Who Are These Guys Tryin' to Kid?
Now that both major political parties have announced their nominees for president and vice president, the Annals of Improbable Research U.S. Presidential Election Algorithm can be used to predict the results of the upcoming November election. The algorithm was developed based on the experience of the major party candidates for president and vice president in each of the 54 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2000 and correctly predicted the outcome of the 2004 election.
Well, maybe. I think they're makin' it up as they go along. You can follow the link and try to figure it out for yourselves, 'cause s'far as I'm concerned it makes no sense. But we'll play along for a while…
According to the algorithm, being a United States Senator does not contribute to one’s electability for president or vice president, so the Obama/Biden ticket has a total electability of zero.
Bein' the son of a Senator gives ya' an extra 110 points, though. And if ya' were "…an officer of a lobbying organization at the time of the election" it's a -110 points. Havin' a son who's a big time lobbyist (like Biden's) is ignored. Go figure.
In addition to his 22 years in the Senate, John McCain spent four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, giving him 4 points of presidential electability. However, he divorced his first wife (-110 electability points), so he has a total presidential electability of -106. Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for two years, which means she has a vice presidential electability of 2 and the McCain/Palin ticket has a total electability of -104.
Why hand out points for bein' in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate?
The algorithm thus predicts that the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden will win the election in November.
A few more problems with this "alogrithm" thingy. If you're the "…first adherent of a particular religion…to be a major-party candidate for President," ya' lose 110 points. All well 'n good, 'cept they conveniently leave out bein' the first woman on the ballot or the first African American, both of which should be given the same treatment.
But let's get down to the marrow bone: the canine component, which those fools totally ignored.
Sen. John McCain has a dog; Sen. Barack Obama does not. The Associated Press and Yahoo found that pet owners favor Senator McCain over Senator Obama, with dog owners particularly in McCain's corner. Even cat owners went for McCain. One pet owner said dog owning "tells you that they're responsible at least for something, for the care of something."
From George Washington's hounds to Calvin Coolidge's dog, Rob Roy, from Franklin Roosevelt's famous black Scottie named Fala to Gerald Ford's golden retriever named Liberty, presidential dogs have played an important part in the images of their owners.
Only Millard Fillmore and Chester Arthur had no pets—and who wants to be remembered as a Millard or a Chester. So. Let's add a few extra point for that all-important category. Own a cat, get 5 points. Own a dog, get 10. Anything else—like hippos or alligators—get 3.
Therefore, accordin' to the Harrison U.S. Presidential Election Algorithm, the Obama/Biden ticket should be at –105 (at least) since Bar-ack! is the first of a particular race to be a major party candidate for President (-110) and Biden has a cat (+5). And no, Sarah Palin doesn't get the same penalty points 'cause Geraldine A. Ferraro was the first of her gender, but McCain gets +10 for havin' dogs. That makes the real total: Obama/Biden: -105; McCain/Palin: -94
If they can juggle points, so can I.
posted by Harrison at 12:04 AM