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:
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.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
If I wasn’t extremely paranoid about the chances that some silly little gaffe from the Obama campaign will be successfully blown up by the right-wing noise machine into something that swings the election McCain’s way, I would be as optimistic as you are.
June 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Let’s go for 52% with a 2% standard deviation
June 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I predict Obama will lose with Mccain winning the popular vote and electoral vote. It will not be as close as people thing. mccain will win 52% of the popular vote plus or minus 1%
June 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
48% Obama to within 1% – as if the election had been held today and he gets the leaners.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Mccain – qualified, media loves him, experienced, is on track to raise a lot of money, obama is like michael dukakis (who was ahead of the first Bush by 10-15%! 4 months before the election).
no democrat has won the GE without winning west virgina since 1916.
no president has won winning two of the three of ohio, pa and florida since 1960
the demcs are divided big time and more and more dirt comes out on obama everyday. the rnc will destroy him by november.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I predict – that FiveThirtyEight is going to change the face of electoral predictions after this year. His focus on simulating the elections based on poll results, including demographic factors, etc and then calculating the thing people actually care about, the win probability, is refreshingly rigorous compared to what we have seen in the past.
As for the vote share, I’m going to say Obama by 10 (ie 45-55) with a stdev of 1%. No point in staking out largely the same ground as you if I have a lower stdev, is there?
June 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
*Especially* after seeing the stark contrast in speeches on Obama primary victory night, I’ll go Obama 54.5%, \sigma=0.75%. Get in line behind me, punks!!1!
June 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Obama, 65-35 over McCain, 4% (including elderly McCain’s natural demise). US economic and agricultural collapse by November will test the rule of thumb “nobody votes for an empty stomach.”
June 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
54% for Obama, 0.75% s.d.
The meta-strategy here is that the larger the number of bettors, the smaller the optimal sigma. (You could presumably quanitfy this, assuming guesses are also normally distributed.) Of course the farther your point estimate from the average, the larger your signam should be. But I still think Sean’s 1.5% is too large.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The answer can be computed using this model
If we take into account that about 32% of Americans are so conservative that they will always vote for the Republican candidate, no matter how bad he is, then the model describes the 68% of the electorate. Given the current situation, the model pedicts that by election time, these 68% will reach a complete ordered state: they will vote for Obama.
Allowing for some uncertainty about the 32% of, say, 3%, I arrive at my prediction:
My prediction is 68% for Obama with a sigma of 3%.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Sean is correct. I’ve never called an election or NBA Championship incorrectly.
You can just mail the tshirt to me, now.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
f = 51.9%
sigma = 0.6%
June 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
In the Spring of ‘07 I predicted in an email to a friend that the next U.S. President would not be named Giuliani, Clinton, or Obama, but might be named Edwards, Thompson, or McCain. I’m sticking to that prediction, based mainly on historical precedent — election of Obama would really be a huge, huge, change in several ways.
For what it’s worth, I pride myself on not being a knee-jerk anything, and I’m registered to vote as an independent (”Decline to State Party Affiliation” in California election-ese). Too often Congressional Republicans have acted like a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and big corporations, and don’t seem to give much of a damn about the loss of American manufacturing jobs. And I like Obama’s idea of raising the cap on Social Security (payroll tax) contributions, which would be a popular way of extending the viability of the S.S. Trust Fund.
On the other hand, while Iran isn’t Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad isn’t Adolf Hitler, Obama IS a naive fool, and I have no doubt that the Iranian Mullahs are looking forward to his election, so that they can extend their influence in Iraq, and in the region.
The best way to stay out of war (other than not starting one yourself — cf. George W.!) is to scare the hell out of your potential adversaries. In 1961 the Soviet leadership took John Kennedy to be a wuss, due to his failure to back up the Bay of Pigs invasion with American troops, and for other reasons. That judgment of Kennedy led directly to the Soviet leadership’s decision to put medium-range ballistic missiles in Cuba, which they thought they could get away with, triggering the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Bringing that thought up to date with Obama, I’m guessing that Israel will attack Iranian nuclear installations within a few months (or weeks) of Obama’s election, as Israeli leadership will calculate that the Iranians will have no more respect for Obama than I do. What the Iranians will do then is anybody’s guess, but lots of people think Iran will retaliate by attacking Saudi oil production facilities. Or maybe there’ll be a popular revolution in Iran against the theocracy. Of course, Israel may attack Iran even if McCain wins, but he’s got a much better chance of reigning them in than Obama does.
Anyway, to get down to Sean’s challenge (finally!): sorry, I don’t do popular vote. However, I note that if McCain carries Michigan (where he’s leading) and New Hampshire, I think it’ll exactly make up for Ohio, which Bush carried, but where Obama currently leads. However, if Obama manages to carry Colorado, where he’s currently leading, and/or Virginia, then I assume he’ll take it, and deserve it. If Obama also carries Florida, then it WILL be an Obama landslide.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Obama may be favored to win right now but I think ultimately, he will lose. I believe racists are lying to pollsters in these general election polls more so than the primary polls fleshed out.
Obama f = 49.2
\sigma = 0.7
June 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I’d like to use a beta distribution for my prediction, with parameters alpha = 7 and beta = 6.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I predict a terrorist attack or military action in Iran shortly before the election, which will swing the election to the republicans.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Oh, Jeez, Dave, Obama has been anything but a naive fool when it comes to talking about the Middle East. What is naive is to think that simply demanding Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions while refusing ever to talk to them is going to work. They have the US over a barrel with it comes to Iraq (Bush’s doing, not theirs) and they know we can’t afford another conflict while Iraq and Afghanistan have us tied up so they’re probably correct if they see US saber rattling as all bluster.
And all Obama’s been saying is exactly what many extremely experience foreign policy people have been saying for years — including Bush’s own defense secretary for goodness sakes. And how did we end North Korea’s nuclear plans, anyway? Through negotiations, that’s how — but not until years of refusing to negotiate with then produced nothing.
Tying Obama to appeasement is dead wrong and, frankly, a not very clever attempt to scare up more votes for McCain. And that’s all it’s been about for Republicans since 9/11. Scare people into voting for them because they’ve got nothing else left to run on. Well, it’s not going to work this time.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I like fee-free bookie shops.
f = 51.5%
\sigma = 2%
(I am making room for an upset.)
June 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I’ll go Obama w/ 50.6% of the vote sigma=.5%
“Krum gets the snitch, but Ireland wins the cup.” If that bet is good enough for Fred and George, it’s good enough for me. Now, if only winning the popular vote actually meant getting elected into office, the world would be a very different place…
June 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
” . . . he will have twice as much money to spend.”
Not if you count the money that will be spent by unaffiliated organizations and tough campaign they’ll run. And you’re not factoring in votes that might be taken away by Paul’s crowd and Nader — I know not much, but there’s some chance. 52.2/47.8 plus or minus one percent.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Everyone who pontificates without stepping up and making a prediction is a cheese-eating surrender monkey who is afraid of accountability and heartland American values. I’m not saying you’re definitely a terrorist, but the question has to be asked.
And sorry, all distributions must be Gaussian; anything else is too much work for the score-keepers.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Anyone who’s seen The Price is Right knows that the later contestants have a tactical advantage over earlier ones – they have knowledge of previous guesses. One way to overcome this unfairness is to keep competitors in the dark: I’ve made my prediction, but I’m not telling you what it is! Instead, here’s a sha-512 cryptographic hash of my prediction.
039b6f0e5ddb6cea913fde006959bf7bee712c1d9959b0850a1189837619b0c6
423baccc9a92f8e735f89200c17da4489a0c3952a88783df4f04da1e0bb7002d
June 19th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
f = 54.27
\sigma = .75
June 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Sean, I basically agree w/ your numbers: Obama 53.8% with a 1% error. Since I got the top mass and discovery date correct 6yrs before the Tevatron discovery & predicted Obama would be the Dem candidate in Jan ‘07, let’s see how I do here. Do you want to know the Higgs mass and discovery date too?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Obama 53.2% variance is .15% So between 53.05% and 53.35% to be clear.
e.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
graviton383, let’s save that for future prediction contests!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Can we bet on whether or not Sean can extract comment 22’s sha-512 hash?
June 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Ryan:
I’ll bet “no”.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
(50.5 \pm 0.8)% for Obama with a 10-day fight over who wins Ohio
June 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
It is nice to see the previous predictions. I’ll take 54.28% with a 0.85% sd.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I will not be surprised if McCain replaces Bob Dole as the Presidential candidate that Republicans would most like to pretend never happened.
This, but also replace McCain with Obama and Dole with Mondale. Both candidates have severe electoral weaknesses that have not yet really been beaten in the regular campaign, and it remains to be seen who is weaker. I don’t think either candidate is really all that electable, charisma or maverick-ness notwithstanding. But somebody’s got to win.
All that said, my data-free wild guess, based mainly on my supposition that people like known quantities in their politicians:
f = 47.0
sigma = 2.0
June 19th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
f = 45%
\sigma = 3%
…but I’m definitly a sort of monkey. Worst (or as a consequence) I’m french and yes I eat cheese. So the question has to be asked. Indeed, I’m afraid of some American values. Or votes.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
More to the point, it’s basically impossible to “extract” a message from a hash: the message is much longer than the hash, so the hash doesn’t contain enough information to reconstruct the original message. The best Sean could hope to do is find a collision with the hash – find another, completely unrelated message with the same cryptographic signature. Of course, that would take more work than finding the ground-state vacuum of M-theory. And even then it’d just be random bits.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
f = 49.999
sigma = .001
I don’t trust Diebold….
June 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Obama 54.4%, +/- 1%. Only force majeure could stop the Big O. Strictly on probabilities, Hillary has a better chance of winning the election than McCain.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
[...] Variance: has a “predict the popular vote contest”. The author’s tea-leaves show about 55 %, which sounds about right to me. Electoral College: [...]
June 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Obama wins decidedly but there’s a huge fraction of America that would vote Republican no matter what (incidentally, same goes for Democrats). Therefore I predict Obama wins 52.5% with 1% standard deviation (the precision is not because I’m that confident, but because I want to win). Good news is this doesn’t change much if Nader enters the race, as I think Nader’s demographic composes the most passionate Obama fans.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
f= 61%
sigma= 5%
June 19th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Sean wrote:
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.
————
I came to a similar conclusion. The only problem is that their are some jokers in the deck. These are Karl Rove, or his clones, and Diebold. All things being equal I agree with this conclusion, but things might not be “equal.” A combination of voter intimidation and software manipulation could turn that 55.5% to 49.5% or maybe a Scalia Supreme Court Coronation of McCain. Of course this will be followed up with Bill O’Reilly shouting SHUT UP to anyone asking rude questions.
Lawrence B. Crowell
June 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
54.2% with a s.d. of .35%
June 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
f = 53.0
sd = 0.1
June 19th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Voting for president is not like primary voting and poll responses, which are times to be venturesome and pleased with oneself. General election for preasident is for keeps and Americans take it very seriously. It’s for their leader and “the leader of the free world.” The person with the formal photo in the post offices. Obama’s national poll leads are already slipping; he got no “post Hillary bounce,” which was much expected. McCain’s latest favorability rating equals Obama’s, who used to be miles ahead when he was new kid on the block. McCain will win on experience and comfort level, as Nixon (not your basic lovable guy) did over McGovern, (tho not by so much) altho a vast majority were by then against the war whcih McG. had steadfastly opposed. Obama is too unpredictable, too grandiose, while being the most eloquent campaign orator since Adlai, maybe even Wm. Jennings Bryan, whom I confess I never heard, except on tape. His “change” smacks too much of the “participatory democracy” of the New Left, which the Ayers association doesn’t help. McCain has al ot of weaknesses, chiefly age, but the hoi polloi like him. Look how fast he won the GOP nomination, with arguably more formidable foes than O. faced, with hardly any money and an ineffective staff, and with most conservative comentators dumping on him 24/7, as many like Will still do. People pardon a little bumbling when a guy spent five years in a cage with broken limbs — and still chases skirts. Give O. four to eight more years in the Senate, with a record to point to and marked movement to the right, and he’ll make it to the White House for sure. f 47%, /sigma 1.5%, with McCain’s margin wider in electoral votes.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
JCF,
McCain won against more formidable foes???? You are joking of course…
e.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Elliott,
Giuliani, Romney and Thompson in my book trump Hillary (w/ her huge unfavorability rating and louche background), the retread Edwards and Richardson, perhaps the best of the lot. And Huckabee, who came in second, was a surprisingly gifted campaigner. Biden and Dodd, the best quallified Dems, showed little effort and less support.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Osama 53.45% of the combined 2 candidate vote variance 0.125
Ill add in just for kicks: 49.45% of the total of all candidates, variance 0.15
McPain will be spanked harder than this in the electoral though.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
has anyone seen this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?bl&ex=1213070400&en=751c11f3322c497f&ei=5087
written by Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and the author of “Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries,” is the host of “Nova scienceNOW.”
an Analysis shows Obama would lose if the election were to be held TODAY.
This should’ve been printed in February! Well the media is on a honeymoon with him so…
Obama has time. But he doesn’t seem to rising only falling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp
The two Obamas.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:21 am
In the American idiocracy, height trumps race. So I’ll go with:
f = 51.5%
sigma = 0.5%
June 20th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Obama wins the popular vote 51-49, McCain wins electoral vote.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Obama wins 57%, with a std. dev. of .75%
June 20th, 2008 at 1:03 am
50.3% for Obama, sigma 0.05%
June 20th, 2008 at 1:19 am
And sorry, all distributions must be Gaussian; anything else is too much work for the score-keepers.
But using a Gaussian distribution is so perverse! The outcome will be somewhere between 0 and 1, but any Gaussian has a positive probability on the whole line.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Obama:44%…..s.d.2%
June 20th, 2008 at 5:06 am
I predict that, if Obama doesn’t win, there will be 4 more years of dark ages in American science. And instead of a gaussian distribution I’ll affirm it with a Dirac’s delta.
Now for the booking
Obama 56.1% with sigma 1.8%
June 20th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Peter de blanc,
from what I’ve read about american electoral arrangements, a 150% victory for McCain is not impossible…
June 20th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Obama: 60.0% with sigma of 1.0%
June 20th, 2008 at 7:41 am
52.3% for Obama, 0.3% s.d.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:55 am
f=51%, \sigma=1.2%
Obama will most likely carry the popular vote IMHO, but I suspect McCain will manage to win the election quite easily. Am I allowed to play as a non-american?
June 20th, 2008 at 8:23 am
f = 53.2% for Obama
sigma = 0.9%
June 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I’m going for the shocker. McCain’s not going to make it to election day, but will still get some votes. So under the rules, f = 94%, sigma = 3%
June 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I call no fair on the Gaussianmahoosit! I know not of teh Gaussianmahoosit!
Stupid science. I thought we weren’t going to have to read about that stuff any more?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:33 am
f = 58.7
sigma = 0.7
June 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am
obama gets 57%. std of 2%
June 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Obama 56.32 sigma .70
June 20th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Agree, all signs are for a blow-out, but I suspect there will be an October surprise or two which may cut it back a bit. So I will say an Obama win with f=53 % and an S.D. of 0.5 %. My T-shirt size is large.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
under the rules, f = 94%, sigma = 3%
Now this is just silly. If your point estimate is that far from the mean, you want your sigma to be way bigger than that. Remember, you’re not trying to maximize the expected value of P(x), you’re trying to maximize the probability that your P(x) exceeds anyone else’s.
… which my entry clearly fails to do. Late movers’ advantage. Can we change our guesses?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
My prediction:
f = 50.75%
sigma = 0.25%
June 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
f = .6200 or 62 percent
s = 0.01213466109951159699 or 1.213466109951159699 percent
Can I collect my subscription and T-shirt now?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
In the Obama win:
f = 56 %
sigma = 1.6
June 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Hmmmm, just saw the note that comments would be closed 7/19. Does that mean all entries since #46 are invalid?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
DOH…7/19, not 6/19…what a maroon I am.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Given what happened to Gore and Kerry, I won’t put it past the US public to vote for my McCain.
“I don’t wanna have a beer with the guy!”
“He’s agonna get sworn in on teh Koooooooraaaaaaannnnn!”
And the suggestions of invasion of Iran or orchestrated terrorist attack sound all too plausible to me by now (what has the world come to?). At the very least I’ll bet a round of beer for everyone that the ‘terror alert’ is gonna keep rising up till the election and be at some ridiculously high level on the day itself.
So … 40%/0.8%. Please please please prove me wrong.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
f = 48.632%
sigma = 0.002%
Look, you might as well give me the t-shirt right now.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
f=50.4% s.d.=.2
June 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Btw, how do you plan to break a tie? By f or /sigma?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I think Sean is pretty close to right in terms of actual votes cast, but all we have access to is recorded votes cast. And given the republican edge in vote rigging, I’m going to go with:
Votes recorded for Obama: 51.8%
Standard deviation: 1.1%
June 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
f = 57.2 s = 0.3
June 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
There is only one psychofactor that defines American politics: Who looks best on television?
Obama 55% S.D. 3.1%
June 20th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
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.”
June 20th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
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.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Gonna be a laser here and predict:
f = 53.55% std = .1
June 21st, 2008 at 12:44 am
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.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:00 am
f=52.35% sigma= ln 2
June 21st, 2008 at 8:40 am
To introduce some sport-fan “logic”, Obama beat the Clintons, who beat the Republicans twice.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:06 am
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.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
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.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
f: 53.5
sigma: 2.5
June 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
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.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
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.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
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%
June 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
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%
June 21st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Splitting #55 and #61, I’ll take 59% at 0.5%. I’ll also say that #52 and #67 have nice ranges right now.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 am
Obama has all the sex appeal; 69% blowout with .69% deviation!
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 am
f=53.5
sigma=1.5
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 am
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.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 am
f= 52 %
sigma= 1%
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 am
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.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 am
f = 53.7
sigma = .7
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
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).
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
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.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
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.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
McCain to win, f=55, \sigma=1.2
June 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Duh. I reread the blog post and realized that f is Obama’s percentage regardless of whether he wins. So please change my prediction to f=45, \sigma=1.2
June 25th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I know a guy who always bets against his favorite sports team, because he figures that way he’s either happy that his favorite team won, or happy that he made some money. Going along similar reasoning, and taking into account that the 100+ posts above me have already covered most reasonable predictions, I’ll instead predict:
f = 30%, sigma = 5%.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:39 am
There will be a Terrorist Attack on a debate between Obama and McCain and Bush will declare Marshall Law to become Dictator.Will Americans react with fear or anger?
June 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
There are rumors going around about the existence of a secret society called “The Black Door” that was formed explicitly to ensure that George Bush leaves office in November when he is supposed to.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Sean,
What do you mean by “In McCain’s favor, Obama is black and his middle name is Hussein” ?
If you imply that these are the only reasons people won’t vote for Obama, this is simply intellectually dishonest (a charge I would have never thought I could accuse you of).
There are plenty of reasons not to be taken by the Obama-mania that has engulfed so many educated and smart people: Wright and Obama’s association with a racist church for 20 years (20!!!), Obama’s willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad without condition (afterwards retracted), Obama’s impulse to say things in front of whatever audience to please it and then retracting (”clarifying”) what he said (like his position on NAFTA, his speech to AIPAC, ….), Obama’s association with less than savory deal makers (real estate profit on his property in Chicago and such), and so on and so forth.
All this leaves either one to doubt the “change” in Obama’s program and the value of his character or just reinforce the idea that he is an unknown and untested senator (he basically ran for President as soon as he got to the Senate…).
The more I learn about him, the more he appears as a “standard” politician, with very unsavory friends and associations who don’t seem to trouble him that much as long as he gets what he wants (money, political clout, …).
I won’t vote for him come November and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or his middle name.
Hillary would have been a better choice for the Democrats but as the saying goes “they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”…
July 1st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
let me just make a quick note (as a public service/reality check) of what we think the chances are that Obama will win the popular vote are (Included are all valid predictions, according to the rules laid out by Sean, whose prediction I cite as “number 0″).
my own guess is f=50.1, \sigma=1 (in percent. i’m more concerned with being right than winning…)
0:100
2 : 84.1
3 : 2.2
4 : 2.2
6 : 100
7 : 100
8 : 100
9 : 100
10 : 100
12 : 100
14 : 12
18 : 77.3
19 : 88.5
20 : 98.6
23 : 100
25 : 100
29 : 73.4
30 : 100
31 : 6.7
32 : 4.8
34 : 0
35 : 100
37 : 99.4
38 : 98.6
39 : 100
40 : 100
41 : 100
42 : 2.2
45 : 100
47 : 99.9
49 : 100
50 : 100
52 : 0
53 : 100
55 : 100
56 : 100
57 : 79.8
58 : 100
59 : 100
61 : 100
62 : 100
63 : 100
64 : 100
66 : 99.8
67 : 100
68 : 100
71 : 0
72 : 0
73 : 97.7
75 : 94.9
76 : 100
77 : 94.7
80 : 100
81 : 2.3
82 : 100
86 : 91.9
90 : 100
91 : 100
92 : 100
93 : 99.0
95 : 97.7
97 : 100
98 : 0
100 : 100
102 : 0
103 : 0
107: 54.9 (self)
July 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Way more fun would be to have every prediction be obama %, senate dem # (sanders yes, lieberman no), house dem #. The winner would be the one with the highest product of the three probabilities. This reduces the silly incentive to be overprecise with your sigma. You could even decline to guess in a category and get the average probability from all stated guesses. (Would DTG, DTG, DTG be a winning strategy? Probably not – but as # of categories grew, and thus incentive for overprecision went to zero, it could definitely become one!)
So: Obama 56.6, stdev .5 is my prediction for the contest as stands (and I’d do the sha hash thing – I actually have a python interpreter with the module loaded in another window! – but I’m too lazy to save my answer separately). But for my rules, I would take O 54 sigma 3, D 56.5 sigma 1.2, D 250 sigma 10 (lazy).
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ilana on Jun 30th, 2008 at 10:49 pm:
Sean,
What do you mean by “In McCain’s favor, Obama is black and his middle name is Hussein” ?
If you imply that these are the only reasons people won’t vote for Obama, this is simply intellectually dishonest (a charge I would have never thought I could accuse you of).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saying that something about an opponent is in a candidate’s favor only means that an appreciable sector of voters will be turned off by it. There isn’t any reason to suppose that would be “the only reason” they wouldn’t vote for that candidate. I don’t get why so many people have trouble with multiple causation issues.
BTW, McCain has recently admitted he is computer illiterate and relies on his wife for those things. That isn’t good for the leader of an advanced nation in the information age.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
[...] The task was to predict how the popular vote in the 2008 Presidential Election would break down, expressed as Obama’s fraction of the total votes that will go to Obama+McCain, and also to give a standard deviation. The winner will be the prediction whose Gaussian distribution function has the largest value at the real fraction, whatever it turns out to be. [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I strongly predict a blowout for obama.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Who won? I said Obama gets 52.5% of vote with 1% st.dev. CNN says Obama won 53.2%. This gives me a P = 31.2.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
[...] have been asking: who won our famous Presidential Prediction Contest? The task, you will remember, was to predict how the popular vote would be distributed between the [...]
July 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows.