood of another Florida.

Actually, if we can determine the probability of another Florida, we already know the outcome of the election (5 Bush, 4 Gor...er, Kerry) and we can all sleep in on Nov 2!

Re:YES

[BoomerSooner]

Actually interest rates are going up steadily and the Fed cannot keep them low for much longer because it is causing the bond market to dry up. There was a recent issue of TBills that went nowhere due to our skyrocketing deficits. As the debt grows and takes a larger percentage of our governments income (Look at the GAO reports (graph [gao.gov]) (simulation [gao.gov])) the only way to get outside (foreign) investors to buy our governments bonds is to raise interest rates. The other problem is the devaluation of the dollar which helps the debt to be worth less *real dollars* but negatively affects foreign investment.

If you had cashed out all your stocks in 2001 after the crash (9/11 & Bush Economy combined) and converted your money to English Pounds at a 0% interest rate you would have gained around 25% over 3 years. Beats the hell out of the stock market. The monitary policy of this administration is very poor and is making the prospect of a bright future very unlikely.