Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Wharton Professor Weighs In On The Elections 40

Posted by timothy from the which-skulls-and-which-bones dept.
Caesar S. writes "Recent research directed by Wharton School Professor J. Scott Armstrong takes political forecasting to the next level by using innovative techniques to combine forecasts from polls, enonometric models, betting markets and predictions by experts (Delphi surveys). Check out Polly's page to hear Polly the parrot objectively predict this year's presidential election. There's lots more interesting stuff on this site about how electronic markets and Delphi surveys can be used for forecasting. Definitely worth a read."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wharton Professor Weighs In On The Elections More

Wharton Professor Weighs In On The Elections

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing new (Score:3, Funny)

    by vijaya_chandra ( 618284 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:02PM (#10350268)
    Here in India, we have been having parrots that tell your fortune from hundreds of years

    and ppl say it's actually them that decide who the prime ministers'd be over here

    • and ppl say it's actually them that decide who the prime ministers'd be over here
      Shoot, all you'd have to teach them to say is, "Gandhi."

  • Warning! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Polly Parrot's opinion can easily be manipulated using a cuttlefish.

  • Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:43PM (#10350563) Homepage

    There are a lot of people, on TV and on the Internet, who overanalyze the details of politics, and show no interest in the big issues.

    For an example of one of the big issues, consider this: The U.S. government is borrowing money [brillig.com] to kill Iraqis [iraqbodycount.net].

    Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and U.S. taxpayers are supporting the violence. Do you consider that an improvement?

    The violence helps rich people like the Bush family [futurepower.org] and Dick Cheney's friends [futurepower.org] to profit. (The Bush family says they have sold their interest in Carlyle Group, and they no longer are connected. However, the company is privately held, and there is no way of verifying statements made about ownership.)

    A lot of the problems in the U.S. seem to be connected with karma. Make trouble in the world, and your own quality of life will go down.

    Those are big issues that are not sufficiently discussed. If they were discussed, many of the complicated projections being made now would be worthless. The U.S. government's system of violence depends on ignorance. Those who discuss politics while avoiding the big issues become part of the system of violence.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were partly fraud [cbsnews.com]

    • Re:Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      CBS news? Dude, use a reputable source like aljazeera next time.
    • Excuse me.

      I'm British. I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. I am no Bush fan, but supported the Iraq war (although the administration's lack of planning for what might happen afterwards has depressed me, and I am increasingly turning against it.)

      But.

      But.

      Cynicism has gone too far. Do people honestly believe George W is so stupid, that he'd sacrifice a few million bucks to be damned by history?

      If Bush still has an economic interest in the Carlyle Group, it will come out. Not today, maybe not tomorrow,

      • Re:Avoiding the big issues, analyzing the details. (Score:4, Informative)

        by bladernr ( 683269 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:41PM (#10352324)
        I'm British. I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. I am no Bush fan, but supported the Iraq war

        Kerry supported the war as well, and believed Saddam had WMD. He thought the situation was serious. Here are some relevant Kerry quotes:

        "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

        "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

        "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

      • Cynicism has gone too far. Do people honestly believe George W is so stupid, that he'd sacrifice a few million bucks to be damned by history?

        I don't think that Cynicism has gone too far, just in the wrong direction. I think that W is at least as sincere in his public positions as any politician, and probably moreso (which accounts for much of his popularity.) No, my problem with W specifically, and this administration and much of the current crop of Republicans is that they ignore data which don't agre

    • While I agree almost completely with the parent, I don't think you can make an argument about karma here.
      I don't think responsibility for the violence and suffering in the word necessarily causes more violence and suffering on the perpetrators. In fact, in most (if not virtually all) cases, it is individuals not directly linked to the conflict that suffer.
      Iraqis are suffering and dying now because of the US occupation. They were suffering and dying before because of sanctions, bombing and Saddam. And before

  • It's interesting to note (Score:3, Interesting)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:00PM (#10350662) Homepage Journal
    how much the rules have changed from the 70's. For instance, although the author notes that the "bread and peace" index both hurts and helps Bush.
    Start with the bread. The economy has been going, and for certain sectors of the economy, things are picking up. For others, it's been a disaster. Income levels are increasing slightly, with less taxes, but prices for fuel and healthcare have skyrockted. You really can't say Bush did a stellar job on the economy, but you really can't say he totaly bungled it either.
    Same with the peace problem. Iraq isn't nearly as bad as Vietnam, but it's not a bed of roses either. I think this is why John Kerry is having a tough time differentiating himself from Bush on the issue of Iraq. It's obviously far from perfect, if Bush were doing a stellar job like he claims, then Iraq would be a non-issue for this election. But it's not an unmitigated disaster either. If so, John Kerry could really pounce on that.
    This election is looking to be as hard to predict as 2000 was.
    • I'm a moron, I lost part of my sentence:
      although the author notes that the "bread and peace" index should have been:
      Although the author notes that the "bread and peace" index should not be used to predict elections, only explain them, that index both hurts and helps Bush.
      Stupid preview button, sitting there mocking me.
    • Same with the peace problem. Iraq isn't nearly as bad as Vietnam, but it's not a bed of roses either.

      Right now, I feel Iraq is artificially good. From what I have gathered, we have large camps of our troops outside Iraq's major cities. On a regular basis, they leave camps and do SWAT-like raids on individual homes and then get out quickly.

      The casualties in this war will come after the elections. I believe, in November, we will start trying to take ground inside cities, then this war may become quite a
      • actually, the technological advantages of the helicopters, lightweight rifles and jet fighters did destroy the communist army. The turning point of the was was the Tet Offensive [wikipedia.org], a latch ditch effort by the north to win in which the NVA and Viet-cong forces were utterly obliterated. Unfortunately, up until this point, the American public had been told that the North was just about done... the scale of the offensive made the people back home think the government was lieing about the war and ironicly began
  • Unfortunately, popular votes do not elect a president; Electoral College votes do.

    Here are two sites that attempt to predict what the Electoral College votes will be:

    Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 [electoral-vote.com]
    Election Projection - 2004 Edition [electionprojection.com]

    I discount the second site because of its obvious bias, but even so, things are looking grim for Kerry.

    Here's my prediction:

    Bush will win a second term, but his popularity will decline steadily, due to an increasingly Vietnam-like Iraq and an increasingly bleak e

    • better projection site (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trepidity ( 597 ) <[delirium-slashdot] [at] [hackish.org]> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:25PM (#10350821)
      The best projection site I've found so far is race2004.net [race2004.net]. It takes into account multiple polls, while most seem to call the states based on whatever the most recent poll is. Since there is such huge volatility in polls this year, that strategy doesn't work to well.
      • Federal Review [federalreview.com] does something similar.
      • I don't know, Several of their calls look REALLY wrong based on the polling I've seen. They have Washington as a toss-up when polling there consistently has Kerry ahead by by *just* within the MOE if not outside of it... Meanwhile they have Oregon "weak Kerry" when polling there has been consistently much closer... Kerry within the MOE a few ties and even a few with Bush ahead by one or two. Maybe they got the two states confused? They also have New Mexico as "Strong Kerry" when all the polling (except the
    • Here are two sites that attempt to predict what the Electoral College votes will be:

      Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
      Election Projection - 2004 Edition

      A nice complement to the submitted article is the per state breakdown of the pollsters' data:
      http://www.electoral-vote.com/pollsters/ind ex.html

    • Re:Interesting site, but there's a fatal flaw (Score:5, Interesting)

      by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:13PM (#10351104) Homepage

      Yeah, Election Projection is obviously wrong. They have Oregon going for Bush. There's no way those latted drinking flanel wearing hippies :) are going to vote for Bush.

      I used to look at electoral-vote.com too, but I decided that it's predictions were to volatile, so I made my own. [url:http://www.cs.siu.edu/~jkoren/electoral_vote. html]

      Mine averages the assorted polls roughly based on "trustworthiness". For instance: Gallup is weighted lower than Zogby, but not because Zogby polls Kerry consistently higher. It's because Zogby was the most accurate poll of 2000, and made a strong argument about what was wrong with Gallup's polling this year.

      It's updated daily.
      • It's because Zogby was the most accurate poll of 2000

        But Zogby did pretty poorly in 2002. He nailed in in 2000, but was that because he really nailed it or because he was the low end of the range for Bush and the last minute DUI issue hadn't had a chance to fully factor into any polls (including his)... Was he smart or was he lucky?

        Also, while I think Gallup definitely has had major sampling problems, I think Zogby is too rigid in adjusting his sample to conform to a hard-wired percentage break-down by
      • There's no way those latted drinking flanel wearing hippies :) are going to vote for Bush.

        Er, that's Portland. Much of the rest of the state is conservative. Oregon could really go either way.

    • Re:Interesting site, but there's a fatal flaw (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bladernr ( 683269 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:38PM (#10351235)
      Unfortunately, popular votes do not elect a president; Electoral College votes do.

      Why is it "Unfortunate"? Small states would not have much of a voice without this system. CA, TX, FL, and NY would decide elections, and all those farmers without a coast (feeding the rest of us) wouldn't matter.

      I like the Republic/Federal system that we use, as opposed to actual Democracy. I am firmly against the Tyranny of the Majority that Democracy can cause (watch what happens in Iraq if they use an actual Democracy), and I believe that the minorities need representation (be they minorities of race, gender, or geography).

      with a little luck, Republicans will implode, leading to a Democratic landslide in 2008

      Wouldn't that only be good if the Democrats had a good candidate, and Republicans had a bad one? What if the Democrats nominated [insert-favorite-historical-villian-here]? Blind loyalty to a party is not something to be proud of.

      You should look at the record, values, vision, and plan of each candidate and decide based on that. You are voting for a person, not for a party or against another person.

      • Actually, I'd prefer it if I could just let my electors look at the record, values, vision, and plan of each candidate and decide based on that. I figure its better to elect someone I know from my state to sift through all the 1/2 truths and spin, to actually read the voting records, to really research all the candidates and then make a vote for my state.

      • [speaking of the Electoral College] I like the Republic/Federal system that we use, as opposed to actual Democracy. I am firmly against the Tyranny of the Majority that Democracy can cause (watch what happens in Iraq if they use an actual Democracy), and I believe that the minorities need representation (be they minorities of race, gender, or geography).

        Interesting. So you believe that the votes of men should count very slightly more than those of women? That the votes of african americans should be weight

      • 1) Farmers are part of the problem. They are a drain on our economy (billions in subsidies), and are highly inefficient. Farming is simply not profitable, for a developed country like the US, but the government keeps propping it up because they like the votes. If the Republicans had any balls, they'd stay true to their capitalist roots and tell the farmers to either switch to a productive profession, or go to a third-world country where their skills are needed.

        2) If the original poster is a democrat, from
    • seems likely. a plot to sabatoage the DNC convention balloons. They have verfied proof of a republican presence in the city. The Republicans are already starting to crack. The old guard is getting sick of the Neo-con faction. They are driving themselves toward a world of spin and no substance. Power politics is not really old school repubican. Honor duty, integitry play well to the rank and file, and that's fading. Peel it back and the most diehard rural Texas republican would vote for Dennis Kucinich befor
    • The author of Election Projection is obviously biased. But he created a model and has stuck to it... Over the summer his model had Kerry winning by the same wide margins that Bush is winning now. The problem with his projection is not his bias but that his model overstates the electoral lead of whoever happens to be leading in national polls. So Bush's 4-5 point lead in national polls is switching states to him (according to the model) where actual state polling is showing a much more even race.

      I think hi
      • The author of Election Projection is obviously biased. But he created a model and has stuck to it... Over the summer his model had Kerry winning by the same wide margins that Bush is winning now. The problem with his projection is not his bias but that his model overstates the electoral lead of whoever happens to be leading in national polls.

        I was refering more to the comments on the site than to any methodological bias.
  • Polly has been heard to croak: "Polly wants a hacker! Polly wants a hacker!"
  • Is that with 50 states using systems tailored to their own local needs selecting their electors, there are 50 chances that someone might "hack" the process and change the result. I don't mean Diebold flaws either - there are many states where a person might run as a 3rd party candidate in just ONE state, just to push a major national candidate over the top.

    The end result is, a few individuals can easily adjust the outcome if they're ambitious - so mathematical predictions are of little value.
  • The problem is that these forcasts aren't really conditional. What they need to do is make the forcasts in terms of the various events coming up that we know may or may not happen. For example:

    If the security alert goes to red how does the chance of Bush vs Kerry change?

    How do the polls after each debate relate to the election result?

    How do the major economic figures that will come out before the election affect the election result?



  • What is this parrot going to tell me that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and FOX News hasn't already parroted to me already?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close