As a former economist and statistician I'm hesitant to ascribe motive to that which might be explained by chance (remember the outcome of the Washington Redskins game prior to a presidential election was an accurate predictor for whether the incumbent party would win or loose back to the 1930's until this last election.
Steve Sturm has been looking at 3rd quarter GDP estimates in election years and the later reported actual 3rd quarter GDP. He finds that the supposedly non-partisan bureaucrats at the Commerce Department have managed to put out numbers that reflected poorly on the Republican candidate or gave a boots to the Democratic candidate.. Coincidence?
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (11)
Absolutely it is a coincide... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Rod Stanton | February 26, 2005 3:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Absolutely it is a coincidence. And it was a coincidence that the America hater Dan got caught in Rathergate. Eason's antiAmerican statements in Davos were also a coincidence, he usually is not so bigoted.
Are you a micro or macro economist?
1. Posted by Rod Stanton | February 26, 2005 3:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 15:18
2. Posted by Richard Johnson | February 26, 2005 3:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Coincidence? Probably. I'm not sure how many voters would
be swayed by a report of 3.7% as apposed to 4.0%. They're both
good numbers. Personally, I don't think we should go looking for
conspiracies under every rock.
2. Posted by Richard Johnson | February 26, 2005 3:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 15:37
3. Posted by AnonymousDrivel | February 26, 2005 6:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
RE: Richard Johnson's post (February 26, 2005 03:37 PM)
Personally, I don't think we should go looking for
conspiracies under every rock.
Hmm. Interesting take.
___
/ \_
| G \
\ A \
\ N \__
* \ N \
_ | / \_ O \
\|/ \ N /
-----+------- \____/----
/|\
3. Posted by AnonymousDrivel | February 26, 2005 6:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 18:05
4. Posted by Jo macphearson | February 26, 2005 6:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
4% is 110% of 3.7%. That is a very significant distortion!
4. Posted by Jo macphearson | February 26, 2005 6:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 18:23
5. Posted by Richard Johnson | February 26, 2005 7:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Not really. If were talking about influencing people's perception
of the economy do you really think there were people out there
saying "3.7%? Is that all? Damn, the economy just sucks and its
all Bush's fault. Now if it was 4.0% we'd be on easy street but
Bush can only get 3.7" 3.7, 4.0 ... either number points to solid
growth.
As far as conspiracies go, whenever I need a laugh I like to
head over to the DU and see what those clowns are whining
about. I remember when the Nov 2004 jobs reports came it
revised the new jobs number for Oct down alittle bit and some
idiot over there was goning on and on about how Bush lied
and fudged the numbers and on and on. I was thinking "Lordy,
these people are stupid."
Were better than that.
5. Posted by Richard Johnson | February 26, 2005 7:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 19:18
6. Posted by AnonymousDrivel | February 26, 2005 9:07 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
RE: Richard Johnson's post (February 26, 2005 07:18 PM)
As far as conspiracies go, whenever I need a laugh I like to head over to the DU and see what those clowns are whining about.
I usually visit there when I want a splitting headache.
6. Posted by AnonymousDrivel | February 26, 2005 9:07 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 21:07
7. Posted by Rod Stanton | February 26, 2005 10:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well the MSM was saying "Only 3.7%" like it was a depression last Fall.
7. Posted by Rod Stanton | February 26, 2005 10:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 22:01
8. Posted by Jay Tea | February 26, 2005 10:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"...gave a boots to the Democratic candidate."
Kevin, does your wife know you've been looking at THAT picture of Condoleezza Rice again?
J.
(Can't say I blame you. Something about that woman... she gets to me, too.)
8. Posted by Jay Tea | February 26, 2005 10:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 22:52
9. Posted by Kevin | February 26, 2005 11:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Paging Dr. Frued...
9. Posted by Kevin | February 26, 2005 11:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 26, 2005 23:33
10. Posted by Carol | February 27, 2005 3:05 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's so funny Jay. My hubby 's always saying he's in love when he see's her. He's in Iraq right now and I e mailed him the link with the picture. I told him I know you're gonna be drooling all over. Of course he really likes her brain too, deadly combination. LOL
10. Posted by Carol | February 27, 2005 3:05 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 27, 2005 03:05
11. Posted by Jay Tea | February 27, 2005 3:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Smart chicks are soooo hot."
-- Alexander "Xander" Harris, "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," Episode 100, "The Gift."
J.
11. Posted by Jay Tea | February 27, 2005 3:55 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 27, 2005 03:55