Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Electorometrics?
May 6, 2004 7:28 PM   Subscribe

More Election Predictions. Not based on ideological politics, but on the way they speak, or perhaps on the way the economy moves, on top of futures markets. Are we moving toward Electorometrics?
posted by weston (19 comments total)

 
John Kerry will beat George Bush. How confident is she of this? “One hundred per cent.”

: >
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on May 6, 2004


"More Election Predictions"

Not another bloody Michael Moore thread?! :)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:13 PM on May 6, 2004


I'm actually quite shocked by this apparent evidence that America elects the people demonstrating the most "complex" thought. Of course that's an oversimplification, of course there's other factors, etc etc.

Nonetheless, this approach seems to indicate that the complex structure of one's rhetoric, at least, is a good predictor.

And in some small way, i find that reassuring actually.
posted by freebird at 8:39 PM on May 6, 2004


Americans express worry, Bush support drops in poll

Americans are more dissatisfied with the nation's direction than at any time in more than eight years and President Bush's job approval rating has sunk into a tie for his worst-ever showing, according to a new Gallup Poll.

The poll, released Thursday, indicates 62% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. That is the highest dissatisfaction number since early January 1996 — shortly after the federal government shut down briefly when Congress failed to reach a budget agreement. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed were satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S.

A Gallup survey in early April indicated 57% of Americans were dissatisfied with the way things were going in the country and 41% were satisfied. The job dissatisfaction numbers have been on the rise since early this year.


And we have yet to get to the worst of the Abu Ghraib pictures, according to Seymour Hersh.
posted by y2karl at 8:47 PM on May 6, 2004


Soon the psychohistorians will be able to tell us when to expect the next Seldon Crisis. That will really help with my long term vacation planning.
posted by freebird at 9:04 PM on May 6, 2004


Funny that The Foundation should come up... did you know that the translation of that particular novel into Arabic was the first notable instance of the use of the term "al qaeda"?
posted by clevershark at 9:30 PM on May 6, 2004


I should specify, that was the translation of the title of the book.
posted by clevershark at 9:31 PM on May 6, 2004


did you know that the translation of that particular novel into Arabic was the first notable instance of the use of the term "al qaeda"

No, I did not, and in my exhausted state of extended python coding, I find that one of the most profound things I've heard in...in EVER! That's AWESOME!

When I went back and reread the Foundation books as an adult, I was amazed at the extent to which they express certain "myths" and "ideals" of Western Progress and Its Triumph, especially from the mid 20th century. I really see them as important cultural documents in this light.

So the fact that the title translates to "al Qaeda" is just fucking beautiful. I'm going to be chuckling and ranting about that for days if not years, clevershark, thank you so much.
posted by freebird at 9:50 PM on May 6, 2004


Nonetheless, this approach seems to indicate that the complex structure of one's rhetoric, at least, is a good predictor.

I wonder how this relates to the 'better hair' theory which has worked in every election since Kennedy except for one, 1988? (kerry having much better hair than GW, as well..)
posted by Space Coyote at 10:02 PM on May 6, 2004


And we have yet to get to the worst of the Abu Ghraib pictures, according to Seymour Hersh.

On Charlie Rose (I think, all the Hersh interviews of late are running together), Hersh said that there was sexual torture of little boys, and that there were things he couldn't even talk about on TV. I don't even fucking get it. I get the idea that war can make people into monsters, but does everyone's Monster Mode include a prediliction for foreign object rape and sexual torture?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:28 PM on May 6, 2004


I use Monster Mode in emacs, and it doesn't do foreign object rape nor sexual torture. It is written in lisp though...
posted by freebird at 11:41 PM on May 6, 2004


I wonder how this relates to the 'better hair' theory which has worked in every election since Kennedy except for one, 1988?

Cason observes that image matters:

"There are other variables that, if applied retroactively to the nine elections that Cason examined, seem predictive as well. The taller candidate has won seven of them. (This, too, would favor Kerry, who is six feet four.)"

However:

"But before we start analyzing the syntactical tendencies of Kerry’s Cabinet candidates, it is worth considering that, by Cason’s reasoning, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun (serials both) would likely, if pitted against Bush, withstand the Karl Rove machine and win."
posted by weston at 12:29 AM on May 7, 2004


For some reason candidates who stand for elected office are taller than the population average, and have physically larger heads as well.

That explains why Mulroney and Chretien both won multiple elections in Canada. Mulroney's head was rumored to be a size 9 (!).
posted by clevershark at 8:42 AM on May 7, 2004


clevershark,

They, like Michelangelo's David, look better on a podium?
posted by dfowler at 9:09 AM on May 7, 2004


We subconsciously give more status to taller men. Tall men are thought to be more intelligent, competent, and successful than equally intelligent, competent, and successful short men.

I think there's a sparse data problem here -- we have so few, statistically speaking, elections to look at it'd be tough to find meaningful predictors. It's also entirely possible that each election is almost completely different.
posted by callmejay at 9:33 AM on May 7, 2004


y2karl, it's looking more and more like 1992 all over again. i'm not sure if that's heartening or depressing. what exactly have we accomplished in the last 12 years? /derail
posted by mrgrimm at 9:41 AM on May 7, 2004


what exactly have we accomplished in the last 12 years
We have (digital) cameras.
posted by freebird at 9:45 AM on May 7, 2004


If the presidency of GW Bush has proved anything, it's that intelligent, complex speakers are treated with jealous hostility, while popular, simple speech is lauded as "the new honesty".
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:17 AM on May 7, 2004


Except that this article contends that Gore was pretty much on the same level as Bush. Which I don't necessarily buy, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.
posted by namespan at 12:03 PM on May 7, 2004


« Older Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt....  |  Weightless Animals: soundtrack... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments