Could This Be a Sneak Preview of the Opening Handshake in the First 2012 Presidential Debate?
That’s then-campaigner Barrack Obama pressing the flesh with Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher? Oh yah, he’s Joe the Plumber. Joe seems to be emerging as a potential Phoenix to lift the GOP from the ashes, along with such other worthies as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
BetOnline.com, an online betting website, web site, is now accepting bets on Wurzelbacher’s, er, Joe’s political prospects. In case you’re interested in getting some bucks down on this, here are some of the odds the web site lists:
Will Joe run for president in 2011/2012 election cycle? A bet for YES currently pays 12-1.
Will Joe run for “public office” (any type) in 2009? YES pays 3.5-1.
Will Joe win any elected seat in 2009? YES pays 8-1.
Will Joe the Plumber make a bid for the House of Representatives? YES pays 8-1.
Will Joe WIN a seat in the House of Representatives? YES pays 15-1.
Will Joe be hired by any major television news network in 2009? YES pays 6-1.
Here’s a challenge for all those political scientists who love to develop fancy models to predict the outcome of presidential elections: Develop some models that predict, four or three or even two years in advance, who the out-party presidential nominee is going to be. And then put your money where your mouth is at BetOnline.com. Anybody want to give it a try?
[Hat tip to Tim Williams of www.BetOnline.com]
Comments
Such a model could be generated. However, the next step of betting then brings risk acceptance into the picture.
Let’s play economists: assume a model which predicts who will get the nomination with 20% accuracy. Let us further assume that this model predicts who the top 4 candidates will be with 90% accuracy. What odds would it take for you to bet on the top candidate? 5-1 is implied by the first statistic (and risk neutrality), but the risk acceptant person might take 2-1, going on the second model and “luck”
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | March 4, 2009 02:29 PM
For questions like these, I tend to fall back on being a politically informed analyst, rather than a political scientist.
Elements of a “model” would have to include:
1) Political communication skill / experience. By this I mean competence with communicating during campaign environments on TV, in interviews, and big speeches. Palin failed miserably at this, JoeTheP does also. Tempting to count Jindal out as well. Best candidates at this point from this perspective: Romney and Huckabee.
2) For Republicans especially, there is usually a tendency to nominate the “leader in waiting.” The politician who is perceived to have paid their dues, and is next in line. Think Dole, Bush I, Reagan, and McCain. I think Bush II is a exception to this rule. I also think this tends to rule out VP nominees from failed tickets. But it elevates close nomination finishers. Again, this rules out Palin, and points towards Romney or Huckabee.
3) Is the party ready for an ideological reform candidate? Think Clinton, Carter, Dean, Reagan, Bush II. For the GOP that would mean a Huntsman candidacy that seems unlikely at this point.
4) Open election or running against an incumbent would also be important. Candidates who perceive themselves as very strong contenders will avoid taking on an incumbent, especially a popular one. Think Cuomo in 1992, Hillary in 2004, etc.
5) Good ole fashioned fundraising ability. Probably eliminates Huckabee, Jindal, Huntsman, etc. Elevates Palin and Romney. Possibly Gingrich.
6) Events: incumbent approval rating, right track / wrong track, etc. A party might be more likely to nominate an ideologically “pure” candidate against a popular incumbent. This elevates someone like Palin, and possibly Jindal or Gingrich.
My bottom line: Romney will be the GOP nominee in 2012.
Posted by: Jason McDaniel | March 4, 2009 04:37 PM
Since the models that do exist have a pretty good record on predicting which party will win without recourse to who is running (except for incumbency) I don’t see the point of predicting the specific candidates. Unless, of course, you want to earn your money making bets…
Posted by: Eduardo | March 8, 2009 11:16 PM
I suspect that the reason why we see lots and lots of election outcome predictions but no nomination predictions isn’t that the one is interesting and the other isn’t (a notion I just don’t buy), but that the one is easy and the other is difficult.
Posted by: Lee Sigelman | March 9, 2009 10:49 AM