(Another) Econometric Model Shows a (Huge) Bush Victory
 

What cracks me up are people who think that the debates matter, and that Iraq matters. History has shown that these things are irrelevant. What matters is the economy. The best example is the 1972 presidential election. Four years earlier, Nixon told the American people that he had a secret plan to get the U.S. out of the then unpopular Vietnam War. In 1972, the U.S. was still in Vietnam, and the war was even more unpopular. Also, the Watergate scandal was emerging. What happend? Nixon won in one of the biggest landslides in American history. Why? The economy was cooking.

Here's a model posted by Dr. Ray C. Fair, a Yale economist:
http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2004/computev.htm

Using 2 year old data, it shows a Bush landslide. The economy has gotten better since then. Maybe Rudey, or someone else, can give us the current data so that we can see how accurate this model will be in a few weeks.

Listen, I don't think it's as easy as that.

If you're into debt investments, then Kerry is your guy.

If you're into equity investments, then Bush.

Also,

For job creation and economic growth, economists support Bush (last week's wall street journal).

For reduction of the deficit, sadly, they support Kerry.

Plus I really don't think you can create a model on how to predict the president. Personally I think if you want the best predictor, look at the Las Vegas odds. That's the only clearing market that predicts it best in my opinion.

-Rudey

What are the Vegas odds?

http://www.oddschecker.com/oddscheck...98x/sid/377975

It's funny. The pentagon had funded a think tank in creating a market for political events. In essence, people would have a market to gamble on when terrorist events would happen even. People's knee jerk reaction was to hate this even though markets are the best way to gauge odds.

-Rudey