>The wretched George Will actually had a good (well, accurate) point about
>Lieberman's attractiveness to the clapped-out Gore Democrats: Bush's
>selection of Cheney, the former defense secretary, brings up the glory days
>of the Gulf War; Lieberman is one of only 10 Democrats in the Senate who
>voted for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. (Gore of course was
>another, while 45 voted no.)
>Also, the following item was in Sam Smith's newsletter last week (I
>haven't seen the original): "BLOOMBERG: Political scientists who
>specialize in statistical studies of elections are almost unanimous: Al
>Gore is a shoo-in to win in November. This may come as a surprise to those
>who read public opinion polls ... Yet academic models based on past
>elections, which factor in economic variables such as inflation and the
>gross domestic product, see Gore winning, largely on the strength of the
The top-secret, proprietary LBO election model, which I'll be writing up in the next issue (somehow fitting in the cracks between finishing up A New Economy?), has two inputs: the presidential approval rating and the year-to-year growth in per capita disposable personal income in the second quarter of the election year. Polls over the summer and early fall are almost meaningless.
Sneak preview: Gore should win fairly big. This model has back-predictded 11 of the last 13 elections, the only exceptions being 1960 (which Nixon really won, had the mafia not stolen it for JFK) and 1976 (the Watergate election). If Gore loses, then that may say something.