interesting presidential election math?

[ivan]

in the spirit of predicting the 2012 election result, thought it would be neat to share the #'s w/ my government classes this week and knocked together this list (care to fact check?)

 

elections from 1912-2008: 25

# of elections won by republicans: 12/25

# won by democrats: 13/25

# of elections in which an incumbent president ran: 16

# of election won by an incumbent president: 12/16

# lost by incumbent: 4/16

of incumbents losing a re-election, # that were republican: 3/4

# of elections involving an incumbent running during a bad economic downturn (a bit subjective?): 5

# of time incumbents won despite bad economy: 3/5

 

analysis:

- all things being equal, randomness seems to predict which party will win an election (near 50/50%)

- incumbents have great advantage, win 3/4 of the time

- democratic incumbents are more likely to win than republicans

- the economy being bad hurts incumbents, but they still have an advantage

 

deduction:

obama wins in 2012?

 

interesting complication: the only democratic incumbent to lose a re-election during this 100 year period did lose during a bad-economy (carter) - so less confidence in obama?

Edited September 19, 2012 by ivan

[ivan]

law of large #'s of course calls any meaningful deductions based on just 25 trials into question

[KaskadskyjKozak]

in the spirit of predicting the 2012 election result, thought it would be neat to share the #'s w/ my government classes this week and knocked together this list (care to fact check?)

 

elections from 1912-2008: 25

# of elections won by republicans: 12/25

# won by democrats: 13/25

# of elections in which an incumbent president ran: 15

# of election won by an incumbent president: 11/15

# lost by incumbent: 4

# of republican incumbents losing a re-election: 3/4

# of elections involving an incumbent running during a bad economic downturn (a bit subjective?): 5

# of time incumbents won despite bad economy: 3/5

 

analysis:

- all things being equal, randomness seems to predict which party will win an election (near 50/50%)

- incumbents have great advantage, win 2/3 of the time

- democratic incumbents are more likely to win than republicans

- the economy being bad hurts incumbents, but they still usually win anyway

 

deduction:

obama wins in 2012?

 

interesting complication: the only democratic incumbent to lose a re-election during this 100 year period did lose during a bad-economy (carter) - so less confidence in obama?

 

You missed the most important stat:

 

# elections one by a challenger with hoof perpetually in mouth disease?

[ivan]

 

You missed the most important stat:

 

# elections one by a challenger with hoof perpetually in mouth disease?

come on now, i just did my exhaustive research! where are #'s? how many afflicted challengers vs winners?

[ivan]

# of incumbents to lose during an active war: 0/4

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

You missed the most important stat:

 

# elections one by a challenger with hoof perpetually in mouth disease?

come on now, i just did my exhaustive research! where are #'s? how many afflicted challengers vs winners?

 

Pending some disaster in the next few weeks, Romney is going the way of Bob Dole (well maybe he won't sell erection medicine).

[ivan]

this wouldn'ta happened if the caine-train was still rolling!!!

[ivan]

like the poet said: sometimes you wear the magic underwear, sometimes the magic underwear wears you?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

like the poet said: sometimes you wear the magic underwear, sometimes the magic underwear wears you?

 

9-9-9 :-)

[ivan]

longest streak for a party 1912-2008:

democrats - 5 consecutive elections (once)

republicans - 3 consecutive elections (twice, dems haven't managed this once except fdr)

[ivan]

do major league baseball world series winners work as a predictor of presidential election outcomes?

 

year - party won - league won

1912 - d - al

1916 - d - al

1920 - r - al

1924 - r - al

1928 - r - al

1932 - d - al

1936 - d - al

1940 - d - nl

1944 - d - nl

1948 - d - al

1952 - r - al

1956 - r - al

1960 - d - nl

1964 - d - nl

1968 - r - al

1972 - r - al

1976 - d - nl

1980 - r - nl

1984 - r - al

1988 - r - nl

1992 - d - al

1996 - d - al

2000 - r - al

2004 - r - al

2008 - d - nl

 

nl/al = 8/17

d/r = 13/12

# of time nl won that republicans won: 2

# of time al won that republicans won: 10

# of time nl won that dems won: 6

# of time al won that dems won: 7

 

so:

dems X3 more likely to win when NL wins

republicans slightly more likely to win when AL wins: 10 vs 7

 

current best teams in b-ball per major league standings as of 9/18/12:

1st - NL - washington nationals - .610

2nd - NL - cincinnati reds - .601

3rd - AL - texas rangers - .596

4th - tie AL/NL - oakland a's/san franny giants - .571

5th - NL - atlanta braves - .570

6th - AL - fuckign yankees - .568

 

so...the bones point in favor once again for obama?

[rob]

But Romney is such a compelling candidate.

[G-spotter]

Rompalin

[olyclimber]

I can't do math. Does this mean the election is over?

[ivan]

do major league baseball world series winners work as a predictor of presidential election outcomes?

 

year - party won - league won

1912 - d - al

1916 - d - al

1920 - r - al

1924 - r - al

1928 - r - al

1932 - d - al

1936 - d - al

1940 - d - nl

1944 - d - nl

1948 - d - al

1952 - r - al

1956 - r - al

1960 - d - nl

1964 - d - nl

1968 - r - al

1972 - r - al

1976 - d - nl

1980 - r - nl

1984 - r - al

1988 - r - nl

1992 - d - al

1996 - d - al

2000 - r - al

2004 - r - al

2008 - d - nl

 

nl/al = 8/17

d/r = 13/12

# of time nl won that republicans won: 2

# of time al won that republicans won: 10

# of time nl won that dems won: 6

# of time al won that dems won: 7

 

so:

dems X3 more likely to win when NL wins

republicans slightly more likely to win when AL wins: 10 vs 7

 

current best teams in b-ball per major league standings as of 9/18/12:

1st - NL - washington nationals - .610

2nd - NL - cincinnati reds - .601

3rd - AL - texas rangers - .596

4th - tie AL/NL - oakland a's/san franny giants - .571

5th - NL - atlanta braves - .570

6th - AL - fuckign yankees - .568

 

so...the bones point in favor once again for obama?

the national league wins in a clean sweep tonight! good sign for obama in this hour of darkness?

[Crux]

Megastorm Drowns Electronic Voting: SCOTUS Says Romney President

[tvashtarkatena]

The storm's gonna spray only N VA, VT, with a tail end brushing OH. Hard to predict the net effect (more voter participation = better for Dems, given their greater numbers, but crisis can make folks leary about 'changing horses mid storm surge). Seems like both are canceling speaches. Probably a wash.

 

The Big O's swing poll numbers are back what they were before the 1st Debate. I wonder if all those billionaires will write such generous superpac checks next time after their boy gets sent back to his Cayman villa?

 

[olyclimber]

This sounds like a great time to talk about my plans to defund FEMA!

[rob]

This sounds like a great time to talk about my plans to defund FEMA!

 

Go Ron Paul!

[ivan]

in the spirit of predicting the 2012 election result, thought it would be neat to share the #'s w/ my government classes this week and knocked together this list (care to fact check?)

 

elections from 1912-2008: 25

# of elections won by republicans: 12/25

# won by democrats: 13/25

# of elections in which an incumbent president ran: 16

# of election won by an incumbent president: 12/16

# lost by incumbent: 4/16

of incumbents losing a re-election, # that were republican: 3/4

# of elections involving an incumbent running during a bad economic downturn (a bit subjective?): 5

# of time incumbents won despite bad economy: 3/5

 

analysis:

- all things being equal, randomness seems to predict which party will win an election (near 50/50%)

- incumbents have great advantage, win 3/4 of the time

- democratic incumbents are more likely to win than republicans

- the economy being bad hurts incumbents, but they still have an advantage

 

deduction:

obama wins in 2012?

 

interesting complication: the only democratic incumbent to lose a re-election during this 100 year period did lose during a bad-economy (carter) - so less confidence in obama?

incumbent advantage - check

national league in world series predictive value - check

"redskins rule" - negative check

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

RGIII is all hype so he negates the Redskins Rule

[JosephH]

You can count a democratic win in 2016 as well. Women won't be forgetting the republican senators' message to them anytime soon and if the democrats have half a brain immigration reform won't hit congress until 2015 or 2016 when the republicans in the house will shoot it down cementing the latino vote. Add to that rightwing media is already calling for a move even farther to the right and it's already a done deal.

[rob]

Yeah, it cracks me up to hear republican pundits reflect that the reason they lost was their candidate was "too moderate"

 

right that's the way to get swing voters. Lol keep it up boys

[ivan]

would be so sure on 2016, as the nation is currently living up to the mantra: "once you go black..."

[rob]

I hope Cain runs again in 2016. That guy was brilliant, from his clever re-use of the Pokemon theme lyrics, to his self-comparison with (long discontinued) black walnut Hagen-Daz, to his pizza-hut inspired 9-9-9 tax plan. His knowing smile was the cherry on that wonderful sundae. Brilliant.