Modesty forbids me, but honesty compels me: my 15-month-old predictions for the 2008 Presidential elections have thus far been so spot-on, it’s spooky. I know that many of you have clamored for us to drop the science stuff from our blog entirely, and just talk about politics and/or our personal lives, topics that are severely under-served in the blogosphere. My own preference would be to focus exclusively on physics, to the exclusion of any other topic of any possible interest, but who am I, anyway? This is a blog, after all, and I think we can all agree that the loudest commenters should have final say on what we post about.
Therefore, I feel compelled to offer up another round of predictions, now that we’ve narrowed the field to two major candidates. By why not make it more fun and have a prediction contest? Anyone can join in, just by leaving your prediction the comments. Entries that appear before the end of June will officially count.
But to make things somewhat science-y, let’s use equations to judge who will win. Each prediction consists of two numbers: the fraction f of the total popular vote cast for the two major candidates that goes to Barack Obama, but also the standard deviation σ of your prediction for that percentage. We are thus ignoring the electoral college entirely, and dealing with the annoyance of third-party candidates by concentrating exclusively on McCain vs. Obama. And we are assuming for purposes of misleadingly-precise quantification that each prediction follows a normal (Gaussian) distribution:
$latex displaystyle P(x) = frac{1}{sigma sqrt{2pi}} expleft(-frac{(x-f)^2}{2sigma^2}right) ,.$
And here is the rub: the winner is not the one whose fraction f is closest to the final answer, but the one whose value of P(x) is the highest, when x is equal to the fraction of votes Obama actually does win. The smaller your standard deviation is, the higher your P(x) will be for x very close to your predicted value f , but the faster it will die off as you get further away. So if you are extremely confident, you can ensure victory by choosing an appropriately tiny standard deviation on your prediction. Contrariwise, if you choose a large standard deviation, you might get lucky if none of the confident folks comes close to the actual result. Cool, eh?
So here we go: I predict that Obama will win 55.5% of the popular vote fraction, with 1.5% standard deviation. That’s right — a blowout. Might be crazily optimistic of me, but right now the portents are good. In Obama’s favor, the current electoral map is extremely favorable (not that it matters for our contest), he is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, his organization is impressively seasoned and effective, he will have twice as much money to spend, Democratic identification among voters is soaring, the incumbent President is world-historically unpopular, various economic crises are putting the squeeze on middle-class voters, the war in Iraq is hugely unpopular, and McCain is a bumbling and unconvincing candidate with a tattered organization, little support among the party faithful, a disturbing penchant for changing his mind and misunderstanding his own policies, and little interest in anything other than foreign policy. In McCain’s favor, Obama is black and his middle name is Hussein; also, McCain has a great rapport with the press, who respect his maverick image. Overall, I think the scales are pretty heavily tilted on this one, and I will not be surprised if McCain replaces Bob Dole as the Presidential candidate that Republicans would most like to pretend never happened.
Of course, I could be wrong. So let’s hear your predictions! The winner will receive a lifetime subscription to Cosmic Variance. Or maybe a T-shirt, if we get caught in a generous mood.
f = 57.2 s = 0.3
There is only one psychofactor that defines American politics: Who looks best on television?
Obama 55% S.D. 3.1%
Obama is smarter, tougher, more qualified, and better-looking. He will outmaneouver and snooker McCain. The racist vote will be tough to beat, but Obama will win among women, young people, black people, and the “intellectual elite.”
You have got to be kidding yourself. Did you not pay any attention to the news for the last 7 months?
Let me summarize the Republican primary for you: Guiliani scandaled himself out of the race early (search Google for “sex on the city” Guiliani to get some idea of the corruption that was coming out about him around Jan that collapsed his support – that and the stupid decision to skip Iowa), Fred Thompson put everyone to sleep with his lazy lackluster campaigning and fundraising, and then Mittens and Funny man Huckabee split the anti-McCain vote that consisted of evangelicals (mostly to Huck) and tax cutters (mostly to Mittens). That combined with the all or nothing rules the Republicans use is the reason that McCain was able to win – er, well, not lose.
Gonna be a laser here and predict:
f = 53.55% std = .1
This is kinda premature, given that neither candidate has even chosen his running mate as yet. If the election were held TODAY, I think Sean’s guess would be about right. But we’ve got four months to go, a lot can happen in four months, and the GOP has zero ethics when it comes to elections. [Fave quote in the recent NY Yorker article on whether conservatism is fading: “Republicans know how to win elections, they’re just really bad at governing.”] And as a couple of commentators have pointed out, there are a lot of folks out there who just won’t vote for a black man, yet will lie about this when polled.
Since we are being pressured to make a prediction, however, I’ll predict that Obama weathers the coming storms and edges out McCain… not a squeaker, like Bush/Gore, but not a blowout either:
Obama 48%, 1% deviation.
And I just don’t understand this whole “the media loves McCain” thing, although I don’t deny it’s real. I’m in the media, technically. And I find him really creepy… I predict the media will fall out of love with McCain and ditch him for the younger and prettier Obama.
f=52.35% sigma= ln 2
To introduce some sport-fan “logic”, Obama beat the Clintons, who beat the Republicans twice.
Jennifer,
It is absolutely no coincidence that the two presumptive nominees just HAPPEN also to be the media DARLINGS on the democratic and republican sides.
This is a dangerous precedent. The media is deciding our candidates not the people. In particular, not only have they given Obama a free pass but actually protected him so far.
The media loves McCain and Obama almost equally. Who they love more will end up winning the election. It will have nothing to do with issues.
Although in a couple of ways it is a great time for democracy- the first african american to be a nominee of a party- it is also a devastating time for democracy. Big money, secret deals, voter disenfranchisement and media control like big brother is becoming new model for campaigns.
It’ll be Obama. McCain would have to be an Obama just to have a chance of winning considering the GOP’s and President’s unfavorable ratings.
f: 53.5
sigma: 2.5
Sean has pointed out that I did not follow his specific “rules” in my “prediction,” i.e., ignoring messy complications like third-party candidates and crazy voters who write in votes for Superman or something. You physicists with your spherical cow scenarios…
Obama 51%, 1% deviation.
Kurt: Um, what alternate universe do you inhabit where the media has given Obama a ‘free pass’? I’ve been simply appalled at the racially motivated smears I’ve witnessed in the media against both Obama and his wife ever since he became the frontrunner. You can argue the media hasn’t paid much attention to issues, voting record, and so forth, but that’s true of their coverage of politics in general — nothing to do with a specific candidate. They’d rather report that Cindy McCain plagiarized recipes or refer to Michele O as “Obama’s baby mama” and mutter about “terrorist fist jabs” that actually talk about something relevant.
Also? What you describe is not a new model for campaigns. Those elements have always been there. That’s why the 1930s film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is just as relevant and hard=hitting today as it was when first released.
Jennifer, Cindy McCain did far worse than plagiarize recipes. It is known, and she confessed, to stealing narcotic drugs from her own charity (for her addiction – yes, after real pain, but she didn’t have to steal them, did she?) She also enabled break-up of John’s marriage to his first wife Carol. So much for Republican family values! And if whether Michelle was really proud of America in the past or not is a valid question (as conservative commenters assure us), then Cindy’s failings sure are as well.
No prediction yet.
Percentages for winning candidates (#1/(#1 + #2)), 1960-2004
1960: 50.1
1964: 61.3
1968: 50.4
1972: 61.8
1976: 51.1
1980: 55.3
1984: 59.2
1988: 53.9
1992: 53.5
1996: 54.7
2000: 50.3 (Gore)
2004: 51.2
Median 53.7%
Well I earnestly hope Obama gets the Presidency, for a long time I’ve believed he could be the real deal, that once in a generation leader.
However, when it comes to betting games like this, you’ve got to go where the field ain’t, so:
Obama 46%, with a standard deviation of 0.8%
Splitting #55 and #61, I’ll take 59% at 0.5%. I’ll also say that #52 and #67 have nice ranges right now.
Obama has all the sex appeal; 69% blowout with .69% deviation!
f=53.5
sigma=1.5
BTW, it would be interesting to average all the predictions in the thread to see what is the prediction of “the wisdom of the [CV] crowds”, a la Intrade.
f= 52 %
sigma= 1%
Prediction:
Chairman Mao in a landslide.
Go Mao. Vote Mao. Liberation with Mao.
Change with Mao! We need change! Change now! Change for Change sake.
Hitler for VP!!!!! Stalin to lead Home Land Security. Janet Reno for the F.B.I.
f = 53.7
sigma = .7
I believe Sean has the numbers reversed: McCain 55%, standard deviation 1.5%.
Obama is not only black and named Hussein, he is also much more left than any Democratic candidate in recent elections. He promised to raise cap gains taxes out of fairness concerns, even if he knew beforehand that doing so would result in decreased revenue. Bill Clinton never talked like that – even if he secretly thought that way – and as we all know Bill was the only Democrat to win in years. Despite current polling facts on the ground have improved substantially in Iraq. I predict public opinion on Iraq will improve as election approaches and voters increase focus. Obama’s position will not be a plus with voters if they perceive him as being locked into an opinion formed when facts were different.
Also, Rezko-Chicago politics issues have not been resolved. HRC could not attack effectively, but I believe McCain will be able to do so. It appears from photographs that Rezko purchased adjoining lot for benefit of Obama family (it was part of their yard), once he realized how bad it looked Obama decides to put up fence to separate lots but had to purchase portion of Rezko lot because the driveway of the Obama house ran through Rezko lot. HRC was not able to make much a shady land deals, and primary voters would have none of it anyway. General election voters will be different I think.
Finally, trying to blame every attack on racism will not wear well with voters and I think we already see this tendency at work among Obama supporters. I think conventional wisdom on the election is way off and that many Obama supporters have been drinking their own whiskey as someone in the office used to say (for reasons I’m not entirely clear on, but you get the idea).
Frege, how do you know for sure that the current cap gains tax rate is on the far end of the Laffer curve? I mean, clearly the Laffer peak has to kick in eventually (I’d say, around 40%) but do you really think that paying 30% instead of 15% will cause people to literally trade only half as much value? I just don’t think so, and the idea that Laffer kicks in at low tax rates is now well refuted (unlike the sensible idea that 70% rates etc. suppress activity enough to make them not worthwhile in any sense.)
Also, Obama and top supporters (they can’t all be perfect BTW) have avoided using racism as an angle, maybe that’s your hang-up instead. As for corruption etc., McCain had his own lobbyist problems, and the issues with Cindy McCain (affair, drug stealing; see above) reflect poorly on his judgment.
52.67% with sd of 0.10%.
There’s way too many predictions near mine for me to win unless I make the sigma really small.
These contests are quite different if your goal is to earn, say, the highest ranking on average, or if you imagine the payout being the amplitude of your probability distribution at the given point, as opposed to when your goal is to win.