Algorithm says Thompson/Hagel vs. Clark/Gore for '08 most electable

[CarolNYC]

Interesting little "Great Moments in Science" blog....

ERIC SCHULMAN, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA AND DANIEL DEBOWY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE - Our 2003 algorithm for determining the winners of United States presidential elections correctly determined the winner of each of the 55 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2004. We apply the algorithm to 44 Democratic and Republican candidates for the 2008 U.S. presidential election and find that the Democrats have nine tickets with electabilities greater than 150, whereas the Republicans have five tickets with electabilities greater than 150. The most electable ticket, with an electability of 264, has Republican former Governor Tommy G. Thompson as the presidential candidate and Senator Charles T. Hagel as the vice presidential candidate. The next most electable ticket, with an electability of 260, has Democratic retired General Wesley K. Clark as the presidential candidate and former Vice President Albert A. Gore Jr. as the vice presidential candidate. . .

(snip)

We assume that major party primary voters are rational and will understand the empirical power of our algorithm. Democratic primary voters will therefore nominate Wesley K. Clark, Albert A. Gore Jr., William B. Richardson, or Christopher J. Dodd as their 2008 presidential candidate. This candidate, being rational, will choose Albert A. Gore Jr., Birch E. Bayh III, or Christopher J. Dodd as their vice presidential running mate.

http://prorev.com/2007/05/great-moments-in-science-why-race.htm

Unfortunately, whether I trust their algorithm or not, I fear I don't exactly trust their assumption about the rationality of primary voters. :(

[Wickerman]

1. Tommy Thompson?

Wow, I was thinking of Fred, the Law and Order dude. Tommy actually scares me as I think he might just be as stupid as **. Well, that is a bit too big of a stretch, huh?

I could support Clark/Gore.

:patriot:

[hippiechick]

2. I doubt that Al would go for another VP bid ...

:shrug:

[hyphenate]

3. Personally

and IMHO, I doubt their algorithm. As a matter of interesting irony, their manner of calculating who they believe is the winner has the best presidential nominee right in it.

"al gor ithm" tells you exactly who will win. :)

[karynnj]

4. The model is a joke - understood by mathematicians, scientists etc

The small number of data points that represent past presidents is over fit. Note the really bizarre things in the model. Being VP or Senator doesn't count at all; being the son of Senator gives lots of weight. It does point out one thing that is often ignored - that as there are only 25 elections in a century, statisical analysis is going to be pretty useless.

Consider the often repeated comment that only a Democratic governor could win for the Democrats. Imagine that Ohio had adequate machines and the election was run fairly and efficiently. Then you would have the obviously stupid result that since 1960, the most likely Democrat to win if no President is running is a Southern Democrat or a Catholic MA Senator with initials JFK. (this would place an enormous burden on the Democrats in MA looking for Senate candidates)

The fact is that 1976 and 1992 were years where a Democrat was almost sure to win. In 1976, anger against Nixon was very high and the pardon Ford gave him hurt Ford. In 1992, after 3 terms of Republican rule they had outworn their welcome. Bush was below 40% in the approval polls for 6 months before the election and down to 33% in the week of the election. Both 1960 and 2004 were no where near as promising for Democrats.

[Boo Boo]

6. Historically, being a Senator is a negative. Americans show a strong

predilection for not electing Senators President. It's only happened twice. If one also takes into account that neither a woman nor an African American have ever been elected President it's hard to make a case based on past history that our two current front runners have much chance at all.

We'll just have to cross our fingers and hope that it's really true that we just can't lose this time. It worries me though, because I just can't make myself believe that a majority of Americans, let alone a majority in the Electoral College, are willing to let Hillary Clinton be President. I find that an almost laughable idea.

OTOH, I said that about Ronald Reagan too, so...

:shrug:

[karynnj]

8. Again, I asy that there are too few data points

Do you agree that the culture has changed immensely since 1960?

We had 12 elections since the 1959. In 1964, 1980, and 1996, for the Democrats the incumbent President was running. In 1968 and 2000, the VP was running - both losing officially (though Gore should have won) That gives only 7 open nominations. There were 3 Governors, 2 winning; a former VP losing; and 3 Senator, 1 winning and 2 losing (though Kerry likely should have won Ohio).

Even ignoring the Kerry comments - the difference between 1 out of 3 or 2 out of 3. Ignoring the Gore comment the 3 out of 3 VPs losing is also not significantly different.

There are TOO FEW DATA POINTS.

[rocktivity]

5. Anyone over the age of twelve with at least two functiong brain cells

would say that Hagel and Gore are the most electable!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Boo Boo]

7. That's not possible. Everybody knows that Al Gore

ain't got no rhythm!

:7

[Catchawave]

9. Well, Bill Maher said.....

Edwards/Obama is the most electable ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Yes, because combined.......

They have as much national security experience as ? :shrug:

[jcrew2001]

16. Edwards won't pick Obama as VP even though it would please the grassroots

He'd most likely pick Clark (he would decline) or Richardson, Bayh, Kerry (unlikely), Durbin (hahaha), Teddy Kennedy, etc. - anyone with more govt experience.

[MGKrebs]

10. I don't know Al Gore personally, But I gotta think that

there is no way he is going to be VP again.

[BikeWriter]

12. Let's vote for the person with the best security record, Wes Clark.

[slackmaster]

13. Definitely Annals of Improbable Research material

:rofl:

[Tejanocrat]

14. Literally (that's where the blog got the story which some repeat as REAL research). Here's the link

http://improbable.com/2007/05/11/who-will-win-the-2008-us-presidential-election/

[jcrew2001]

15. The algorithm didn't take into account being the Wife of a Gov/President

but no other first lady has ran for office. Also Clark and Gore aren't running, so I'm quite sure they can't win the nomination - unless as write-ins.

Not sure about Dodd's chances - plus another Northeast Liberal is a sure GE loser.

Bill Richardson certainly has the long-serving experience.

Gore won't run as VP again - its just too pathetic for him and for us.

This poll does show that Most of the frontrunners are very thin on experience, except for McCane