We can now declare the next president!
October 11, 2008 12:05 AM Subscribe
There is a litmus test that has predicted the winner and loser of every presidential election over the past 100 years. If the Dow has risen 3.3 percent or more in October, the incumbent party has never lost. If the Dow has dropped 0.5 percent or more, the incumbent party has never won. That is, until 2004. Perhaps a more reliable test is the relative popularity of halloween masks; track your favorite candidate at Amazon or BuyCostumes.
So... how does it work? does Diebold feed live stock data into the ballots, or does Diebold also make stock-trading machines?
posted by qvantamon at 1:46 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by qvantamon at 1:46 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Bah, someone's gotta say it: fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
posted by phyrewerx at 1:46 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by phyrewerx at 1:46 AM on October 11, 2008
Ron Paul 2008!
Did I get that right?
posted by From Bklyn at 1:54 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Did I get that right?
posted by From Bklyn at 1:54 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Bah, someone's gotta say it: fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
No, I don't think any sort of causation is being applied in these claims. They're just giving a mystical significance to various correlations. Which is kind of a fun thing to do, so long as no one takes it too seriously.
posted by treepour at 2:00 AM on October 11, 2008
No, I don't think any sort of causation is being applied in these claims. They're just giving a mystical significance to various correlations. Which is kind of a fun thing to do, so long as no one takes it too seriously.
posted by treepour at 2:00 AM on October 11, 2008
Bah, someone's gotta say it
I don't that this necessarily follows.
posted by ODiV at 2:04 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't that this necessarily follows.
posted by ODiV at 2:04 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
For that matter, how about weight/height... (NYT)
posted by nielm at 2:14 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by nielm at 2:14 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
There are two different factors here. The first is simple chance. If you flip two coins repeatedly they will eventually produce the same string of heads and tails, at least for some number of flips. This leads to the type of superstitious connection that we use when we think that the winner of a sporting event determines the outcome of a presidential election.
The second factor is more interesting. I believe that polls are not completely reliable precisely because they are polls. Pollsters attempt to compensate for variability within the polling process (they can't reach people on cellphones, there is a Bradley effect, etc.) but they can never compensate for the fact that polling itself is not a natural and normal way that people respond to their environment. I don't get calls asking my opinion about world leaders every day.
So it's worth looking at forms of "indirect polling". What people really think, what they really care about, is more accurately reflected in their actual behavior; how they "vote with their dollar" or even how they vote by choosing their halloween costume.
It's not a case here of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, it's a case of noticing the presence of actual causes in some unusual way.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:54 AM on October 11, 2008
The second factor is more interesting. I believe that polls are not completely reliable precisely because they are polls. Pollsters attempt to compensate for variability within the polling process (they can't reach people on cellphones, there is a Bradley effect, etc.) but they can never compensate for the fact that polling itself is not a natural and normal way that people respond to their environment. I don't get calls asking my opinion about world leaders every day.
So it's worth looking at forms of "indirect polling". What people really think, what they really care about, is more accurately reflected in their actual behavior; how they "vote with their dollar" or even how they vote by choosing their halloween costume.
It's not a case here of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, it's a case of noticing the presence of actual causes in some unusual way.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:54 AM on October 11, 2008
I love this part:
"It's no coincidence that presidential elections take place just days after Halloween, when the mask factor has its greatest impact,"
as though elections and presidencies were all just conjured up as a sort of closing ceremony to the annual pagan party.
posted by mannequito at 3:44 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
"It's no coincidence that presidential elections take place just days after Halloween, when the mask factor has its greatest impact,"
as though elections and presidencies were all just conjured up as a sort of closing ceremony to the annual pagan party.
posted by mannequito at 3:44 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, not every election on earth takes place mere days after Hallowe'en, you know. (And yes, they were all conjured up at some point in time.)
posted by mek at 3:59 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by mek at 3:59 AM on October 11, 2008
A frugal person would go with a Ralph Nader mask.
posted by Bitter soylent at 4:11 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by Bitter soylent at 4:11 AM on October 11, 2008
That is, until 2004.
That is, no longer a litmus test.
posted by thrakintosh at 4:59 AM on October 11, 2008
That is, no longer a litmus test.
posted by thrakintosh at 4:59 AM on October 11, 2008
Great link, nielm. I had no idea James Madison was such a tiny little pixie of a man.
posted by Merzbau at 5:16 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by Merzbau at 5:16 AM on October 11, 2008
no longer a litmus test
You have to cut some slack here. The original prediction was "0.5 drop means a loss for the incumbent party". In 2004 there was a drop of 0.52 and yet the incumbent won. The original prediction should have allowed 2/100 of a point.
Right now we're looking at something like a drop of 7.0. With two orders of magnitude the prediction should be even stronger.
posted by twoleftfeet at 5:25 AM on October 11, 2008
You have to cut some slack here. The original prediction was "0.5 drop means a loss for the incumbent party". In 2004 there was a drop of 0.52 and yet the incumbent won. The original prediction should have allowed 2/100 of a point.
Right now we're looking at something like a drop of 7.0. With two orders of magnitude the prediction should be even stronger.
posted by twoleftfeet at 5:25 AM on October 11, 2008
In other words,it seems that for the 21st century (that began in 2001), every time the Dow drops the incumbent party wins. Also, aren't Republican wins directly proportional to the number of Diebold voting machines in use?
posted by TedW at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by TedW at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2008
So many factors come into play that it's silly to say that we can predict the winner based on such specific figures in the Dow.
However, I think it's worth noting that the primary concern--possibly the only concern--of the so-called swing voters is which candidate equates to more money for them. The "Me" voters. They have no concerns about social issues or policies, they couldn't care less about what Russia is doing. Abortion? Whatever. Domestic wiretapping? Justice Department Scandals? What? These things don't even make the radar. They are only thinking: can we afford to remodel the kitchen in the spring? In 2004, they still imagined that rogue Iraqis were going to attack their house specifically, and this put a damper in their kitchen remodeling plans.
Now I think it has less to do with which party is incumbent and more to do with McCain's recent crackpot behavior combined with his choice of Palin as VP. She's folksy, which would have handily won the election in more prosperous times. Now, however, swing voters are thinking they might want someone in office who actually knows something about something. If McCain had chosen someone who could speak intelligently (or even pretend to speak intelligently) about the economy, things would be very different for him now. Instead, he chose to stoke the base.
The shame of it is that the swing voters don't do a lot of critical thinking, and so don't see that a healthier economy and healthier society equates to more money in their wallet. The little bit of politics that makes it into their consciousness tells them that Democrats want to tax them more, and so Republican president = more money for me.
On the subject of Amazon sales, they have posted a map of what they are calling red book sales vs blue book sales. I have often wondered how the GOP is so effective at getting this basic, erroneous message across (Republicans = more money for me) and when I saw this map I thought, well, that explains at least part of it. While left-leaning authors are writing novels and books and plays, right-leaning authors are apparently channeling all of their energy into this single message.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 7:13 AM on October 11, 2008
However, I think it's worth noting that the primary concern--possibly the only concern--of the so-called swing voters is which candidate equates to more money for them. The "Me" voters. They have no concerns about social issues or policies, they couldn't care less about what Russia is doing. Abortion? Whatever. Domestic wiretapping? Justice Department Scandals? What? These things don't even make the radar. They are only thinking: can we afford to remodel the kitchen in the spring? In 2004, they still imagined that rogue Iraqis were going to attack their house specifically, and this put a damper in their kitchen remodeling plans.
Now I think it has less to do with which party is incumbent and more to do with McCain's recent crackpot behavior combined with his choice of Palin as VP. She's folksy, which would have handily won the election in more prosperous times. Now, however, swing voters are thinking they might want someone in office who actually knows something about something. If McCain had chosen someone who could speak intelligently (or even pretend to speak intelligently) about the economy, things would be very different for him now. Instead, he chose to stoke the base.
The shame of it is that the swing voters don't do a lot of critical thinking, and so don't see that a healthier economy and healthier society equates to more money in their wallet. The little bit of politics that makes it into their consciousness tells them that Democrats want to tax them more, and so Republican president = more money for me.
On the subject of Amazon sales, they have posted a map of what they are calling red book sales vs blue book sales. I have often wondered how the GOP is so effective at getting this basic, erroneous message across (Republicans = more money for me) and when I saw this map I thought, well, that explains at least part of it. While left-leaning authors are writing novels and books and plays, right-leaning authors are apparently channeling all of their energy into this single message.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 7:13 AM on October 11, 2008
In related news, scientists have determined that the marks made on various pieces of paper across America on November 4th can be shown to accurately predict who the next President will be.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
In related news, scientists have determined that the marks made on various pieces of paper across America on November 4th can be shown to accurately predict who the next President will be.
You must remember a differen 2000 election than I do.
posted by DreamerFi at 7:29 AM on October 11, 2008 [8 favorites]
You must remember a differen 2000 election than I do.
posted by DreamerFi at 7:29 AM on October 11, 2008 [8 favorites]
grumble mutter Bush stole Ohio mutter
posted by klangklangston at 8:39 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by klangklangston at 8:39 AM on October 11, 2008
I remember seeing a story about the Halloween-mask indicator back in 2000, and have occasionally wondered these last few months how Obama masks were doing. It's funny the idiotic things you remember.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:20 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by shakespeherian at 9:20 AM on October 11, 2008
However, this year the Obama mask sales are misleading - sales are strongest in red states where he is being burned in effigy at McCain rallies.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:38 AM on October 11, 2008
posted by fleetmouse at 9:38 AM on October 11, 2008
I follow the 7-11 poll and things are looking pretty good for my guy!
posted by madamjujujive at 10:00 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by madamjujujive at 10:00 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
wow. 7-11 has found a pretty interesting way to cash in.
posted by fuzzypantalones at 10:05 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by fuzzypantalones at 10:05 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]
Obama's race is going to skew your Halloween mask predictions. As a white guy, I wouldn't wear an Obama mask. That's way too much like blackface. Obviously this wasn't a factor in previous Halloweens.
posted by ryanrs at 2:20 PM on October 11, 2008
posted by ryanrs at 2:20 PM on October 11, 2008
Obviously this wasn't a factor in previous Halloweens.
When Jesse Jackson ran the masks came pre-shaped into an "offended" expression and there were so many layers of irony most people just gave up on Halloween.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:41 PM on October 11, 2008
When Jesse Jackson ran the masks came pre-shaped into an "offended" expression and there were so many layers of irony most people just gave up on Halloween.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:41 PM on October 11, 2008
The political discussion on the Amazon masks link is really quite enlightening and disheartening.
posted by 517 at 3:15 PM on October 11, 2008
posted by 517 at 3:15 PM on October 11, 2008
I don't drink coffee. Can I get an Obama Slurpee instead?
(I'll bet the McCain Slurpee tastes like grape Flavor Aid with just a hint of almond.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:17 PM on October 11, 2008
(I'll bet the McCain Slurpee tastes like grape Flavor Aid with just a hint of almond.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:17 PM on October 11, 2008
I bet the 7-11 data turns out to be just as accurate as any other. Love it.
posted by rokusan at 9:07 PM on October 11, 2008
posted by rokusan at 9:07 PM on October 11, 2008
For all those hollering correlation is not causation, whether in Latin or not, note that the examples are claiming correlation.
Nobody is saying that Obama or McCain may win BECAUSE of coffee cups or Hallowe'en masks, only that one popularity correlates with another.
posted by rokusan at 9:09 PM on October 11, 2008
Nobody is saying that Obama or McCain may win BECAUSE of coffee cups or Hallowe'en masks, only that one popularity correlates with another.
posted by rokusan at 9:09 PM on October 11, 2008
The 7-11 data will be horribly skewed on the state level, but it might be OK if you did it county by county. I say that looking at this set of maps and thinking about where they tend to keep 7-11's.
I can't find a map of 7-11 locations nation wide, but I think it's a safe bet to say that the lion's share of 7-11's are in more urban areas, which tends to be where the democrats are.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:52 PM on October 11, 2008
I can't find a map of 7-11 locations nation wide, but I think it's a safe bet to say that the lion's share of 7-11's are in more urban areas, which tends to be where the democrats are.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:52 PM on October 11, 2008
« Older Farmer in Chief | Imagine being excited about a Paul McCartney album Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ODiV at 12:33 AM on October 11, 2008