Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Demographic modeling doesn't look hopeful
Published on May 13, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The underlying model and algorithms for The Political Machine are pretty good. Ultimately, the model is a mishmash of polling data from dozens of sources combined with demographic data. What, I think makes The Political Machine special is that it makes heavy use of demographic data rather than just looking at polls. What that means, fundamentally, is that at the end of the day, conservatives tend to vote for Republicans and liberals tend to vote for Democrats and once you understand that, it's really a matter of turn out on both sides. There really aren't nearly as many "independents" as are sometimes claimed. Independents tend to be conservative or liberal in their views and as such, they tend, on a macro-scale, to vote one way or the other consistently enough to model with some degree of accuracy.

And that's bad new for Bush. Because barring a miracle, Bush has already lost. Not by much but the issue is electorally.  We've run the simulation countless times in house and we come up with different results:

 

First of all, there really aren't that many toss-up states.  The media has states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Washington State and Oregon as toss-ups. The only possible way they're toss-ups is if Ralph Nader is able to get a significant share of the vote. But even there, people who think Nader is going to get 6% of the vote aren't realizing the infrastructure involved in getting onto the ballots in all the states and maintaining some semblance of momentum.

So who should be Kerry's Vice Presidential pick? If he's smart, he'll pick Richard Gephardt. By bringing him in, he gets Missouri and probably Iowa (our model doesn't yet handle the VP pick effect very well). So write this prediction down so that if we're right we can be oowed and awed appropriately:

Without Gephardt VP choice:

Kerry 279 / Bush 259

With Gephardt VP choice:

Kerry 290 / Bush 248

Now, you say to yourself, how can you be so sure? We're not. We're confident we'll be close but there are a few real toss-ups in which the events between now and election day will matter. Here are the real toss-up states:

  1. Ohio
  2. Missouri
  3. Iowa
  4. West Virginia

Bush has to win all of these to win. Barely.

States that COULD become toss-up states based on events:

  1. New Mexico
  2. Arkansas
  3. Wisconsin

Bill Richardson as a VP pick could shore up NM if something causes it to be a toss-up, but that's unlikely. General Clark could bring Arkansas into play.

Some pollsters have said that some blue states have become "purple".  I'd like to know which ones they think are purple now. I can't think of any blue states that have softened since 2000. Wisconsin? Possibly. But only if Nader becomes a major factor there again. We do think Florida will be much more solid for Bush this time, for what it's worth.

But go ahead and look at the map above, which states do you think Bush will win that we're wrong about?

We'll keep making predictions, after all, what good are computer models for? And you can then check the accuracy after the election to see how well we did.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 14, 2004
Mine came out very close to Mr. Frog's, but my reaction is close to Saint Ying's. The topics and wording reflect an emphasis on libertarian concerns. Thus there is no way to express my main worries that a) control of the mass media has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, taxation of business plays favorites in ways that are counter-productive for the population, c) public education is a mess, but privatization would probably exacerbate the problem, d) our current health care system is perverse in that the uninsured (generally, the poor) must not only pay, but they must pay far more for their treatments than my insurance (and I) must pay for mine, and e) I am concerned that our country is straying from a bulwark of international order and justice into an international pariah -- for reasons that are not in the best interests of everyday Americans. I did not feel much ability to express these viewpoints within that survey.
on May 14, 2004

For a better political affiliation test, try Link

on May 14, 2004
We had better start reading the Koran if this is true!
on May 14, 2004
A little Koran reading would do everyone some good.
on May 14, 2004
Yea, it did Bin Laden great...
on May 14, 2004
Unfortunately nobody ever told Bin Laden about the greatness of Jesus Christ. It's a two way street.
on May 14, 2004

Is that supposed to be a counter-point? Look at a map of the world, the most violent places on it are Islamic countries. The bleeding borders of Islam have been plagueing the world for many years.

I don't see what "good" the Koran would do. Similarly, I don't see the bible having much good either.

on May 14, 2004
>>Unfortunately nobody ever told Bin Laden about the greatness of Jesus Christ. It's a two way street.

Then Bin Laden wasn't reading his Koran, in which Jesus is revered as a great prophet and "the word of God."
on May 15, 2004
Unfortunately, Bin Laden, like, ironically many of the extremist Christians, have only read enough of their holy book to justify their hatred of those who are different than them. Since the holy teachings of Islam say that Christians and Jews should be treated with respect "due to fellow people of the Book", it seems doubtful that Bin Laden can justify calling himself a true Muslim.

Cheers
on May 15, 2004
I agree with jet, of course. There is absolutely no fundamental flaw in the Koran as opposed to the Bible. Both are equally noble and fucked at the same time. Mohammed was a great and admirable man (unlike Jesus Christ, who would have been had he actually existed). We cannot blame Mohammed or the message of Islam for the troubles of today. We should look at ourselves and see what we could have done better in the past to prevent the current circumstances in the Muslim world. Then we need to start doing the right thing.

>>Unfortunately nobody ever told Bin Laden about the greatness of Jesus Christ. It's a two way street.

Then Bin Laden wasn't reading his Koran, in which Jesus is revered as a great prophet and "the word of God."


Obviously he wasn't aware that Jesus was the son of God. I blame the idiots of the Christian right for 9-11 as a result of your failure to talk to Bin Laden face to face and exchange messages of peace and love to each other. That would have helped a whole lot, but you both blew it. Now you will rot in hell as hippies bathe nude and smoke peace pipes in some blissful paradise in the clouds.
on May 15, 2004
>>Obviously he wasn't aware that Jesus was the son of God.

Decided to try again with something the Koran comes out against, I see.

>> I blame the idiots of the Christian right for 9-11 as a result of your failure to talk to Bin Laden
>> face to face and exchange messages of peace and love to each other.

So are you claiming it is your belief that had Jerry Fallwell just sat Bin Laden down for a man-to-man face-to-face, all this Al-Quida foolishness would not be happening?

on May 15, 2004

Jebblackstar: I don't recall Christians blowing themselves up to kill children recently.  I don't recall Hindus hijakcing airplanes and crashing them into buildings to kill as many innocent people as possible. 

Let's face it, for all the Christians there are, they've been relatively peaceful for quite a long time. You have to go all the way back to the inquisition to get to good examples of massive violence carried out in the name of the Christian God. 

Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, days of bloody-thirsty violence against innocents are called weekdays.

on May 15, 2004
Salem witch trials, Jim Crow Laws, Ku Klux Klan, Timothy Mcvey-especially this one since HE DEFINITELY BLEW UP CHILDREN, the South Vietnamese government, various rebel groups in Central and South America, and lots of parts of Africa, there are more, but I think that's enough to disprove your point.

Be very aware, I am not grouping most christians in with these people, THESE ARE EXTREMISTS, in the same way that Bin Laden is an extremist, to say that all Muslims are like Bin Laden is foolhardy, and bigoted. MOST muslims, like most christians just want to live peaceful lives. The problem is, the militant muslims are in a region of the world that is very important to the rest of the world. They provide the oil, so they're in the news. The militant christians just don't happen to control vital resources.

Cheers
on May 15, 2004
Don't forget Janet Reno's dark forces and the Branch Davidians. They were both Christians, I presume.
2 Pages1 2