From: "Bill Mattox" 

I think that even they will admit that their sample is still small enough
to be vulnerable to unexpected variables. My impression is that under
normal circumstances their models would likely be accurate but in this
election cycle will be thrown off by an unprecedented degree of corruption
at the top that will mitigate against the normal determinates of past
elections. Already Clinton fatigue is having an effect in that Gore should
be doing far better than he has been to date.

"Randall Parker"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1398482971d8260998a459{at}news.barkto.com...
> What I find interesting about this is the degree to which their models
> make use of the condition of the economy and people's perceptions of
> their well-beings.
>
> So its all over. The universe is heavily deterministic and so is human
> behavior in large aggregates.
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9159-2000May25.html
>    Excerpt:
> All of them use elaborate higher mathematics to come up with predictions
> of the share of the two-party vote that the candidate of the incumbent
> party will win in November. (All agree that third-party candidates have
> no palpable impact on their models, and history bears them out.) Five of
> the best forecasters (measured by their records) say that as of today,
> Gore can be expected to win 53 to 60 percent of the two-party vote in
> November. This means none of the forecasts predicts a really close
> election. Most of these models have picked the winner correctly in years
> since 1952 when the winner got 53 percent or more of the vote.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5