California recall prediction contest

October 6, 2003 9:54 AM

California voters recall Gov. Gray Davis 55-45 percent and elect Arnold Schwarzenegger with 45 percent of the replacement vote. That's where the money is in the Iowa Political Markets for tomorrow's recall election. To see how well MetaFilter's pundits fare in predicting the results, I'm offering a bribe ...
posted by rcade (117 comments total)

... to continue a MetaFilter tradition, I'm offering a Perfect Pancake and a Domo-Kun to the person who most closely predicts the percentages of the Yes/No recall vote and the popular vote for Bustamante, McClintock, Schwarzenegger, and a fourth category -- "Camejo and the other 127 candidates." Predictions must be made before polls open on Tuesday. Offer not valid in St. Augustine, Florida.
posted by rcade at 9:55 AM on October 6, 2003

And Bush narrowly wins California's 54 electoral votes in '04 after Governor Schwarzenegger's new Secretary of State Darrell Issa installs Diebold electronic voting terminals.
posted by nicwolff at 10:02 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 42% yes, 58% no
Bustamente: 42%
McClintock: 6%
Schwarzenegger: 44%
Camejo et al: 8%
posted by jpoulos at 10:03 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 60% yes, 40% no
Bustamente: 30%
McClintock: 18%
Schwarzenegger: 43%
Camejo et al: 9%

But I prefer jpoulos' prediction.
posted by mapalm at 10:08 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 50% yes 50% no

Will have to be taken to the Supreme Court.

You know the drill.
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2003

Schwarzenegger responds to Palast's charges (sort of.)
posted by homunculus at 10:17 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 46% Yes; 54% No
Bustamente: 37%
McClintock: 8%
Schwarzenegger: 45%
Camejo et al: 10%
posted by BlueTrain at 10:21 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 48% yes, 52% no
Bustamante: 40%
Schwarzenegger: 38%
McClintock: 12%
Camejo et al: 10%
posted by monosyllabic at 10:22 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 62.8% yes, 37.2% no.

Schwarzenegger: 49.1%
Bustamante: 27.7%
McClintock: 14.5%
All others: 8.7%

Mary Carey video sales up 2000%.

Gary Coleman gets a morning radio show.

Arianna Huffington's book "How the Right Stole My Election" fails to dent the Amazon top 400.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:25 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 58% yes, 42% no
Schwarzenegger: 41%
Bustamente: 36%
McClintock: 11%
Camejo et al: 11%
posted by mathowie at 10:26 AM on October 6, 2003

I want that domo-kun!

Recall: 52% yes, 48% no
Bustamante: 41%
Schwarzenegger: 36%
McClintock: 14%
Those other guys: 9%
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:26 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 57% yes, 43% no
Schwarzenegger: 42%
Bustamente: 38%
McClintock: 9%
Others: 11%
posted by CrunchyFrog at 10:27 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall Davis: 54% no, 46% yes

Replacement (even though irrelevant:)
41% Schwarzenegger
28% Bustamante
8% McClintock
8% Everyone else

Additionally, I predict the number of women accusing Arnold of sexual assault before midnight on December 31st of this year will be: 28. I expect prizes if I hit the sextefecta. (Heh heh... sextefecta.)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:29 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 52 percent yes, 48 percent no

Schwarzenneger: 38 percent
Bustamante: 33 percent
McClintock: 19 percent
Camejo and others: 10 percent
posted by rcade at 10:33 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 56% yes, 44% no
Schwarzenegger: 43%
Bustamente: 33%
McClintock: 13%
Camejo et al: 11%
posted by qDot at 10:33 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 51% yes, 49% no
Schwarzenegger: 41%
Bustamente: 40%
McClintock: 9%
Camejo et al: 10%
posted by mazola at 10:35 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 54% yes, 46% no
Bustamante: 42%
Schwarzenegger: 44%
McClintock: 8%
Camejo et al: 6%
posted by sp dinsmoor at 10:37 AM on October 6, 2003

BTW, McLintock's odds of winning are actually lower than his odds of being groped by Arnold.
posted by jpoulos at 10:37 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 48% yes, 52% no
Schwarzenegger: 38%
Bustamente: 40%
McClintock: 9%
Camejo et al: 13%
posted by ruelle at 10:38 AM on October 6, 2003

How about another pool: the number of days after the election that enough signatures are collected (in an effort funded by several Bay Area tech millionaire Democrats) to force a recall election for Gov. Schwarzenwhatever.
posted by twsf at 10:38 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 48% yes, 52% no
Schwarzenegger: 38%
Bustamante: 36%
McClintock: 12%
Others: 14%
posted by eddydamascene at 10:44 AM on October 6, 2003

I just wanted to say that most of the polls that we have seen are pretty meaningless, in part because they were before the most serious allegations against Mr. Schwarzenegger, and in part because they only take into account "likely voters", which is slanted towards Republicans. They do not account for the fact that there is a huge "get out the vote" effort being led by national groups such as moveon.org , for instance.

Dewey didn't defeat Truman, and there's still considerable doubt that Schwarzenegger can pull this one off...
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:44 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 40% yes, 60% no
Schwarzenegger: 35%
Bustamente: 45%
McClintock: 10%
Other: 10%

(what can I say, I'm feeling optimistic today)
posted by ook at 10:45 AM on October 6, 2003

Insomnia: The governator can pull off anything he wants. Didn't you read the LA Times?
posted by rcade at 10:47 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: Yes: 53.6%, No: 46.4%

Schwarzenegger: 37.2%
Bustamente: 35.5%
McClintock: 16.1%
Camejo et al.: 11.2%

Other predictions: A recall against Schwarzenegger will be attempted but fail. Twenty-three different lawsuits will be filed contesting either the election itself or polling / counting irregularities. Schwarzenegger still won't be able to pull California's electoral votes for Bush in 2004.
posted by Chanther at 10:47 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 47% yes 53% no
Schwozzer: 44%
Gutbuster: 35%
McClintwich : 7%
Riff Raff: 14%
posted by zeoslap at 10:48 AM on October 6, 2003

Fucked: 100%
Not fucked: 0%
posted by PrinceValium at 10:53 AM on October 6, 2003

No ballot information, but previously registered to vote in California? Vote today!

If you are a California resident who has previously registered to vote at any time within the state, you can still vote in the recall election -- even if you haven't received any voting information in the mail for years.

What you need to do is go to the registrar of voters office for the county in which you were last registered. Here is a list of the addresses and websites for the registrar offices within California. In many cases, they may have you registered to vote at an old address -- even an address from many years ago within that county. They can provide you a ballot right on the spot, and can update your registration records for you.

You can vote today at your local registrar of voters -- I just did, and the lines were very short and moved fast, with plenty of voting booths available right on the premises. The procedures are the same as normal voting, with the exception that you must put your ballot into a provided envelope and sign and date it. It may have taken five more minutes to drive to, but it was faster than any local polling place I've ever been to. Not bad at all!

So go vote, ya deadbeats!
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:54 AM on October 6, 2003

I just wan't to say that local elections don't interest me, not even my own local elections, let alone ones happening thousands of miles away. I just wanted that on the record. Carry on.

That said... anyone know what the woman's response was that Palast refused to repeat, that homunculus mentioned?
posted by Blue Stone at 10:54 AM on October 6, 2003

Riff Raff: 14%

Now him, I'd vote for.

posted by jpoulos at 10:57 AM on October 6, 2003

Just a minor nitpick here for those of you posting "no" percentages of higher than 50% on the recall: if that's the result, then there's no point in posting percentages for the recall candidates, Davis gets to keep his job.
posted by MrBaliHai at 10:57 AM on October 6, 2003

Predict Arnold words. He will start every rebuttal: It's important and he will say it all day long, It's important that the voters have decided. Add he will stutter too...da da da voters have decided.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:59 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 54% Yes, 46% No
Arnold "Conan" Scharwzelittle : 48%
Bustamente: 27%
McClintock: 13%
Camejo et al : 12%

Chances harrassment by VIPs is depenalized : 99%
posted by elpapacito at 11:03 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 51% yes, 49% no
Schwarzenegger: 41%
Bustamante: 38%
McClintock: 12%
Marginalia: 9%
posted by UKnowForKids at 11:04 AM on October 6, 2003

MrBaliHai: we're aware of that. But rcade's contest is for the closest of all five returns, regardless of relevance. If rcade was awarding based solely on the recall vote should it favor Davis it would be an unfair advantage to those who picked "no" on the recall and didn't venture a guess on 80% of the remaining contest.

So my minor nitpick: ignore what MrBaliHai said. ;)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:07 AM on October 6, 2003

With his record of supporting the right to bear laser pistols, and his vigilante actions against transvestites and genetically created monsters (from fetal stem cells, supposedly...), Riff Raff might make a viable Republican candidate.

Now if only he didn't have that banana on his head.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:08 AM on October 6, 2003

Susan Faludi: Conan the Vulgarian
posted by homunculus at 11:13 AM on October 6, 2003

I just want to say that this post is the most purely useful bit of information I've seen on MeFi in a long time.
posted by anastasiav at 11:18 AM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 42% Yes; 58% No
Bustamente: 35%
McClintock: 8%
Schwarzenegger: 47%
Camejo et al: 10%
posted by adrianhon at 11:22 AM on October 6, 2003

I'm not going to screw around with actual numbers. But I have a feeling that while "yes" is going to win on the recall (even a surge of distaste isn't going to counteract the skewed voting population) and Arnold's going to get the plurality, he's going to get a smaller proportion of votes than those voting "no," making him in effect the second-place candidate.

Bush may be able to govern -- sort of -- with that hanging over his head, but Arnold doesn't have much chance. Any prominent California Democrat will be able to take it from him in '06.
posted by Epenthesis at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2003

What I'm wondering is this : how much will folks inability to read the ballot correctly factor into the outcome?

"Uh... I vote on the recall... then on the candidate? What if I vote NO on the recall, should I still vote for a candidate?"
posted by silusGROK at 11:29 AM on October 6, 2003

Its amazing that a number of you think the recall is going to fail. Do you even live in California or are you getting your information from News and the web?

Recall: 54% Yes; 46% No
Schwarzenegger: 45%
Bustamente: 30%
McClintock: 9%
Camejo: 4%
Others: 12%
posted by ericdano at 11:32 AM on October 6, 2003

Yes on recall: 44%
No on recall: 56%

Ahnold: 39%
Bustyourchopes: 33%
McLicklock: 10%
Margolin: 5% (My guy!)
Los otros: 13%
posted by Lynsey at 11:35 AM on October 6, 2003

Do you even live in California or are you getting your information from News and the web?

I wasn't aware that the contest was open only to residents, and I'm afraid I don't have the resources to individually poll all the voters. Where else would you suggest I get my news?
posted by jpoulos at 11:52 AM on October 6, 2003

If Arnold wins we'll get to see an imediete re-recall as petions get signed, followed by a dozen or so civil lawsuits filed against him for harassment. What fun!!! This recall thing is a great thing for democracy. This is so wonderful.

Yes on democracy: 44%
No on democracy: 56%

Harassment: 39%
Responsibility: 33%
Substance: 10%
Real Change: 5% (My guy!)
Lazy Voters: 13%
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:53 AM on October 6, 2003

Yes on recall: 51%
No on recall: 49%

Schwarzenegger: 45%
Bustamente: 41%
McClintock: 7%
Camejo etc: 7%
posted by donth at 11:58 AM on October 6, 2003

Yes on recall: 60%
No on recall: 40%

Schwarzenegger: 49%
Bustamente: 35%
McClintock: 6%
Camejo etc: 10%

The Daily Show Ratings: +15%
posted by kokogiak at 12:04 PM on October 6, 2003

The Iowa Political Markets makes no sense to me.

The reason people talk about the "wisdom" of the market, is that it represents the pooling of lots of information about what's going on in business all around the world. All investors together presumably know more than any one source of information.

But that's not true with a political "market". Pretty much everyone involved has access to the same data -- poll results in the newspaper. It's more like a basketball betting pool than a stock market.
posted by straight at 12:09 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 53% Yes; 47% No
Bustamente: 35%
McClintock: 10%
Schwarzenegger: 40%
Camejo et al: 15%
posted by jjb at 12:16 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 43% yes, 57% no
Schwarzenegger: 42%
Bustamante: 41%
McClintock: 5%
Others: 12%

I don't think the Iowa Political Market (IPM) is as relevant this time as it is (in theory) in national elections. Simply because only Californians can vote and the IPM reflects a pooled national demographic that is different than California.
posted by dness2 at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: Yes-%46, No-%54
Boostyertaxes: 39%
McClintock: 18%
Gropinfuhrer Schwarzenegger: 36%
Other: 7%
posted by RavinDave at 12:21 PM on October 6, 2003

Mefi voters (as of 2:04 PM CST):
Recall: YES=51.1% NO=49.0%
Bustamente:36.0%
McClintock:10.7%
Schartzenegger:42.1%
Other:11.2%

With 25 of the MeFi precincts reporting, we declare the Black Plow Man the next governor of the great state of Confusion. And he's here to pump... you up!
posted by AstroGuy at 12:34 PM on October 6, 2003

Lose and this will be the last statewide campaign for both Bustamante and Schwarzenegger.

Recall: 47% yes, 53% no
Schwarzenegger: 40%
Bustamante: 38%
McClintock: 14%
Others: 8%
posted by billsaysthis at 12:43 PM on October 6, 2003

Mighty slim margin predicted. It'd be a mighty funny scenario if Arnold wins by (say) 63% ... but the recall comes in at 50.25% for/49.75% against, demanding a prolonged, tedious and highly scrutinized recount.

Just sayin' ...
posted by RavinDave at 12:46 PM on October 6, 2003

All right, let's give 'er a shot...

Recall: Yes - 55%, No - 45%
Schwarzenegger: 36%
Bustamante: 34%
McClintock: 15%
The rest: 15%
posted by nath at 12:53 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: Yes- 46%; No - 54%
Arnold: 43%
Bustamante: 35%
McClintock: 13%
Camejo and others: 9%

since everybody else's picks added up to 100% too, i assume these are based on the percentage of total votes for recall candidates, not a percentage of the total ballots. i think lots of people will vote "no" on the recall and choose no candidate.

i'm from California, and i don't believe the polls. we'll see. Gray Davis is a jackass, but i'm still pulling (and voting) for him (and Camejo!).
posted by mrgrimm at 12:57 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 48.7% yes, 51.3% no

Bustamente: 36%
Schwarzenegger: 31%
McClintock: 31%
Others: 2%
posted by CrazyJub at 1:15 PM on October 6, 2003

Remember: a cardinal rule in elections is that, regardless of the question, undecideds tend to vote "No".
posted by jpoulos at 1:18 PM on October 6, 2003

If I must predict...

Recall: 50% yes, 50% no

Bustamente: 39%
Schwarzenegger: 39%

It's a draw!

(This poll has a margin of error of +/- 5%)
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:19 PM on October 6, 2003

All righty, I'll give it a try:

Recall: 52% yes 48% no

Arnold: 42%
Bustamante: 38%
McClintock: 10%
Others: 10%

Not that I want it to turn out that way...
posted by lackutrol at 1:28 PM on October 6, 2003

recall: 52% no, 48% yes

Schwarzenegger: 50%
Bustamante: 32%
McClintock: 13%
others: 5%

Oh, and:
Red Sox - 4, Oakland - 3 (12th inning, naturally)
posted by yhbc at 1:28 PM on October 6, 2003

I dunno. I'm reading a couple conservative boards. There are alot of miffed McClintock supporters that are villifying Schwarzenegger more than the L.A. Times. I guess a Schwarzenegger victory is likley, but I wouldn't be shocked if he were spoiled by McClintock's followers.
posted by RavinDave at 1:33 PM on October 6, 2003

recall: 59% no 41% yes
Bustamante: 43%
Shwarzenegger: 35%
McClintock: 15%
Others: 17%
posted by mosch at 1:39 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 50% yes, 50% no
Bustamante: 42%
Schwarzenegger: 37%
McClintock: 10%
Camejo et al: 11%
Days until new recall petition submitted to Sec of State: 23

Voter turnout in Democratic districts up at least 25% over last year's election. Every person I know is terrified, and half of the conversations I've had today involved demands that the other votes tomorrow.

I really don't understand how it came to this, though. Who is voting for Arnold? The only people I've met that were "pro-Arnold" were just amused by the concept. None of them seemed to particularly care; nor did they seem likely to vote. One didn't even know what day the election was. Who are these people that like Arnold and are likely to go vote? Does anyone have a link to some polls with demographics?
posted by justin at 1:42 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 49.8% yes, 50.2% no
Bustamente: 38%
McClintock: 9%
Schwarzenegger: 41%
Camejo et al (including Mrs. Frizzle): 12%
posted by moonbird at 2:01 PM on October 6, 2003

Who is voting for Arnold?

A few of them speak their minds in this article.
posted by homunculus at 2:15 PM on October 6, 2003

I'm voting for Arnold myself. Registered democrat, but i think Davis has done a horrible job and i think Bustamonte would do worse.

Recall: 56% Yes, 44% No
Ahnold: 43%
Bustamonte: 32%
McClintock: 15%
Other: 9%

i'm also being optimistic today.
posted by escher at 2:23 PM on October 6, 2003

Haven't posted in a while, but with something to win:

Recall: will maintain the same consist 10-15% advantage "yes" over "no" it has maintained for the past several weeks. I call it at the high end, yes 57% - no 43%, because (a) waiting until the Thursday before the vote to roll out the mud is simply too late given the amount of absentees and the fact that it takes a week or two for stories like to really settle in and change minds, and (b) Davis didn't orchestrate the mud in a way that benefited him. ("Arnold disrespects women" is not a reason to vote to retain Gray Davis; "Gray Davis respects women" is a theme that the soccer moms could have gone for in a big way.)

Question 2:
Gray's people don't talk to Cruz, and Cruz's people aren't very good -- as a result, Cruz didn't know the volume of mud that was coming and basically gave up the race two weeks ago in order to avoid embarassment by sprinting to the finish and losing badly. A career-ending mistake. He
could have won this thing if he'd had a campaign in the last 10 days and had an operation for the absentees and tomorrow morning. Result: Arnold 39%, Cruz 36%, Tom 16%, Others 9%.

As for "who is voting for the recall," I think that it basically comes down to self-image. Those who see themselves as payers of taxes, fees, and business mandates (whether through paying the bill, or suffering reduced salaries, sales, etc. as a result of someone else being forced to pay) are scared shitless about the direction that the Democrats in Sacramento seem to be heading. Those who see themselves as beneficiaries of taxes, fees and business mandates, whether through public or non-profit employment, or ideological connection to those who benefit from taxes, fees and mandates, are against it.
posted by MattD at 2:30 PM on October 6, 2003

I predict the term "California Republican Governer Schwarzenegger" will cause all sorts of kerning, spacing and wrapping problems with newspaper articles and weblogs.
posted by phong3d at 2:33 PM on October 6, 2003

Not to mention complaints about the low standard of proofreading these days.
posted by languagehat at 2:43 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 52.4% yes, 47.6% no
Bustamente: 42.4%
McClintock: 6.6%
Schwarzenegger: 48.4%
Camejo et al: 2.6%

World Series: Cubs
Tomorrow's weather: partly sunner, a little warmer
Tonight's Monday Night Football: Indy 33, TB 27
Times my daughter will wake up in the night: once
posted by jasonspaceman at 2:55 PM on October 6, 2003

I don't think the Iowa Political Market (IPM) is as relevant this time as it is (in theory) in national elections. Simply because only Californians can vote and the IPM reflects a pooled national demographic that is different than California.

I don't see how that could make much difference, unless the participants in the pool were somehow more representative of the voting population than the group of people the pollsters are talking to.
posted by straight at 2:58 PM on October 6, 2003

I'm feeling mighty popular these days. In the last 2 days, I've gotten personal phone messages from none other than....
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Barbra Streisand
Dianne Feinstein AND
Barbara Boxer
Urging me to vote against the recall. Personal phone messages. Gosh, I feel so important!

The Dems really are pulling out all the stops, aren't they?
posted by aacheson at 3:09 PM on October 6, 2003

No to mention numerous emails from Howard Dean and MoveOn.org!
posted by aacheson at 3:11 PM on October 6, 2003

Not that I do not want to play, but how are you arriving at these numbers? Poll watching with regurgitation? Random guessing?

Should I admire the winner for being politically aware, or just another lottery winner?
posted by thirteen at 3:32 PM on October 6, 2003

i'm in:
Recall: 49.7% yes, 50.3% no (it'll go to court)
Bustamente: 38%
McClintock: 18%
Schwarzenegger: 28%
Camejo et al: 16%
also: Numerous lawsuits on the vote: from spoiled votes, to no procedures/way to manually count the electronic votes, to not enough polling places and access to those places, to hanging chad stuff, to no instruction on new machines/procedures, etc.

I think many in the crowds going to see Arnold in person will not vote for him, or vote at all for that matter. And women and latinos will have turned out in greater numbers than expected for Bustamante.

on preview: it's semi-educated guessing, thirteen.
posted by amberglow at 3:53 PM on October 6, 2003

Remember: a cardinal rule in elections is that, regardless of the question, undecideds tend to vote "No".

In a recent Knight Ridder poll (sfgate summary) the number of respondents who said they would definitely vote 'yes' on the recall dropped 8 points between last Wednesday and Saturday (now standing at 44%), but overall support for the recall stayed at 54% (+/-3%). In terms of recent activity, it seems voters are moving from 'definitely yes' to 'yes', but not 'yes' to 'undecided'.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:19 PM on October 6, 2003

"...how are you arriving at these numbers? Poll watching with regurgitation? Random guessing?"

I used the SWAG method, thirteen.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:22 PM on October 6, 2003

unless the participants in the pool were somehow more representative of the voting population than the group of people the pollsters are talking to

The Iowa Political Market isn't a poll. It's a market where the politicians are bought and sold like shares. My point was that anyone, not just Californians, can play in the market and that this is a serious skew, so that yes the participants in the IPM are not representative of the California voting population.
posted by dness2 at 4:31 PM on October 6, 2003

I used the SWAG method, thirteen.

Sealed With A Grope?
posted by amberglow at 4:31 PM on October 6, 2003

Sex With A Grape, silly.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:35 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 63.3% yes, 36.7% no
Schwarzenegger: 47%
Bustamante: 30%
McClintock: 12%
Camejo/Arnold Drummond/porn star/etc/etc/ad nauseum: 11%
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 4:44 PM on October 6, 2003

people who vote for Arnold like: lower car taxes; lower property taxes; lower taxes for all the "good" people who don't drink or smoke.

believe it or not, it seems like his most popular asset (at least from the idiots i've heard from who are voting for him) is his "commitment to education." wha!?

i liked the Palast article. it will be very interesting to see what happens with that contested energy money if Schwarzenegger wins.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:53 PM on October 6, 2003

Yes: 42.3%
No: 57.7%
Bustamante: 30%
McClintock: 19%
Schwartzenegger: 29%
Camejo et al: 22%
posted by RakDaddy at 5:16 PM on October 6, 2003

Yes: 44.6%
No: 55.4%
Bustamante: 37%
McClintock: 11%
Schwarzenegger: 32%
Camejo et al: 20%

Yeah, I'm just in this for Domo-kun.
posted by casarkos at 5:47 PM on October 6, 2003

[/fark]
posted by eddydamascene at 5:55 PM on October 6, 2003

the horror....
posted by clavdivs at 5:59 PM on October 6, 2003

I just want to be the first to point out that I called the score, suckas! (so I was off by three innings - whatevah!)

Go, Sox! Yankees suck!
posted by yhbc at 8:35 PM on October 6, 2003

Yes: 52%
No: 47% (somehow election numbers never add up to 100

Terminator: 45%
Bustamante: 38%
McClintock: 14%
Others: 3%
posted by gyc at 8:38 PM on October 6, 2003

Hollywood's battle of the sexes over Arnold
posted by homunculus at 8:44 PM on October 6, 2003

The Iowa Political Market isn't a poll. It's a market where the politicians are bought and sold like shares. My point was that anyone, not just Californians, can play in the market and that this is a serious skew, so that yes the participants in the IPM are not representative of the California voting population

I understand that, but I don't know why you think that a bunch of Poly-Sci geeks in California are any more likely to pick the winner than Poli-Sci geeks in the other 49 states.

Pretty much everybody has access to the same information except for "everybody I know is gonna vote for X," which would only be helpful if the participants in the Political Market (collectively) had friends who were more representative of the voting population than the folks the pollsters are talking to.
posted by straight at 8:47 PM on October 6, 2003

if that squoogy.com trackback below is any indication, this is gonna be some messed-up election.
posted by amberglow at 9:19 PM on October 6, 2003

Jews in Schwarzenegger's hometown dismiss Hitler flap
posted by homunculus at 9:39 PM on October 6, 2003

You know, I've seen the domokun toys in person and they're worth all this. I can't wait to see who wins it.
posted by mathowie at 10:35 PM on October 6, 2003

Yes: 53%
No: 47%

Governator: 46%
Bustamator: 35%
McWhatever: 09%
Crazies: 10%

I also predict that the Yes and No will be apart by less than 5% when one considers the unrounded number, and that at least 5% of the ballots will be rejected for various reasons.
posted by Ptrin at 10:46 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 54% yes, 46% no
Schwarzenegger: 39%
Bustamente: 38%
McClintock: 10%
Camejo et al: 12%
posted by justgary at 11:34 PM on October 6, 2003

Recall: 53-47
Bustamante: 24
Schwarzenegger: 33
McClintock: 28
Everyone else: 15

- calwatch, a progressive for McClintock
posted by calwatch at 12:00 AM on October 7, 2003

Recall: 50.7/49.3 (I'm flipping a coin to decide which side gets the bare majority and... YES wins! But of course, there will be courtroom scenes...)

Ahnold: 38.8
Cruzer: 29.6
Tommy Mac: 20.7
And the Rest: 10.5

Anybody in Canada got a couch I could sleep on for the next year?

And congratulations to Richie Schwartz of L.A., who had the forethought to register recallarnold.com back in August.
posted by wendell at 3:35 AM on October 7, 2003

Pretty much everybody has access to the same information

I don't think that's true--at least, I don't think we outside of California have access to the same emotion that those in the state do. We all came late to this thing. I still have trouble wrapping my head around how much Davis is supposedly hated. What Tom Brokaw gives the rest of the country for five minutes a night can't compare to all the local coverage that went on for a year before we even heard the word "recall".
posted by jpoulos at 6:51 AM on October 7, 2003

Recall,: Yes, 53.3%; No, 45.5%
Schwarzenegger: 45.5%
Bustamente: 31.9%
McClintock: 9.1%
Rest: 13.5%
posted by carter at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2003

Polls are now open in California.
posted by rcade at 7:02 AM on October 7, 2003

Yes on recall: 54%
No on recall: 46%

Schwarzenegger: 39%
Bustamente: 43%
McClintock: 10%
Camejo etc: 8%
posted by themadjuggler at 7:35 AM on October 7, 2003

Columnist Maureen Dowd led the charge to pillory President Clinton. So why is she panting after the serial groper?
posted by homunculus at 10:21 AM on October 7, 2003

I don't know why you think that a bunch of Poly-Sci geeks in California are any more likely to pick the winner than Poli-Sci geeks in the other 49 states.

I wasn't comparing subsets of Poli-Sci geeks, actually, I was comparing the nationwide sample in the IPM to the actual voters in California, the results of which we won't know until tonight. The IPM gets a different result than plain old polling, partly because of sampling but also partly because of the idea of voter investment in the results. In theory, IPM results should better reflect the outcome because instead of asking people to speculate on what they will do, it asks people to put their money on it. So, if the people who play the IPM really represent the people who vote, it should be pretty close to actual behavior. But that's the big flaw here. People outside California aren't seeing the commercials, having the conversations, or seriously pondering how to explain Larry Flynnt as a candidate or worse to Grandma Ida in Topeka. As jpoulos said, if nothing else, it's the emotion.
posted by dness2 at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2003

"Gubernatorial candidate Georgy Russell was pushed, shoved, hit and kicked yesterday by supporters of Arnold Schwarzenegger at a rally in Pleasanton CA. She was repeatedly called a 'bitch' and one of the Arnold Supporters wrote on her clothing with a permanent marking pen. The felonious abusers, who claimed to be provoked by remarks from Russell, were near equal numbers of men and women and no one during the incident came to Russell's aid. Schwarzeneggar and his wife Maria Shriver witnessed the attack and neither said or did anything to stop the abuse."
posted by homunculus at 11:27 AM on October 7, 2003

In theory, IPM results should better reflect the outcome because instead of asking people to speculate on what they will do, it asks people to put their money on it. So, if the people who play the IPM really represent the people who vote, it should be pretty close to actual behavior.

But there's no way the IPM is ever going to be more representative of the people who vote than the group of people the pollsters are talking to. It's probably mostly econ and poly-sci students with internet access.

Do you really think that a representative cross-section of voters participates in the IPM? Ever?

You sound like you think the IPM makes better predictions because people are "serious" when their money is on the line. That has nothing to do with the theoretical "wisdom" and efficiency of the stock market.
posted by straight at 1:34 PM on October 7, 2003

"As Californians head to the polls on Tuesday, voters in at least one county will cast their ballots electronically on machines that have been shown to be flawed."
posted by homunculus at 2:14 PM on October 7, 2003

But there's no way the IPM is ever going to be more representative of the people who vote than the group of people the pollsters are talking to. It's probably mostly econ and poly-sci students with internet access.

Very, very true. Sample bias is always a problem. I was merely pointing out yet another dimension that the sample would probably be biased.

Do you really think that a representative cross-section of voters participates in the IPM? Ever?

I don't think it's necessarily worse than the participants in a telephone poll, and those are notoriously bad and getting worse. The issue is distinguishing the important characteristics to match. Internet users are more educated and affluent than the average person, but so is the voter (as compared to everyone eligible to vote.) Internet users are a lot younger than the average voter (the senior citizens skew this) and if age is a factor in voter behavior in an election, then the IPM will be off. But things like age are not necessarily always discriminating factors. In some elections, it could be possible that an IPM result driven by economics and poly-sci heavy participants does actually mirror an actual voting body.

You sound like you think the IPM makes better predictions because people are "serious" when their money is on the line. That has nothing to do with the theoretical "wisdom" and efficiency of the stock market.
It's a combination of both. The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) stands on the idea that a multitude of value assessments by educated people will average out to the true value of a product. Thus, asking a bunch of people to assess the "value" of a candidate in a market will reveal the true value of the candidate -- whomever has the highest true value is predicted to win an election. All if the EMH holds of course. But, if there is nothing on the line, this is no different than just taking a poll of people's predictions. The "educated" part of the EMH is very important. What the money thing does is get people "serious" so instead of just blindly guessing or not really paying attention, they educate themselves before they enter the market.
But there is still a sample bias problem even in an educated participant group, which was my original gripe.
posted by dness2 at 3:31 PM on October 7, 2003

"As Californians head to the polls on Tuesday, voters in at least one county will cast their ballots electronically on machines that have been shown to be flawed."

Oakland represent!
posted by eddydamascene at 12:42 AM on October 8, 2003

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) stands on the idea that a multitude of value assessments by educated people will average out to the true value of a product.

But doesn't this assume that you are averaging lots of different information? Those educated people all have different knowledge related to what connections they have to the market. But the IPM participants are, to a much greater extent, pooling the same information -- poll results, news articles, political analyses. All of which is as available to someone in Florida as it is to someone in California.

And I'd think that the effect of Californian IPM participants using "local knowledge" -- vibes they get from the people around them -- they'd be less accurate that the people in Florida.
posted by straight at 8:27 AM on October 8, 2003

Is there a prize for the least accurate prediction? 'cuz I'm pretty sure I've got a lock on that one. Perhaps a plaque autographed by George B. Schwartzman, my new personal hero.
posted by ook at 10:58 AM on October 8, 2003

i'm with ook : >

so who came closest? the offical page says:
Yes 4,310,219 55.1
No 3,521,809 44.9

Leading Candidates to succeed GRAY DAVIS as Governor if he is recalled:
99.5 % ( 15154 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 11:02 am

Candidate Party Votes Percent

Arnold Schwarzenegger 48.4
Cruz M. Bustamante 31.9
Tom McClintock 13.3
Peter Miguel Camejo Grn 210,274 2.8
Arianna Huffington Ind 42,361 0.6
Peter V. Ueberroth Rep 21,808 0.3
Larry Flynt Dem 15,245 0.3
Gary Coleman Ind 12,584 0.2
George B. Schwartzman Ind 10,818 0.2
Mary Cook Ind 9,919 0.2 ......
posted by amberglow at 11:12 AM on October 8, 2003

But the IPM participants are, to a much greater extent, pooling the same information

Yes that's true, but they all filter it in their own idiosyncratic way. As long as there's no inherent skew in the information available it shouldn't matter.

And I'd think that the effect of Californian IPM participants using "local knowledge" -- vibes they get from the people around them -- they'd be less accurate that the people in Florida.

Why? This makes no sense. If California IPM participants on average have more information, their educated (and dispassionate) assessments should be closer to the truth.
The only reason I can think that they'd be less accurate is that they were playing the market with their hearts not their heads. Wishful thinking, as it were. Emotions (like gambling excitement) trumping "education" is also the reason that EMH advocates explain market bubbles.
posted by dness2 at 11:52 AM on October 8, 2003

I've posted the results of the prediction contest. The winner is Escher, who was 0.8% off the Yes/No percentages and an average of 2.5% off on the four governor totals.

As a side note to this discussion of market intelligence, the average MetaFilter prediction (out of 52 participants) would have won this contest.

Congratulations, Escher. On your victory and the election of your governator.
posted by rcade at 1:48 PM on October 8, 2003

Average Difference 15.2%

Woo hoo! I'm proud to do my part for the wrong end of the bell curve!
posted by ook at 3:40 PM on October 8, 2003

Um, I have to explain the George Schwarzman joke, though: when last I checked that page, he was listed dead last, with 10 votes. Which I found thrilling, the idea that somebody couldn't even get eleven people in the whole damn state to vote for him. Now he's listed as having more than 10,000, which makes him more popular than the porn star, even. So screw that; I'm writing to Todd Lewis for my plaque today! 172 votes for the "bum hunter"! You da man, Todd!
posted by ook at 3:48 PM on October 8, 2003

Ok, but hey, my guy Margolin came in 11th, ya know, with almost 8,000 votes - not bad, out of 135. Not good enough though.
posted by Lynsey at 8:58 PM on October 8, 2003