jcd11235 0 #101 July 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSpeaking of Bush, I think Jeb Bush would be an excellent choice for VP. I doubt he wants it. He probably has his eye on the nomination in 2016. That would pre-suppose he doesn't think Romney can win. That's a reasonable presupposition. In you perspective. I'm pretty sure Jeb Bush doesn't share it. Since WWII, incumbent presidents have won most of their reelection campaigns. Of the three who didn't, Ford was never elected to begin with (not even as VP) and George H. W. Bush had to run against a conservative spoiler in addition to the Democratic nominee.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #102 July 19, 2012 Quote Since WWII, incumbent presidents have won most of their reelection campaigns. Of the three who didn't, Ford was never elected to begin with (not even as VP) and George H. W. Bush had to run against a conservative spoiler in addition to the Democratic nominee. Perot had no bearing on the results of 1992, other than comic relief. Nader did a lot more damage in 2000. In the time frame you picked, 7 Presidents won a second term. 3 lost. However, 64 is a bit suspect itself with the ghost of Kennedy. So let's make that 6.5-3.5. A random coin flipped 10 times will get you 6+ heads 37.5% of the time. There is a slight incumbency advantage, but not a huge one. No, the common denominator to the losses (76, 80, 92) was the lousy economy. The President usually manages to juice things up for the reelection (see 84), but when they can't, it's a tough run. Further decreasing the probability is that Obama has lived up to the inexperience tag he came in with. So it will come down to how many people in the undecided camp got a job in the last 24 months, how much the deficit scares them, and how much they hold against Romney for his etch a sketch opinions. A month ago the electoral college map was pretty clear, but it's getting closer these days. The odds for the GOP are good enough that Jeb should accept an offer if given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #103 July 19, 2012 QuotePerot had no bearing on the results of 1992, other than comic relief. You can try to convince yourself of that if you want to. Perot won nearly 19 percent of the popular vote, about 3.4 times the difference between Bush and Clinton. Without Perot, most of those votes would have gone to Bush. QuoteA random coin flipped 10 times will get you 6+ heads 37.5% of the time. It will yield 7 (the relevant number for calculating our p-value) or more heads in 10 tosses only 17.1 percent of the time. Quote The odds for the GOP are good enough that Jeb should accept an offer if given. Doubtful. He wants the top job. It's unlikely Romney would pick him, anyway. The Bush name on the ticket would further hurt Romney's chances. Romney's only hope is to persuade former Obama supporters to vote for him, and many of those who might do so voted for Romney because he was as different from Bush as possible.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #104 July 19, 2012 QuoteBumps aren't nearly as important as actual gains in voters. A temporary bump just gets you a little juice in the fundraising. At this point it is all about fundraising. The money will "buy" the gains. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #105 July 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteBumps aren't nearly as important as actual gains in voters. A temporary bump just gets you a little juice in the fundraising. At this point it is all about fundraising. The money will "buy" the gains. There's more to it than just the money. It's about the "Big Mo"!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Mo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #106 July 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am calling on Obama to release the names of the drug dealers from whom he bought his drugs all those years he was a (self-admitted) dope head. Did you make the same demand of Bush, Jr.? Speaking of Bush, I think Jeb Bush would be an excellent choice for VP. I thought we were done with the whole monarchy thing. In a country this populous, the odds are statistically infinitesimal that the best candidate for the office is a relative of two previous occupants. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #107 July 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am calling on Obama to release the names of the drug dealers from whom he bought his drugs all those years he was a (self-admitted) dope head. Did you make the same demand of Bush, Jr.? Speaking of Bush, I think Jeb Bush would be an excellent choice for VP. I thought we were done with the whole monarchy thing. In a country this populous, the odds are statistically infinitesimal that the best candidate for the office is a relative of two previous occupants. Blues, Dave I disagree. Often traits are past down genetically. Look at all the actors, musicians etc. who have children that are successful. OTOH, look at the generational continuance of government dependency. I'm not saying it always transfers but I don't think it's as far fetch as you indicate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #108 July 19, 2012 QuoteOften traits are past down genetically. Fair enough. His father was a poor president. His brother was a horrible president. There's no reason to believe that Jeb might make a good president.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #109 July 19, 2012 Quote Quote Often traits are past down genetically. Fair enough. His father was a poor president. His brother was a horrible president. There's no reason to believe that Jeb might make a good president. Yeah, they didn't give enough free stuff away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #110 July 19, 2012 QuoteQuotePerot had no bearing on the results of 1992, other than comic relief. You can try to convince yourself of that if you want to. Perot won nearly 19 percent of the popular vote, about 3.4 times the difference between Bush and Clinton. Without Perot, most of those votes would have gone to Bush. It is you that will need to keep convincing yourself. I was at the Survey Research Center at Cal who does deep post election analysis and made that conclusion - he stole equally from both parties. or from Wiki: Quote A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[36] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[37] [ur]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot[/url] Quote Quote The odds for the GOP are good enough that Jeb should accept an offer if given. Doubtful. He wants the top job. And how many VPs and former VP candidates since WWII went on to become President? (playing your game) If we were playing craps, it's the difference between betting on 6 or 8 versus betting on 33. Much easier to prove occurred due to being VP rather than random chance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #111 July 19, 2012 Quote There's more to it than just the money. It's about the "Big Mo"!! Try creating that Big Mo without Big Money and let me know how that works out for ya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #112 July 19, 2012 Quote Quote There's more to it than just the money. It's about the "Big Mo"!! Try creating that Big Mo without Big Money and let me know how that works out for ya So your asking which came first, the Big Mo or the Big Money? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #113 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteA detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[36] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[37] [ur]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot[/url] That certainly doesn't prove your assertion that he wasn't a spoiler. It also doesn't prove my assertion that he was, but it shows that my assertion is more likely to be true. Besides, even if he wasn't a spoiler, the p-value still suggests that, since WWII, being an incumbent is advantageous in a US presidential election. An 82% confidence level isn't conclusive, but it's sufficient for laying the smart money.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #114 July 20, 2012 I'd like to see Michelle Bachman, just to make Mitt more palatable to the "real" Republicans. The rest of us can vote to re-elect Obama & Biden. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #115 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteA detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[36] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[37] [ur]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot[/url] That certainly doesn't prove your assertion that he wasn't a spoiler. It also doesn't prove my assertion that he was, but it shows that my assertion is more likely to be true. How many drinks did you have at Happy Hour today? 38=38. Perot was the choice of those who were dying to vote for None of the Above, and they covered the complete political spectrum. Early in 92 I thought his bid was serious, but then we found out how fucked in the head he was with Cuban hitmen at his daughter's wedding. And using the population of all incumbent elections since WWII instead of elections with lousy economies is bad statistics. Obama has a long way to go before this feels like 1984 to the voters. He has to make up for that with "I killed bin Laden, motherfuckers" and "Romney is like Mr Howe from Gilligan's Island." Which may well work...he still has a narrow lead in EC votes. But that voter purge in Florida could kill him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #116 July 20, 2012 Quote38=38. Yes, but 27 > 20, and we can't assume those moderates would have been evenly split. "The rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot" is a pretty dubious claim, at best. Nonetheless, the merit of my claim is not dependent on Perot as a spoiler. I calculated the p-value without even taking it into consideration. QuoteAnd using the population of all incumbent elections since WWII instead of elections with lousy economies is bad statistics. Like the way you tried to disregard LBJ's reelection? Your the last person who should be calling out anyone on "bad statistics." Examining elections with lousy economies is a horrible idea when trying to examine the effect of incumbency on election results. I chose since WWI, since that period encompasses all of the presidential elections in which any of over 95% of current voters have voted. (Going back to Coolidge's reelection campaign would encompass all presidential elections in which any of 100% of current voters have voted.)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #117 July 20, 2012 QuoteI'd like to see Michelle Bachman, just to make Mitt more palatable to the "real" Republicans. The rest of us can vote to re-elect Obama & Biden. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78741.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #118 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote38=38. Yes, but 27 > 20, and we can't assume those moderates would have been evenly split. "The rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot" is a pretty dubious claim, at best. Keep telling yourself that, if you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #119 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote38=38. Yes, but 27 > 20, and we can't assume those moderates would have been evenly split. "The rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot" is a pretty dubious claim, at best. Keep telling yourself that, if you like. I see you're still focusing on that single datum (which has already been counted as an incumbent defeat), while ignoring the rest.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #120 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote38=38. Yes, but 27 > 20, and we can't assume those moderates would have been evenly split. "The rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot" is a pretty dubious claim, at best. Keep telling yourself that, if you like. I see you're still focusing on that single datum (which has already been counted as an incumbent defeat), while ignoring the rest. lord knows we couldn't discuss two different questions at the same time...how could we possibly juggle it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #121 July 20, 2012 Quotelord knows we couldn't discuss two different questions at the same time...how could we possibly juggle it? So you focus on the irrelevant question?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #122 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuotelord knows we couldn't discuss two different questions at the same time...how could we possibly juggle it? So you focus on the irrelevant question? if you acknowledged your error on it, we could move forward. First you tried to disprove 2=2, now you're insisting it's irrelevant. It's not. You dismissed Bush's 1992 loss as being due to Perot, rather than the poor state of the economy, which is a rather significant aspect I argue when viewing the 2012 race. You dismissed 1976 because Ford wasn't elected ... I'd say that one was largely about Watergate and thus unwinnable, just as 2008 was. Treating these as equal random events is wrong - there are issues around each one. Let's redirect it. Today, what probability do you give to an Obama victory? Is it the same as you would have said 6 months ago, or less? If you were a bookie, what payoff would you give to someone putting $10 down on Mittens? $20? $15? $10? $100? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #123 July 20, 2012 A Dominionist. Any Dominionist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #124 July 20, 2012 QuoteA Dominionist. Any Dominionist. http://www.emagill.com/gallery/dominion.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #125 July 20, 2012 QuoteFirst you tried to disprove 2=2, now you're insisting it's irrelevant. Clearly, your reading comprehension is lacking. QuoteYou dismissed Bush's 1992 loss as being due to Perot, rather than the poor state of the economy, which is a rather significant aspect I argue when viewing the 2012 race. You dismissed 1976 because Ford wasn't elected I didn't dismiss either one. I counted both elections as incumbent defeats, unlike you trying to disregard LBJ's reelection when you computed your bogus p-value.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
