Economist says Bush in a landslide
 

i'd like to see how he came to his conclusion and what type of research he has done to support his methodology. my guess is that it is just another WAG meant to strengthen the resolve of anti-bush voters to get off their butts and get to the polls.

Election prediction

I can't tell you who will win, but I'm confident there won't be any "landslides". :eyebrow:

i don't believe there will be a landslide this time around. i'd like to vote for a 3rd party to encourage them for future elections, but a) the available 3rd party types strike me as, well... um... i... wouldn't vote for either of them if i thought they stood a chance at making it into the oval office. and b) there is too much at stake inthis election to worry about making a statement for future elections.

i think bush will win because as the election draws closer people will realize that kerry isn't much different from bush and the known devil vs. unknown devil mindset will take effect inside the ballot box. i mean bush and kerry are cousins - does it really matter which one gets elected?

One comes with generations of real world experience including combat, including openly and correctly representing the interests of little soldiers in being used as cannon fodder for a lying president. That one comes with decades of knowledge and experience of how the world works, who are its leaders, and what their long term objective really are.

Then we have the mental midget president whose entire knowledge of the world was a 1.5 year comprehensive indoctrination by Condi Rice and Paul Wolfowich. No wonder the Norwegain foreign minister declared within months that George Jr would subvert the Oslo Accords. And Geroge Jr did just that. No wonder that George Jr all but insulted the first world leader that visited him at the White House. No wonder that science loudly declares that George Jr is intentionally subverting science for political agenda. Need we point to the absurd Man on Mars program as a classic example of MBA analysis? No wonder that religious beliefs are being imposed on the American people.

Whereas I was mostly 50-50 between George Jr and Al Gore - a few years of reading has sharply exposed George Jr as being one of the worst men to be president. He has so little knowledge that even when spy information properly exposed no knowledge of WMD (just rumors), then George Jr subverts that into WMDs exist. A man so dangerous that he almost got us into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane crash. No intelligent man would have ever let that minor event get so far so fast. But then there are few men in Washington with Dan Quayle's abilities.

Can he think of just one thing he did wrong? He stood there before national TV for minutes and could not answer the question. This president having done more wrong than any other president in recent history. No president has ever destroyed America's standing in the world as fast and as much as George Jr. Taking American international approval ratings from 70% to 15% in only two years. George Jr was perfect as a manager of a company that could only drill dry wells in TX. Getting rich at the expense of failing companies is what he is good at. We should return that classic MBA to where he can do the least damage.

Can I think of anyone more dangerous as president? Pat Buchanan. It is a short list. A major difference between Kerry and George Jr. George Jr is a perfect patsy for the Vulcans to manipulate. A man whose entire knowledge of the world comes from a 1.5 year brainwashing by Wolfowich and Rice. A man who acutally believes god choose him to be president. Forget any more discussion about Kerry. There is just too much wrong with George Jr to be a US president. Once we get rid of George Jr, then it will take about 10 years to undo most of the international and political damage he has done.

The real question is who has less intelligence - George Jr or Dan Quayle?

I halfway expect it to be a landslide (electoral-college-wise), the winner depending on what the news is on the day before the elections.

Anyway, speaking of the electoral college, here's a way to keep track (auto-updated):

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ev.png


And a cool animated history of the polls.

Here is a different view of the election
 

althought this isn't really a good poll of voters, the outcome is pretty interesting.

Merrill Lynch

From the link:
Is this media bias in a misleading headline? Do foreign money men know what the American voters think? Seems to me the Americans polled should take precedence with foreign respondents as a footnote. Am I being insular? Not thinking globally? Don't see the big picture? :confused:

Are you saying that the Economist is now taking an anti-Bush stance? Please explain.

In any event, I seriously doubt anti-Bush voters need to be motivated. Most of us have been waiting to go vote since December 2000. :handball:

This wasn't a conclusion reached by The Economist, but rather an economist - a Yale economist to be specific.
What i was saying before is that sometimes the best way to motivate and turn people to your view, is to present your cause as being the underdog - thus providing further motivation to those who may agree with you already, but are generally to lazy to be troubled with voting.

but to answer your question about The Economist...
Reported by The Economist

My bad.