Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Wednesday Night Liveblog #2: Biden

You can back into the nominal GDP growth because t...

2008-08-28T15:06:00.000-04:00

You can back into the nominal GDP growth because they report the GDP deflator. But nominal doesn't mean squat, so why bother?

The BEA restated it's methodology because they had...

2008-08-28T14:56:00.000-04:00

The BEA restated it's methodology because they had not been capturing lots of EDI transactions, which were starting to take off.

Now, they were only revised up about 1 point, so your point still stands.

Sigh... They ALWAYS revise the numbers. Most important indicators have two, or sometimes three releases: Advanced, Preliminary, and Final. That's the nature of dealing with respondents. Sometimes they don't get back to you and you have to impute their values. There's nothing odd about it.

I agree with everything you said in your last post, except the fact that I have not seen nominal GDP reported in a long long time.

No problem. I'm just annoyed at the reporter. BEA puts out both stats in their reports and if you don't put in the four-letter word, you end up with errors like I made.

It was probably 7.5% in Q2. My guess is that you might not like that number...hehe.

Try 4.6% nominal current-dollar GDP growth. Let's see it repeat itself.

There is no doubt on the fact that we HAVE NOT had...

2008-08-28T14:29:00.000-04:00

There is no doubt on the fact that we HAVE NOT had one in 2008.

Actually if you insist on using the technical definition of recession as being two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, you can never say with certainty that you are NOT in a recession (or that you are in one). We're no longer in 2008Q2, which is the last quarter for which we have data. If GDP declines in 2008Q3 and 2008Q4, then it will turn out to have been the case that we are, in fact, in a technical recession as I write this.

dwbh, you are quite right that "today's numbers ar...

2008-08-28T14:28:00.000-04:00

dwbh, you are quite right that "today's numbers are 15 points higher than three days ago" But it also helps to try to estimate what the number 3 days ago was. So, although yesterday, although Rassmussen seemed to be going the wrong way the 3 point decline was with respect to a local peak.

Mason -I agree with everything you said in your la...

2008-08-28T14:18:00.000-04:00

Mason -

I agree with everything you said in your last post, except the fact that I have not seen nominal GDP reported in a long long time.

But, if you like, perhaps they can start reporting it.

It was probably 7.5% in Q2. My guess is that you might not like that number...hehe.

One note on the 1992 numbers...those were all revi...

2008-08-28T14:14:00.000-04:00

One note on the 1992 numbers...those were all revised upward after the election.

The BEA restated it's methodology because they had not been capturing lots of EDI transactions, which were starting to take off.

Now, they were only revised up about 1 point, so your point still stands.

People thought the economy was bad, when it was not.

I wholly agree. People do not realize the economy is good until it has been good for a year.

That said, Unemployment in 1992 was about 2 points higher (7.8%)and we had a real recession in 1991.

Here, we have had no recession and unemployment is 5.7%.

The comaparison is tenuous at best.

This is not 1992 in terms of economic sentiment.

There is no doubt we had a recession then.

There is no doubt on the fact that we HAVE NOT had one in 2008.

The point on the economy is that Obama cannot keep...

2008-08-28T14:08:00.000-04:00

The point on the economy is that Obama cannot keep calling it a recession.

We are not saying it won't matter, it is just that it is harder to make the case with 3.3% GDP.

This is obvious, people. Better economy helps McCain.

Why are you saying otherwise?

I will be the first to admint the Gallup bounce wa...

2008-08-28T14:06:00.000-04:00

I will be the first to admint the Gallup bounce was bigger than I thought...

That means Obama's single day number for yesterday was HUGE.

Probably +10 to +12.

Good news for Democrats...let's see if it sticks.

@beckysharp: the only thing you can really conclud...

2008-08-28T14:04:00.000-04:00

@beckysharp: the only thing you can really conclude is that, since the average went up by 5, yesterday's day was a full 15 points better than Sunday, the day that dropped out of the average yesterday.

Big bump. For Rassmussen even yesterday's numbers ...

2008-08-28T13:58:00.000-04:00

Big bump. For Rassmussen even yesterday's numbers were encouraging as I wrote. Today's Rassmussen leaves no doubt. Gallup says both Michelle and Hillary hit the balls out of the park. One can easily estimate only one night's data given a sequence of 3 day moving averages. (Moore Penrose Inverse). The sample for one day means the standard deviation will be too high but together, it is clear that we are getting a bump to exceed Nate's guidelines.

"According to the data, the economy was booming in...

2008-08-28T13:50:00.000-04:00

"According to the data, the economy was booming in 1992 - real annualized GDP growth for the first three quarters of 1992 were 3.3%, 3.9%, and 4.3%, respectively."

Correction, the official quarterly numbers were 4.2%, 3.9%, and 4.0% (the numbers I cited above tied to a Fiscal year that mixed quarters that I use for my work). Point still stands, of course.

OK fuzzy math I admit...but just for grins lets sa...

2008-08-28T13:49:00.000-04:00

OK fuzzy math I admit...but just for grins lets say the three days polling for the gallup tracker poll, 2 days ago, in which Obama lead by -1 were:

-1, -1, -1

then yesterday it was Obama + 1, which means the three days results were

-1, -1, 5

today was Obama +6 so

-1, 5, 14(!)

so given yesterday's outstanding convention show - lets assume he at least matches yesterday's 14 (I know "outlier!" you cry) - but lets just assume. Then tomorrows poll will be made up of

5, 14, 14

whice means Obama +11!

So that's my prediction.

"The thing about 2008q4 and 2009q1 being slow is t...

2008-08-28T13:46:00.000-04:00

"The thing about 2008q4 and 2009q1 being slow is that they won't affect the election. There might be a recession, but we'll be all done voting."

But again, when people talk about the economy being bad, they're not talking about whether we're in a technical recession or not. According to the data, the economy was booming in 1992 - real annualized GDP growth for the first three quarters of 1992 were 3.3%, 3.9%, and 4.3%, respectively. Fat lot of good it did George H.W. Bush.

A hurricane could be a GOOD thing, then people won...

2008-08-28T13:42:00.000-04:00

A hurricane could be a GOOD thing, then people won't be watching McCain with Cheney or Bush and your pathetic attempt at associating him with either goes down the drain.

*glug glug glug*

Visit this site, it´s interesting.http://www.voteo...

2008-08-28T13:38:00.000-04:00

Visit this site, it´s interesting.

http://www.voteobamaormccain.com

XYZ-A Monday night or Tuesday morning land fall is...

2008-08-28T13:37:00.000-04:00

XYZ-
A Monday night or Tuesday morning land fall is predicted.

I hate thunderstorms at night. They're great during the day, but they're just so jarring at night. I think it might be the afterimage that the lightning leaves when the eye is fully open.

Tom-The thing about 2008q4 and 2009q1 being slow i...

2008-08-28T13:35:00.000-04:00

Tom-
The thing about 2008q4 and 2009q1 being slow is that they won't affect the election. There might be a recession, but we'll be all done voting.

The GOP convention may have a negative bounce for ...

2008-08-28T13:34:00.000-04:00

The GOP convention may have a negative bounce for McCain, it will just remind the voters that he is a typical Bush/Cheney republican. Republicans should not have bothered to have a convention this year. The word on the street is that republican aids are shitting their pants over Tropical Storm Gustav which is headed towards louisiana and will reach their by monday, the first day of the GOP convention.

Today's gallup tracking poll, Obama up by 6:Obama ...

2008-08-28T13:31:00.000-04:00

Today's gallup tracking poll, Obama up by 6:

Obama 48
McCain 42

The Gallup numbers should be even better tomorrow,...

2008-08-28T13:30:00.000-04:00

The Gallup numbers should be even better tomorrow, not just because of any further bounce effects from last night's speeches (and the Clinton/Biden speeches can't hurt), but simply because that bad Monday for Obama (the one that allowed McCain to move ahead of him in the number reported on Tuesday) will drop out of the 3-day sample for the first time.

That said, the real litmus test comes a week and a half from now, after all the V.P's are named and the conventions are complete. We'll see where the numbers are then relative to where they were at the beginning of this week.

No money for the goverment. No big goverment.Money...

2008-08-28T13:27:00.001-04:00

No money for the goverment. No big goverment.
Money for the people.
No statism (or big goverment).

Inflation is factored in Real GDP...it is pointles...

2008-08-28T13:27:00.000-04:00

Inflation is factored in Real GDP...it is pointless.

Yeah, I know. The article didn't say real, but the report did.

You took an annualized rate and compared it to a nominal rate.

You cannot do that.

The comparison was silly in the first place as the GDP was on Real GDP, which, as we agre,is inflation adjusted. The 3.3% is an annualized rate of GDP growth. You want the annualized rate of inflation? Wait until the end of the year. I guarentee it will be higher than 4.4%, as that's where it stands right now over the past seven months. If I have a nominal rate now, halfway through the year, barring any fall in CPI I can say quantitatively that the annualized rate will be higher than the current nominal rate.

Inflation is a non-issue anyway. Nobody ever reports nominal GDP.

Except that the BEA does. Read the god damn press release. They report both.

It is ALWAYS real GDP.

Except when it's not.

"So now you see why getting money out of governmen...

2008-08-28T13:26:00.001-04:00

"So now you see why getting money out of government and into the hands of the people is a good idea?"

This is a strong economic argument for McCain to make. Judging from history, arguing that we're not in a technical recession and things are better than people think they are is probably not.

Inflation with unemployment is dangerous.

2008-08-28T13:26:00.000-04:00

Inflation with unemployment is dangerous.

So the stimulus package did it?So now you see why ...

2008-08-28T13:24:00.000-04:00

So the stimulus package did it?

So now you see why getting money out of government and into the hands of the people is a good idea?