You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours. -- General Sir Charles James Napier GCB, Commander-in-Chief in India (1782 - 1853)
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Debate Entry…Post Debate
Sorry...unlike Stephen Green, I got into this.
Bush won. Hands down. No Question.
Comment freely. Debate the point.
Oh...three point bounce for Bush (Kerry is in REAL TROUBLE).
UPDATE by Drumwaster: A comment (that got stopped by MT-Blacklist) from Loyal Reader ‘The Decoy’ says:
It looks like your friend Jeff here may not be completely upfront with us about his real political leanings. Knowledge is Power (http://www.sondrak.com/archive/003439.html) got the same exact comment on their blog, word for word (only instead of “Jeff Smoker” the name is “Brian Banducci”, and his e-mail changes, but both e-mails addresses are at psu.edu ), and Claire identified him as a seminar commenter.
I’m not quite sure what was intended by “Jeff’s” comment, but ... ummmm… “We Report, You Decide”. Thanks, TD!
Update To The Update: IAW our policy to not publish information until granted permission, I just received his permission to publish the correct information for LR The Decoy.
Nym: Chris D
e-mail: thedecoy{at}aol{dot}com
URL: Alchemy For Dummies
He’s posted here before, and is a regular over at the Kallini Brothers. Go pay him a visit, and tell him we said to say “Hi"…
Posted by
John Cross at
08:14 PM |
(0)
Trackbacks
Category:
An interesting bit of information
I recently read that all government spending is inflationary, while all taxation is deflationary.
The Federal government either has to print new money when running a deficit, or borrow it from banks (who are themselves running a bee-yoo-tiful scam called the fractional reserve, whereby they can create new money out of nothing at all). That extra money does nothing to create new wealth, just new money.
When you consider that inflation occurs when there are too many dollars chasing too few necessary goods, and taxation reduces that number, it’s not too far off.
Or is it?
Discuss.
Posted by
Drumwaster at
06:36 PM |
(0)
Trackbacks
Category:
Getting caught up on things
I’m back! I’ve been out and about, getting caught up on my favorite sites, and I’d like to thank Steve and John for posting while I was away, and to wish Kevin a successful surgery and speedy recovery, and say that he will be welcome back whenever he takes the time.
We went to Las Vegas, and partied our butts off. Much fun was had, and much good food was consumed, with the result that I might need to buy some new pants. (Heh.)
The third and final Presidential candidates debate begins in about half an hour, and I think that while this may affect the relative percentages of popular votes in a minor way, it won’t be enough to swing the election towards Kerry. People understand the difference between style and substance, and the various “insta-polls” have been discredited enough (77% of people thinking Edwards won the VP debate?), as has the punditry of the MSM with their proven bias towards Kerry.
For instance, the LATimes had Gray Davis winning the recall vote by a double-digit margin, and we all know what happened there, don’t we, Governator? With the alphabet networks claiming to be able to provide a 15% boost to Kerry, I have to wonder whether things are as close as they seem to be.
Anyhow, it should be interesting… Stay tuned, folks, it’s gonna get bumpy, and lawsuits are already drafted.
Posted by
Drumwaster at
05:27 PM |
(0)
Trackbacks
Category:
Move Along
Nothing to see here...just some pesky dictator we should not have gotten riled up about.
No need to get alarmed by this report. Just go about your business, it’s none of our concern.
Posted by
Drumwaster at
05:26 PM |
(0)
Trackbacks
Category:
Neat little equation….
To predict the Electoral College! You buffs, read on.
I got this from The Liberty Corner, so all the credit goes there.
Here it is:
Fraction of electoral vote going to the leader in popular votes =
- 9.166 (a constant term)
+ 32.201 x the leader’s fraction of the 2-party popular vote
- 25.742 x the square of the leader’s fraction of the 2-party popular vote
+ 0.067 (if the leader is Republican, otherwise 0).
OK...here’s what I did...I went to Real Clear Politics and got their 2-way poll average, and put those numbers in as RCP has them, but as a decimal. Today, it was 47.5 and 46.2, so I opened a spreadsheet, and put in .475 and .462.
I then took the sum of those two numbers (.937), and divided them into 1.0. The answer I got was 1.067236. After getting that, I multiplied the polling percentages by that answer, and that produces the percentage the two candidates are pulling in relation to their sum (Bush gets .506937, and Kerry gets .493063).
That is my fraction of popular vote that the candidate is getting. I am not including Nader, because he has no real possibility of pulling an electoral vote. However, it does work itself out, for Republicans as I will show you in a bit.
So, I plug in the numbers:
Bush’s popular vote projection (currently, per RCP) =50.6937%, or .506937
-9.166+(32.201*.506937)-(25.742*.506937^2)+.067 =
-9.166+16.32388-6.61531+.067=.609567 of the Electoral Votes.
To solve for Electoral Votes, multiply the solution by 538:
.609567 * 538 = 327.94
Now, Thomas Anger (the author of the equation) gives two caveats. First, that the best and closest solutions come between popular vote projections of .450 and .550, or 45% and 55%. Secondly, he says that there is a standard error of 4.7%, so the answer to my equation is actually better-defined as being “between 312.53 and 343.36, with a mean of 327.94”.
Kerry’s numbers, at present, would be 243 as a mean, 254 as a high, and 231 as a low. That means that it is as close as all get out.
Now.....what is the lowest popular vote percentage A Republican can possibly get, and still have a mean average over 270? 49.10%. (The Democrat number is 50.1%) The lowest percentage a Republican can have to be elected (the highest number within the standard error) is 48.75% In order to be absolutely safe, the candidate must have 49.42% or more of the popular vote. The Democratic numbers for that are 49.75% and 50.5%. respectively.
Bush, in 2000, rated, according to Mr. Anger’s scale, and my 2-party adjustment, between 271 and 298, and Gore between 305 and 336. Why so high for Gore? We take out the .067 Republican adjustment, and we get a number between 271 and 298...thus giving us the tie. You can work it out with other elections....Mr. Anger did for the period between 1956 and 2000.
Clinton/Dole? Clinton got 49%, adjusted to 54.39% of the two-party vote, and that gives us an Electoral Vote range of 375 to 412 (he received 379),Dole got 41%, adjusted to 45.51%, giving him an EV range of 114 to 125 (near the outer range of the equation’s ability to acurately predict, and it is off a bit, as Dole took 159 EV’s). Play with it a bit.
Also, take a look at Vodkapundit and Ann Althousefor some good liveblogging. I’ll be live-beering, and will probably post either late tonight or tomorrow on how I think the President and Senator Kerry did.
Less...
Posted by
John Cross at
04:51 PM |
(0)
Trackbacks
Category:
Page 1 of 1 pages