"If a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a hand gun" or, "What Josiah Will Be Doing November 2nd"

Here's to that last one. If we can produce a result tomorrow, I'll almost be so relieved that I don't care who wins. I'm pretty sure the thing is going to go completely off the rails.

Another "Amen" on the last line of your post. My fear is a Bush win of less than 5% points. At best, all the idiots with the "Re-beat Bush" bumper stickers will make noise for four more years. At worst, what Ryan said -- "completely off the rails." Chaos. Riots. Etc...

Amen and Amen and Amen to the three of ya.

-p

I'm just hoping that everything in Florida stays normal so we can go back to being the ordinary state that nobody pays attention to except for Disney and hurricanes. It would be nice if we could go back to the days when we'd have an election without everybody from Fox News to Al Jazeera keeping close watch. And, hopefully we will know who won by early Wednesday morning at the latest.

Anyway, it's off to be for me, I'm off to bed, have to get up early to go wave signs with Katherine Harris, hopefully no psychos who still haven't gotten over blaming her for "stealing" the election will try to run her down again.

Florida? I'm predicting a repeat of Florida in at least three states, one of which may well be PA, where I'll be watching Comedy Central all afternoon.

Man what a day. I was going to give my students an exam tomorrow (Wed) but changed it since I figured no one can get any work done today. I was at the voting booth at 6:45 and the line was huge. From what I hear in the blogs, massive turnout all over the country. My three year old son, Miles, is hoping John Bush wins.

Anyone interested in the electronc futures markets like the Iowa one or Tradesports can check to see how everything is looking here. Tradesports has contracts on both the final outcome, as well as by state. Ohio is selling at 58 (ie, 58% chance of Bush winning the state's electoral votes) but has been incredibly volatile the last five days, moving between a wide, wide band of ten dollars from as low as 49 to as high as 59. The Bush contract also has had a lot of movement, but right now has settled at 54 (ie market sets Bush's chances of winning at 54%). So for the poker players, there are some profit opportunities in here if you think Bush is going to lose.

If that Ohio contract and that Florida contract (54) are right, then this really could go Bush's way. He needs Ohio bad. He takes Ohio and Florida, and I think that'll do it given he takes his normal states. My prediction is this: he takes Ohio, Florida and Hawaii (polls actually have Hawaii, amazingly, in a dead heat with a third registered Democrats saying they're going to vote for Bush. They've twice elected a Republican president - Nixon 72, Reagan 84, both times re-election campaigns. With the military presence there, their separation from the mainland, and maybe their history with Pearl Harbor, I'm thinking 9/11 affected them in a way maybe it did not the rest of us). And I predict Bush wins close to 280 votes and wins the whole thing. Actually, I should calculate these electoral votes more carefully, then I'll post my predictions.

Just so long as if Florida happens again, it doesn't happen in Florida. Share the wealth, spread the election chaos around.

Here's my predictions:

Most likely Bush: AL, AK, AR, GA, IN, ID, Kansas, KY, LA, MS, Montana, Nebraska, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, Wyoming = 192 electoral votes

Most likely Kerry: CA, Conn, Delaware, DC, IL, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, NY, RI, VT = 153

States in play: AZ, CO, FL, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, WA, Wisconsin

I first make these predictions about the swing states.

AZ - Bush
CO - Bush
FL - Bush
Hawaii - Kerry
Michigan - Kerry
Minnesota - Kerry
Missouri - Bush
Nevada - Bush
New Hampshire - Kerry
New Jersey - Kerry
Oregon - Kerry
Pennsylvania - Kerry
Washington - Kerry

With Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Florida still in play, that brings the two candidates to:

Kerry = 242
Bush = 227

I then make these five predictions about those five states.

1. Florida. In 2000, Florida went to Bush barely. Tradesports has the stock at 53-55. Bush was there a lot during hurricanes, Kerry was unable to get there. Four out of 6 weekend polls have Bush ahead. I give it to Bush this year. 27 electoral votes. (Bush = 254, Kerry=242)

2. Iowa. In 2000, Gore got Iowa, though I don't know how close that race was. This year, Tradesports has Iowa's stock trading at 48-50. Dead heat. I give it to Kerry. 7 electoral votes. (Bush=254, Kerry=249)

3. New Mexico. In 2000, Gore carried NM, althogh this year, I predict it goes the other way. Tradesports has had this stock moving in the upper 50s, with only a few falls which appear to be driven by speculative attacks. Despite 2 of 3 weekend polls showing Kerry to win, I'm giving it to Bush. 5 electoral votes. (Bush=259, Kerry=249).

4. Wisconsin. In 2000, Gore carried Wisconsin. Tradesports has the stock trading in the low 40s. Out of 4 weekend polls, 2 show Bush, 2 show Kerry. I give it to Kerry. 10 electoral votes (Bush=259, Kerry=259).

5. Ohio. The whole race rests on the back of Ohio. There are 21 electoral votes in Ohio. In 2000, Bush won. Ohio has had relatively high unemployment (compared to the entire US) over the last four years. The statewide average unemployment rate was 4.2% in 2001, 5.7% in 2002, and 6.1% in 2003. Currently, the September 2004 unemployment rate in Ohio is 6.0%. It's jumped around that number throughout 2004, never falling below 6%, though, it looks like. The current unemployment rate is 5.4%. Then again, it has been falling over the year, and 175,000 jobs were created in October according to word from the Labor dept. Maybe things are getting better in such a way that Ohioans sense it, and to the degree that local economic conditions is a factor in their voting sentiments, it may be that the gradual trend out of this recession is easing the pain somewhat there.

Tradesports, furthermore, has the Ohio contract moving in a band between 49-59. I believe that speculative attacks drove the price down to 49, though. I spoke with someone who has access to more of the detailed data at Tradesports, and apparently, the New Mexico, Ohio and overall-Bush contracts were hit by the same person moving massive volumes of contracts that drove the price briefly down to 49 last week. They've all since rebounded. Ohio fell again yesterday but bounced back, making me believe that someone is shorting Bush stock, temporarily driving the prices down, and traders are purchasing them back driving the price back up. The accurate band appears to be in the mid-to-upper 50s. So, given that Bush won it in 2000, and given the longrun prediction by the futures markets of it to go to Bush, I give Bush Ohio. 20 electoral votes. (Bush=279, Kerry=259)

Bush wins with 279 electoral votes to Kerry's 259. Bush carries New Mexico, Florida and Ohio.

Josiah,

Two points on the "whiny" 20 somethings:

1) Wisdom comes from experience, not birthdays. The only way to gain said experience is to go out and make a fuss.

2) Said age group is the one we ask to go fight our wars. We expect them to change the world with tanks and f16s, they damn better have the right to try and change it with posters and rallies, no matter how misguided.

luv ya

sorry for the twofer. You can't get too much of a good thing.

Wisdom, as the Bible teaches, comes from fearing/reverence for the God of creation and redemption, not from experience. In this case, judging by the typical (over generalization) foolishness of the 20 somethings, we're in a heap of trouble. When I was 19 I was in the jungles of Vietnam carrying an M-16. What did experience teach me? Nada mucho! just how to duck real quick and shoot straight. I was still too stupid to vote for another 5 years!

Hello JQ's dad,
We've never met, but it's nice to make your accquaintance.

My question is, then, what do we do? One of the implications in your response is that those who do not fear/reverence God lack wisdom. (It's in the Bible, so I can't argue with that, although I think common grace comes into play in interpreting that passage.) So, in an ideal society, would Christians (as the sole posessors of true wisdom) vote? Or should we compromise and allow the sufficiently intelligent?

I'm not saying that wisdom, perception, intelligence are not important. But I am saying that setting up an intelligence criteria as a voting prerequisite seems to lead to a type of "intellectual darwinism."

But what do I know? I'm just a 20something who has a hard time balancing his checkbook.

Paul,

Couple points:

The assertion that all wisdom ultimately comes from a fear/reverance for God doesn't preclude that the non-believer cannot have wisdom. Its not a salvific issue. The issue at hand isn't an epistemic one, I don't think. I'm scared to march down that path in this discussion, since it wasn't my point, and the conclusions derived (Which we'd both agree upon) wouldn't I don't think falsify my initial assertion: that I'm tired & a bit annoyed (perhaps wrongly) at the volume of immature teenagers and twentysomethings ranting about this election.

Next: even though we ask 18 year old to defend our country, that doesn't imply they're mature. Does it mean they should be able to vote? Of course. There are 50 year olds who are more immature than some 18 year olds I know. But again, my initial assertion wasn't that they shouldn't be able to vote, not at all.

Further: they do have the right to say whatever they want and to try to change the world, but again, it doesn't mean they aren't uninformed, inexperienced, and immature.

But: I would agree that there is a virtue to getting out there and "living" life and gaining experience and maturity. You gotta get in the ring, so to speak. But I think there's a balance. One can get in the ring without being a prick about it. At least I hope...I know I haven't pulled it off yet. Mebbe eventually.

So: my points weren't arguments, but expressions of my feelings concerning this election chaos.

And one more tangential point Paul: while on one hand we ask our teenagers to go out and wield and M-16 to, um "change the world" (though I'd disagree with that choice of words), its the officers, the old ones who actually LEAD said 18 year olds.

To quote my brother in law, an officer in the Marine Corps, "the most dangerous weapon in the US arsenal is an 18 year old with an M-16 who's trained to use it."

Which is why, 99.9999% of the time said 18 year olds dont' make the decisions about where and when to use their M-16's.

Josiah,

I don't mean to make a big deal out of nothing. And I sympathize with the "not being a prick about it" point; every day I have to pass by Larouche followers singing badly and handing out books with titles like "Spawn of Satan."

However, from my perspective, (as an aspiring teacher), I think that the young and immature who are going to gain by getting out in the ring are naturally going to be rough around the edges. And I'd rather they get out there and do it then sit at home, and I don't think we should shoot them down simply because they don't really know what they're talking about. Again, not to be a political relativist. But we tell people to get off the couch and then when they do, we accuse them of being loud and belligerent.

Which they may be. But I for one would rather see misguided assholes waving signs then lazy morons playing videogames. (Apologies to videogame lovers)

I do think we could make an epistemic issue out of this if we wanted to . . . maybe for another place/time.

My point was that they are the instruments of change, even though they may not be the ones wielding that instrument. Sure, they aren't in charge, but they are asked to die. And if we are going to ask them to die, at the command of someone else, shouldn't we allow their voices at SOME point in the decision-making process, (ie, elections)?

Of course, this is not worth discussing if you have no problem saying "Quiet, youngster, you don't know what you're talking about. Just be ready to die when us old people stop talking."

Sorry, now I'm being the prick.

(I keep getting in comment traffic jams.)

Whew. Ya, I definately feelya and agree that its better that they be doing something than sitting on their butts. That I agree with wholeheartedly.

And I also wouldn't assert that they don't have a voice in the electoral process, of course not, see first amendment (and above).

I suppose its an issue of tone. There's been a remarkable lack of sane discourse in this election (like most of the past), and its most definately not limited to the young. Most "Rock the Voters" though, as largely young folks engaged in less-than-sane discouse come of as whiney kids, as I mentioned in my initial post.

Now alot might be said for adults who engage in similar behavior, and we'd probably characterize them and sounding like whiney kids. Our referent for whiney kids? Actual whiney kids like the Rock the Voters!

But anyways, not sure we're disagreeing anymore.

Yeah, I never really doubted that we would agree once we had hammered it out. I guess I like pulling out the possible implications and assumptions behind even our passing statements (I've got them, you've got them, you know what I'm talking about).

Here's the funny thing: the discourse in this election has really driven me crazy as well, although I turn my wrath less toward the young and more toward those whom I feel should know better. My frustration has caused me to look again at freedom of speech, "democracy," etc. and recognize the value in such structures, even if the manifestations of those structures are really hard to face.

In simpler terms, I've learned to see dissonant voices (even rude and ignorant dissonant voices) as one of the messy consequences of a good thing, not a bad thing in and of itself.

That all might have sounded confusing, but I gotta run. Talk to ya later.

Halo 2 comes out in 7 days. That's just one week, folks.

Except for Iowa, and maybe Wisconsin which is still within striking distance, my predictions were dead on. Bush will win with roughly 280+ instead of the 279 I predicted. The futures markets were unbelievably accurate months out from election night - even Iowa had been trading at roughly 48-50, well within the possibilityof going towards Bush..

I think I'll be looking to scott in 2008 for presidential predictions, instead of waiting till 2am for CBS/NBC to make their final predictions. Good job scott!

I'll tell you the thing that really killed me, though. At roughly 4:00 yesterday, all the bush stocks plummeted in response to the exit polls showing kerry ahead. Bush stock fell to $25 from $57, where it had been for basically months. I tried to buy as much as I could afford, because I felt so sure it would rise back up to at least $50, then I'd resell (I figured Bush had far more than a 25% chance of winning, which is what the $25 price means). But I couldn't remember my stupid Tradesports password, and thus couldn't buy the stock, and thus sat helplessly as within a few hours, it was back up to $57, then pushed to $75, then matured at $100. Could've quadrupled your money yesterday easily.

scott - if i remember correctly you are the resident economist in this neighborhood - what do you think of this article http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/business/04scene.html

Juan - thanks for posting this. I'm familiar with the workhorse model Glazer is using. It's based an old model called "Hotelling's linear city" which had two hot dog venders competing for customers on the Atlantic City boardwalk. In his model, consumers paid a positive, linear marginal cost for each unit of distance traveled, and the result was that the two vendors should locate at 1/4 and 3/4. This would minimize the total costs consumers traveled and they would split the market. The first hot dog vendor (at 1/4) would get everyone from 0 to 1/4, and get everyone from 1/4 to 1/2, while vendor two (at 3/4) would get everyone from 1/2 to 3/4 and everyone from 3/4 to 1. But, in Hotelling's model, because of the strategic choices involved between the two vendors, they tended to move towards the middle - moving right of 1/4 allowed you to capture a few more of vendor 2's customers. Moving to the left of 3/4 did the same to vendor 1. Until finally, they moved directly to the middle, at 1/2, pretty much on top of one another, so that vendor 1 got everyone to his left and vendor 2 got everyone to the right.

This later was picked up in political science and early voting models called "the median voter theorem" which said basically the same thing. Assuming constant linear costs of "traveling" (here, you have to think of some ideological analogy to "traveling" - the amount of ideological distance you or I have to travel to support our candidate, etc.), you would see the two party candidates (appropriately termed "left" and "right") generally converge at the middle, thus capturing everyone to the left of the Dem and the Rep picking up everyone to their right. Because general elections move in two stages (primaries and general election), you tended to see an earlier "median voter" result in the primary. So, for instance, Bush goes to Bob Jones University because of the hard right constituency and McCain calls them all a bunch of fascist jihadists. Bush gets the Republican nomination, then basically moves to the center (the new median) in the general election. With kerry, you saw the same thing - he's antiwar candidate in the primaries, the war candidate in the general election.

But, I was thinking that maybe the reason you don't see total convergence was because the ideological distance traveled for your edges is not linear, costant marginal cost. If you abandon abortion as a cause, then leftists will leave the party or just not vote. Likewise, the evangelical base will leave if you either leave abortion or move too far from "small government" ideas. Because in teh Hotelling model, if you relax the assumption of constant linear costs, you actually do not get the median voter theorem - you get, weirdly, sellers occupying the extremes (0 and 1). So, I figured probably, there is some nonlinearity along ideological dimensions which means you have to on some dimensions in which those nonlinearities are more pronounced occupy the extreme edges, and then on other policies, there's movement to the center. But I'd not seen Glaser's model on this, which I've no doubt is very insightful and probably correct (he strikes me as being a genius in things I've read elsewhere). So I'll check it out.