[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Oct 8 2008, 02:46 PM, said:

Clinton made a start. I don't think the problem was solved. In how many years of the Clinton administration was the budget balanced or showing a surplus?

Yes, we still had a big national debt when Clinton left office, but the debt was decreasing both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of GDP. Here is a graph showing the fiscal performance of every president after FDR in terms of GDP: National Debt History by President

As you can see, if Bush had just continued Clinton's fiscal responsibility, the national debt could have been cut to at least where it was when Reagan first took office.

[mike777]

Just asking but is it fair to say Congress gets just as much credit during Clinton years and just as much blame during Bush's?

Also as been pointed out during wartime, the debt always goes up alot. Now if the war on terror or whatever you prefer to call it is Bush's fault ok.

If Obama can fight a full time real shooting war and reduce the Nat Debt, that will make him a great President but I think that is a bit too much to ask of any human.

Keep in mind depending how you want to look at this issue you can always inflate your way out as LBJ and others did

Reagan tried to outspend the USSR on defense and the interest rates fell during most of his Presidency.

Example if I can buy land for 100,000 debt and inflate the economy and make that land worth 300,000 bucks my debt does not look so bad. See LBJ, Ford, Carter, etc

But if the economy has disinflation as it did during Reagan this is tougher to pull off. Again depends on how you want to look at the numbers.

[Mbodell]

helene_t, on Oct 8 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

... especially now that the country is so divided. No matter who wins, close to half of the population will be living in states where the majority voted for the other candidate.

That isn't clear. There's a reasonable chance (at least 1 in 3 right now) that this election results in a landslide victory and not a close election.

[DrTodd13]

Define landslide. If I had to guess right now, I'd say that Obama wins with less than 50% of the popular vote. Probably the most he can expect is 55%. Even if that 55% gives him a plurality in every state so that McCain gets nothing from the electoral college then I still wouldn't say it is a landslide.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Oct 9 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

Define landslide.  If I had to guess right now, I'd say that Obama wins with less than 50% of the popular vote.  Probably the most he can expect is 55%.  Even if that 55% gives him a plurality in every state so that McCain gets nothing from the electoral college then I still wouldn't say it is a landslide.

fivethirtyeight.com seems to be doing a pretty good job analyzing the numbers this electoral cycle.

They are currently projecting that Obama would receive 52.9% of the popular vote if the election were held today.

http://www.fivethirt...-polls-108.html

For what its worth, here's list that I am shamelessly cribbing from wikipedia listing the most lopside US Presidential elections

Quote

Theodore Roosevelt's 56.4% to Alton B. Parker's 37.6% in the 1904 presidential election
Warren Harding's 60.3% to James Cox's 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 60.8% to Alf Landon`s 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election
Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election
Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election
Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Oct 9 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

fivethirtyeight.com seems to be doing a pretty good job analyzing the numbers this electoral cycle.

We won't really know whether their analysis is any good until we see the actual results, will we?

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Oct 9 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 9 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

fivethirtyeight.com seems to be doing a pretty good job analyzing the numbers this electoral cycle.

We won't really know whether their analysis is any good until we see the actual results, will we?

The proof is definitely in the pudding.

At the same time, it is possible to look at the recipe and draw some early conclusions. 538 does a very good job describing the methodologies that they are using.

[TimG]

Is that the same Nate Silver who developed the PECOTA system for Baseball Prospectus? Interesting that he has taken his projections from sports to politics.

[Mbodell]

Yes it is the same Nate Silver and yes it is the same sort of methodology.

They define landslide as 375+ or more of the EV. And note they aren't modeling what would happen if the election were held today, they are modeling what today's numbers predict about the election in November (which means they regress it so the person trailing does better as they predict all elections are more likely to tighten than widen). And the numbers they have now predict a 375+ landslide a full 35.24% of the time for Obama.