p

The Weather - A Conspiracy?

by svip at 06-01-2008 21:49

In 1948, Truman beat Dewey in the US presidential election. Not a super exciting vote, but became famous for the newspaper stating that Dewey had won the election, because it seemed so obvious close to the end that Dewey would win. This of course amused Truman.

But here is where the weather comes in. How could they predict that Truman lost, when he didn't? I know it is like the prediction during the evening that Al Gore won in 2000 (shame he didn't). The reasoning is because the republican voters who were supposed to make the final votes stayed home due to bad weather. Indeed, republican voters are less likely to go to vote than democratic voters.

Therefore I have wondered why no one has labelled the fact that the elections occur in November (not a great month for great weather, I should say) as a conspiracy to the Democratic party's favour. I mean, I was sort of surprised to hear that Conservatives considered the report about Iran's nuclear weapons to be a payback for the discredit the Bush Administration had given the intelligences in the US for the Iraq reports. So now they would contradict them on purpose. I have never heard a bigger load of "bull pies".

But the weather showed its face this 3rd of January in Iowa. It was -10 degrees on that day in Iowa. Pretty cold if you ask me, in fact, cold enough for people - even Estonians - to stay home if they can be excused. But we all know some voted, and who are most likely to go out and vote in such weather? Young people. So the weather alone should explain why Obama and Huckabee won.

I think I can safely claim that Obama and Huckabee will not win (or if either of them do, not by such a wide margin) in New Hampshire, where they are predicting +10 degrees on the 8th of January.