« Abstinence pledges | Main | Africa military recruitment fact of the day »
Pr(Sarah Palin=President)>Pr(John McCain=President)?
Here's a frightening thought, today Sarah Palin may have a greater probability of becoming president than John McCain. The betting markets are currently giving McCain about a 16% chance of winning. If McCain wins then let's assume that all things considered Palin has a 40% chance of becoming president (either if McCain dies in office or as his successor). If McCain loses many people suggest Palin could be a future Republican leader so let's put her chances of becoming president in that scenario at 12%. Thus:
Pr(Sarah Palin=President) = .16*.4 + .84*.12 = 16.48 > 16% = Pr(John McCain = President).
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on October 31, 2008 at 07:42 AM | Permalink
Comments
Over at the Boettke and Prychitko blog I've argued that, should he win the election, McCain might die in office not only because of age issues, but also because terrorists have a greater incentive to consider alternative means to take him out of office. Why? So that the U.S. is stuck with a remarkably weak president -- Palin.
This might increase her probability, no?
Posted by: Dave Prychitko at Oct 31, 2008 7:53:40 AM
Think about this:
If there is a 85% chance that Mr. Belvedere will be back on TV next year, and a 90% chance that Mr. Belvedere will be the most watched show on television if this occurs, then the chances that Mr. Belvedere will be the number one show on tv in fall 2009 is greater than the chances that the pope is catholic!
Pr (Mr. B= #1 Show).85*.9 = .765 > .42 Pr(Pope = Catholic)
Science!
Posted by: josh at Oct 31, 2008 7:54:28 AM
i give palin a <1% chance of becoming president and that's being generous.
five more days and the witch is dead.
Posted by: raft at Oct 31, 2008 7:54:55 AM
Where do you have those numbers from? 40% and 12% don't seem particularly realistic numbers to me. I rather think you tried to find two nice-looking numbers to support your result.
Posted by: IWantCookieNow at Oct 31, 2008 7:55:59 AM
Depends crucially on P(Palin|McCain wins) and P(Palin), which you've more or less pulled out of thin air... I guess it's plausible though.
Posted by: david at Oct 31, 2008 7:56:40 AM
Why is this frightening? Of the four on the tickets, she's the only one with executive experience. She's run a business, been mayor of a town and governor of a state. The others have spent their lives yapping. Regardless of the shoe store receipts the MSM pulls out of the dumpsters in Alaska, Sarah Palin there's nothing to indicate that she was egregiously incompetent as a manager. If I want someone to run an organization, I'll take an experienced, competent manager over a pack of do-nothing blowhards any day of the week.
Posted by: K T Cat at Oct 31, 2008 7:59:04 AM
for the probabilistic dudes to remember
Lies Utter Lies then Statistics...
The mortgage backed securities were also rated as good investment opps by rating agencies using statistical models
the rest as we know is history
Posted by: Amritraj at Oct 31, 2008 7:59:19 AM
14 of 44 presidents were vice-presidents or 32%, bump that up a bit for McCain's age to 40%. As to the other number, it's perhaps a bit high but Palin is young.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Oct 31, 2008 8:04:59 AM
If I had my choice among the four candidates (for P and VP), based on their actual performance in office I would pick Palin and dump the rest. Based on ideology, I would pick Palin and dump the rest.
Posted by: Constant at Oct 31, 2008 8:11:32 AM
What's frightening is that you don't even seem to realize that she is more qualified than your preferred top-of-the-ticket candidate.
Posted by: holmegm at Oct 31, 2008 8:16:38 AM
People who don't make Joe the Plumbers list of "real" Americans:
Jews
Muslims
Catholics
Negros
Mexicans
Cubans
Puerto Ricans
Asians
Injuns
"Mixed" peoples
Cats
Homosexuals
Posted by: JOE THE PLUMBER at Oct 31, 2008 8:24:48 AM
I'm ok with her being president... Actually far more than ok. I rather like the idea.
Posted by: Jorge Landivar at Oct 31, 2008 8:27:22 AM
I have a hunch that a majority of the American electorate views Palin as the best of the four. Evidence? The NYT et. al. have been hammering away at her every day in numerous so-called hard news stories. Despite the polls, there is some reason to be optimistic about next Tuesday's outcome and it may lead, as some have suggested, to the first woman President. (For what it may be worth I think -and hope- that the first black President will also be a Republican.)
Posted by: at Oct 31, 2008 8:30:58 AM
I don't care what supposed "experience" she has - experience what, redistributing the wealth hijacked from oil companies socialist-style (in the parlance of Republicans?) - listening to this bobblehead talk for more than 5 minutes has convinced ~60% of the American public that this woman isn't qualified for the Executive branch:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31poll.html
Wednesday will be absolutely heavenly - I'll never have to hear her awful voice again. Unless she lands a talk show or something.
Posted by: meter at Oct 31, 2008 8:33:10 AM
Ohhh, and Tyler was doing such a good job of keeping it apolitical.
But what percentage of VPs have been president?
Politicians have nice moat as long as they keep winning. Consider: who the freak is Barack Obama? I'm not being political here. The guy was anointed before he made the 2004 convention speech. But, if he loses, he's pretty much done. Maybe he gets one more shot. Probably not.
Presidential politics is kind of like the March Madness tournament. One and done. McCain made it to the final four last go around, was kind of robbed, and his division is particularly weak this series, so he gets another shot.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 31, 2008 8:39:31 AM
"this woman isn't qualified for the Executive branch"
Ouch. Now that is harsh.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 31, 2008 8:42:01 AM
"five more days and the witch is dead"
That would be Glenda, of course. Wait, she died some time ago, it will be official in five days.
Posted by: Mike at Oct 31, 2008 8:52:12 AM
Here's a frightening thought. If John McCain has a 16% chance of
winning and Sarah Palin has a 40% chance of becoming president someday that means that we have an 84% chance of B. Hussein Obama becoming president in January. Apparently, you’ve not bothered to calculate the chances that his plagiarist running mate, who was chosen to be to a threat and who’s apparent affliction with obsessive-compulsive syndrome and that overbearing arrogance has had him muzzled for the past few weeks, might ascend to the oval office.
That means we’ll have an 84% chance of MORE massive intervention in the economy as we “share the wealth” and the left’s spin machine slides us every further down the path to socialism.
We’ll have an 84% chance of intentionally induced decline in the already abysmal level of public economic acumen with the with use of constituency building devices, including the misrepresentation of federal transfer payments to non tax-paying individuals as “tax cuts”. In short, there’s a an 84% chance of a new viral form of feudalism coming, as the political class exacts plenty from themselves, but obtains the consent a majority concerned only with obtaining a comfortable plunder.
We’ll have an 84% chance of the suppression of free speech as the left pushes for “the fairness doctrine” to be applied selectively to media they find inconvenient (talk radio) while exempting friendlier confines (the big networks, newspapers)
We’ll have an 84% chance Soviet-style elections piloted with the abrogation of secret ballots in unionization voting (all to ensure that “dues” are increased to fatten union and DNC coffers). The second amendment, forget it. Any remaining chimera of respect for the tenth will be gone.
We can be assured that property will be made less secure as the trial bar promotes new laws designed to assure a steady stream of legal fees and retainers.
The constitution, designed to enumerate the inalienable rights of citizens in a free society will be radically altered to create government obligations to select individuals and as we’ve been warned Reagan warned a government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take everything.
So we sit days away from an election that seems to overwhelmingly favor the election of a man who’s never run anything but his mouth. Community organizer, State Senator, U.S. Senator (not even for a full term), associations that inevitably seem to be what you’d expect of a graduate of Chicago machine politics. No private sector experience, no significant legislation, just a penchant voting left and a collection of vacant accolades such as “transformational”. Of course, his outlook on Iran was recently called “immature” by the French president. So much for “restoring” international respect. The question I would love to hear (but am not holding my breath for) is “where’s the gravitas”? Apparently the talking heads weren’t emailed that talking point.
So would BHO’s election result in “small steps to a much better world”? This site is devoted to economics and libertarianism, implicitly. I read it because of an interest in economics and a mild libertarian streak (although I find myself more concerned with the abrogation of my due process rights with random DUI checks than the more commonly expressed libertarian desire to legalize marijuana) BHO’s economics is Marxist and he is a statist. Looks like a giant leap into the abyss to me.
I recently read an article that indicated that our inclination to investment error is so strong that an examination of some economists’ personal investment portfolios revealed errors common among those without economics or investment education or experience. Apparently an advanced degree in economics provides little to inform political commentary against inane instincts, either.
There’s still choice on the blogosphere, Alex. Exercise a little discipline and contain the snide and snippy. Confine yourself to economics, not to politics, you don’t even have comparative advantage in that arena.
It has been said “practical men are usually slaves of some defunct economist”. If you think Obamanomics is practical, you could be a defunct economist who’s a slave to a practical man.
Posted by: Superheater at Oct 31, 2008 8:56:57 AM
The thought doesn't frighten me at all.
Posted by: thehova at Oct 31, 2008 9:01:18 AM
experience what, redistributing the wealth hijacked from oil companies socialist-style
Then she'd be perfect on the Obama ticket....
Posted by: at Oct 31, 2008 9:04:44 AM
Behavioral economics for 1000, Alex,
A: The host feels this towards Obama/Biden
B: What is the endowment effect?
Come on. Are these clowns really that much better? If experience really mattered, wouldn't we only get to select from people who have been president? At a certain point, as in when you leave the echo chamber and enter the executive, gaffes matter. Okay, so they are more likely to appoint people with letters after their names, but those appointees are really not any more likely to have a reality-based ideology.
I'm not one for self-congratulatory, aloof indecision masquerading as independent thinking, but I'm also not a big fan of self-delusion.
I'm all for punishing the Republicans, but not by poking myself in the eye. Why not just say "hey a-holes, I'm not voting for you turkeys because you've been jerks and your cynical choice for a candidate and his half-assed campaign doesn't address your credibility problem." Why pretend the alternative is that much better?
McCain really isn't Bush. He's closest to Bush on the economy and trade. Is that bad? The most important thing is to deny whoever wins any sense of mandate. So, don't encourage them.
For those who think it is actually important, but not enough to have actually thought about it (pdf)
http://www.barcharts.com/images/productdownloads/FD000020.pdf
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 31, 2008 9:05:58 AM
Superheater: could you tell us how you really feel? As the conservatives always tell liberals after their team leaves, if you don't like it then move to Canada or Cuba or really any of those "C" countries. I suggest the highly underrated (by the msm) Iraq. Really, it isn't so bad there if only the msm would tell the truth.
Posted by: liberalarts at Oct 31, 2008 9:08:33 AM
People who don't make the list of Obama's list of "real" Americans:
Jews (especially the pro-Israel, clinging to religion type)
Catholics (especially the pro-life, clinging to religion type)
Whites (even if they are his grandparents)
Hunters & Second Amendment types (clinging to their guns)
Judges (only the type he doesn't like-that don't misuse their office)
Military (depending on whether he's cutting the military or not)
Republicans
Investors (other than Buffett & Soros, if you call Soros an investor)
Plumbers
Hoteliers (who don't meet his wife's requests for Iranian Caviar)
Entrepreneurs
Flat, Fair, Reformed and Reduced Tax Advocates
Libertarians
Posted by: Joe the Real Plumber at Oct 31, 2008 9:16:57 AM
Liberal Arts:
Do you have a problem with candor?
Actually, as I recall, certain elements of the left
threatened to leave, (Streisand, et al) but never did.
Can I asume from your name you are more liberal that art and
that's why your response is disordered and illogical?
Posted by: Superheater at Oct 31, 2008 9:21:16 AM
Another MR post designed to attract lots of traffic with comments that will likely result in many unpersuasive (from all sides) flames and retorts....
Traffic down Alex?
Posted by: at Oct 31, 2008 9:34:53 AM
