Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
The Washington Redskins have accurately predicted 17 out of the last 18 elections. If the Redskins win the game before the election then the incumbent party wins. If the Redskins lose, the opposition party wins. The cloud on the horizon: it was the 2004 election this predictor failed. In any event, go Steelers . . .
Fred Smoot summed up this year's dilemma for many of his teammates when the veteran cornerback told the Associated Press, "We're coming from Democratic backgrounds, but we got Republican money right now."
There shouldn't be a dilemma. It's possible to have Republican money and Democratic social consciousness. There are lots of wealthy Democrats out there.
tandfman wrote:There shouldn't be a dilemma. It's possible to have Republican money and Democratic social consciousness. There are lots of wealthy Democrats out there.
People with democratic money and a republican social consciousness are common too.
tandfman wrote:There shouldn't be a dilemma. It's possible to have Republican money and Democratic social consciousness. There are lots of wealthy Democrats out there.
People with democratic money and a republican social consciousness are common too.
Indeed. But what I have trouble graspiing is why so many people in the sub-$250,000 income categories say that taxation is a big issue to them, but are concerned about Obama, whose tax plans would actually help them more than McCain's would.
tandfman wrote:There shouldn't be a dilemma. It's possible to have Republican money and Democratic social consciousness. There are lots of wealthy Democrats out there.
People with democratic money and a republican social consciousness are common too.
Indeed. But what I have trouble graspiing is why so many people in the sub-$250,000 income categories say that taxation is a big issue to them, but are concerned about Obama, whose tax plans would actually help them more than McCain's would.
I've heard the media refer to those types of indivduals as "Low Information Voters" , and they exist on BOTH sides. They allow the emails, campaign commercials and talk radio to provide the majority of their information, versus doing actual research to verify what the candidates are promising.
tandfman wrote:There shouldn't be a dilemma. It's possible to have Republican money and Democratic social consciousness. There are lots of wealthy Democrats out there.
People with democratic money and a republican social consciousness are common too.
Indeed. But what I have trouble graspiing is why so many people in the sub-$250,000 income categories say that taxation is a big issue to them, but are concerned about Obama, whose tax plans would actually help them more than McCain's would.
bad hammy wrote:The Washington Redskins have accurately predicted 17 out of the last 18 elections. If the Redskins win the game before the election then the incumbent party wins. If the Redskins lose, the opposition party wins. The cloud on the horizon: it was the 2004 election this predictor failed. In any event, go Steelers . . .
Of course, this sort of stuff is completely useless in prediction. A large number of 'results' are out there with a record history. Finding ones that match up with the election results is easy due to: 1) the large number of sequences to chose from; and 2) the large number of people with easy mechanisms to find common sequences. Since both the elections and the games are not just qualitative but quantitative, if there is any validity at all, there should be strong correlations in the numbers (as opposed to on/off). You can still find some at any point in time, especially when you can arbitrarily pick the cutoff date, but the number of good matches would go way down.
