Election Math

One of the fun things about an election year (if you're as warped a political junkie as I am) is watching which creative numbers get use to predict the outcome. I may have an odd sense of humor, but I used it to find this at Bad Attitudes , by Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution :

After all the speeches and campaign ads and debates, politics comes down to cold hard numbers. It always has; it always will.
In my model, as in most such models, we start with the basics: The number of women to whom the GOP candidate’s grandfather was married at any one time, which in this case would be (4). You multiply that by the number of extramarital affairs conducted over a lifetime by the spouse of the current secretary of state (237). (CAUTION: This number could shift at any moment.)
You then add the number of emails sent in the past four years depicting the Democratic nominee with a bone through his nose, which would be 457,283. You divide that by the total number of beers and cigarettes tried by the GOP nominee in his lifetime (2), divided again by the total number of beers and cigarettes consumed by the Democrat (58,399).
You multiply that by the square root of the number of hair follicles transplanted into the Democratic VP (√6,798=83.53) divided by the best marathon time fraudulently claimed by the Republican VP nominee (2.55).
Subtract the percentage of Americans gratuitously insulted by the GOP nominee (47), add the number of times in a best-two-out-of-three match that the First Lady would beat you arm-wrestling (3), and then also add the number of dog-lover votes — in units of tens of thousands — lost by the Republican for transporting an aptly named Irish setter (Seamus) on the station-wagon roof (236.5).
Finally, you add the number of percentage points that all polls but Rasmussen are skewed in favor of Democrats (10). Voila!

You now have the mortal-lock number of electoral college votes that the Democratic nominee will win in any given year.

– Jay Bookman
heres-the-math

Now, the only factor he forgot to include in his calculation is: the number of mindless pundits with hair good enough to get them onto TV (623, but subject to change between now and the election) divided by the number of unstable leaders in the Middle East and North Africa (17, but variable), and add that number for the total electoral votes of whomever the eventual winner is. Simple, isn't it?
(If you understood and enjoyed this post...well...I guess that's why you're reading this blog. Get help.)