 |
 |
A Different Way of Predicting Elections
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
"Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."
Whoa. That's a stunning statistic. I always said the the presidential nominee of each party was - without exception - the one that raised the most money.
So keep an eye on things for me during the November elections. See if this holds true. I'll be somewhere in the Caribbean at the mercy of 'international satellite television'. And I'll be so hammered I won't even realize it's election day.
edited: If this holds true - the Republicans will lose only 8 House seats. Well short of the number required for a Democrat majority.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maybe, but that doesn't take into account the extra money Republicans will have to spend to overcome the negative image created by the Iraq war. Normally, I think that's a fairly accurate predictor however.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The most reliable way of predicting elections these days is, "Is this candidate a Republican?"
But seriously, yeah, money does it. That's why McCain was so popular early on and then Bush smoked him. You can't beat somebody with effectively unlimited resources.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
This fellow here does a pretty good job explaining some reasons to take that prediction from Barron's with a hefty-sized grain of salt. This may be another year like 1974 & 1994 where the money can't be used to predict the outcome, due to serious voter dissatisfaction. For one, he points out that Barron's is using the economy as the only criteron on which to judge voter attitude, which is quite likely a bad idea.
|
|
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure it's a little more difficult to predict an election than to simply pick the guy with the most money. Yet that method would have given you a 90+% accuracy.
I'm amazed that money makes any difference at all. Are there that many voters who base their decisions on which candidate has the most commercials and billboards?
*shakes his head*
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 
I'm amazed that money makes any difference at all. Are there that many voters who base their decisions on which candidate has the most commercials and billboards?
I thought that would've been obvious.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's just like consumerism. Name recognition. They look on the ballot, they only recognize one of the two names, who are they going to pick?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
