Predictions Derby

About

February 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Predictions Derby – 12feb15

12 February 2015

George Rebane

All evolution chases environment.

Some more news has come in the interval that warrants updating the probabilities that members of our Repub and Dem shortlists will declare their 2016 candidacies. The updated histograms reflect the rationale given below. (Please review tutorial here, and then participate with your own numbers which I’ll incorporate into the graphs. Thanks.)

Hillary Clinton – she has been reported to be mismanaging her campaign and staff, and has suffered some losses. Although she doesn’t always know what she wants or is needed, the lady does have a temper. I assess that the probability of this evidence given that she will declare or P(E|H) = 0.80 (since she is already so disposed), and the probability of this evidence given that she will bow out or P(E|-H) = 0.95 (having these histrionics has a higher chance of blowing her campaign machinery to an extent where she will take a pass). Therefore L = 0.8/0.95 = 0.84, meaning her probability of declaring has gone down.

Democrat Other – given that we have only one real contender, and no convincing moves by Warren or Biden (the dufus with no chance), I ascribe that it is twice as likely as not that some other Democrat will declare their candidacy before the Dem convention, therefore L = 2.

Scott Walker – he opened his Iowa campaign office. That takes money and commitment to people, which he would not do unless he had a good idea that he would run. Therefore P(E|H) = 0.90, and P(E|-H) = 0.10, giving L = 0.9/0.1 = 9.

Jeb Bush – has begun distancing himself from Common Core the previous embrace of which started causing him a lot of grief with most conservatives. Therefore P(E|H) = 0.60, and P(E|-H) = 0.33, giving L = 0.60/0.33 = 1.82.

Marco Rubio – has started hiring members of Romney’s former re-election team, and dialing for dollars from Romney’s cadre of funders. Therefore P(E|H) = 0.90, and P(E|-H) = 0.15, giving L = 0.90/0.15 = 6.

Republican Other – The Repub field is already very crowded. Since no one off the list of named contenders has made a significant peep, and all the named continue to make noises, I assess that it’s two to one against any other Republican rising to prominence as a contender. Therefor L = ½ = 0.5.

Posted in Current Affairs, Our Country

70 responses to “Predictions Derby – 12feb15”

George Rebane

15 February 2015

PaulE 517pm – Paul, you’re dodging my question. Why do you think everyone in the world is going through the very same exercise that RR is conducting, only not so rigorously?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2015

Russ
Scott in an earlier post recommended using this criteria to determine the veracity of a story. Makes sense to me. The Washington Post is not considered to be a very credible source, much like the National Inquirer so that kind of test would be useful.
“Everyone should always filter everything they hear and read through a process of:
1 Common sense – is what is being reported even possible?
2 Double check with other sources.
3 Is there a contrary story or another side of the story with facts.
4 If a speech or article is quoted, try to read the full text.
5 Is audio or video available? “

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

15 February 2015

Paul – How would your method of determining front-runners have worked when Obama first ran for pres? I don’t remember him having any ‘big’ money when he started. At least that we knew of. I have a feeling there was a lot going on behind the scenes before he threw his hat in that was kept very quiet.
Directed to another post: Scott Walker not having a college degree – what does that have to do with being pres?
I’ve had enough of college educated idiots as president.
Joe Biden running for pres? You must be joking. The only reason he’s a heart beat away from being president now is that he is Obama’s big insurance policy. The man is a glad-handing moron and he has family problems (especially the son). The probability of him seriously making a run is south of zero.

LikeLike
George Rebane

15 February 2015

ScottO 604pm – JoeB is such a joke that I have never followed his off stage life. But if he has terminal family problems as a candidate, then we should modify his prob of declaring candidacy. What’re your estimates for P(E|H) and P(E|-H) where E is your evidence of family problems, and H is that he will declare candidacy.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

15 February 2015

His son is currently the biggest problem.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-joe-bidens-cocaine-using-navy-busted-son-now-working-huge-ukraine-company/#I3xJBh6iJB0eryKQ.97
I just have to laugh at Dems that thought Palin was not Veep material and then turn around and vote for Obama/Biden.
Dumb and Dumber doesn’t even begin to describe those two. More like Idiot Lying Pawn and Imbecile Court Jester.
And that speaks volumes about the fine electorate our govt run education system has produced.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

15 February 2015

Paul@05:34PM
Common sense: I think that former President Clinton womanizing is part his history and the court records.
Second Source: Vanity Fair The Comeback Id in 2008. Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.
Second Source: What would you call the fight logs with Clinton listed as a passenger with others in the story a reliable source?
A Contrary Side of the Story: Do you have one?
Read the Full Text: Usually a good idea.
No Audio or Video: Not right time yet.

LikeLike
George Rebane

15 February 2015

RussS 919pm – I would say that such info about Sweet Willie would sway Hillary if it were broadcast nationally. Have any of the big media outlets run with this story yet? I haven’t heard a peep.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2015

Russ
George
Everyone in the world going through that exercise is normal in any election and is useful for talk shows and television blather as well as functioning to fill a little ink in printed media. I personally don’t think it’s of major importance compared to following the money-special interest trails. It’s fun to talk about though.
Russ, anything is possible when it comes to Slick Willie but as of now it’s confined to tabloids. I don’t know much about the Vanity Fair article you refer to. That stuff is pretty dated as we speak so I’m inclined to think if it had legs it would have jumped out by now. I would think the big bucks behind Hillary would have vetted that by this date. This stuff was alleged to have happened with Slick Willie (the flight logs) were 13 years ago according to the link you provided me that refers to none other than the National Enquirer for their source
“The National Enquirer reports flight logs reveal Epstein — before he was arrested and jailed for soliciting teenage masseuses — picked up the former president at a Japanese naval airport and flew with him to Brunei on May 25, 2002.”
http://pagesix.com/2015/02/04/bill-clintons-shady-friendships-outed-by-tabloids/
Scott
You have to remember that in ’08 the original front runners were John Edwards and Hillary. There has always been a strong anti Clinton faction competing for the big special interest bucks so when John Edwards was busted for bonking his videographer while his wife was in the hospital fighting cancer they shifted to Obama and supported his campaign.
I don’t expect any bombshells coming out about Hillary because she will be the hedge bet for the bucksters to insure the Repubs don’t nominate any anti business Tea Party or fringe Republicans such as Cruz, Paul, or possibly Rubio they cannot live with. It’s the perfect hedge bet because remember they don’t care what “party” someone is in they only care if they can control them with money. They know for sure about Bush lll or Clinton 2 because they’ve been there and done that.
I am far more cynical than any of you who actually seem to think it makes a difference who is elected.

LikeLike
George Rebane

16 February 2015

PaulE 1128pm – Boy, it sure made a difference that Johnson, Reagan, and Obama were elected. So count me belonging to that more naïve and less cynical camp.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

16 February 2015

“….any anti business Tea Party or fringe Republicans…”
Please – not anti business. Not sure where that idea comes from.
You should say anti fascist or anti govt/business collusion.
It certainly does make a huge difference who is elected pres. Maybe you mean it doesn’t make any difference between who “big money’ (whatever that is?) wants to be elected. Paul is certainly fringe with honest but nationally unelectable ideas. Cruz and Rubio are very much mainstream. Leave it to the left wing press and news media to display them to the low info voters as ‘fringe’. These days, any one running for office that dares to enforce the law is depicted as a lunatic.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

16 February 2015

Scott
You must have missed out on the confab that the Chamber of Commerce called when Cruz was strutting his stuff a few months ago in which they made it clear that no money would be coming from them if Cruz were to get the nomination. This was triggered during the near government shutdown a couple of years ago.
“The recent fiscal crisis has opened a major rift between the tea party wing of the Republican Party and business groups that traditionally have backed Republicans, with many business leaders now vowing to get involved more in GOP primaries to try to counter insurgent candidates.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/28/business-groups-to-take-stand-against-tea-party-ca/#ixzz3RvlTw3m8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

LikeLike
Brad C.

16 February 2015

Getting your party’s candidate in office is paramount.
The money will flow to those candidates whom supporters think could win against the opposing party, and who also would be beholden to supporter’s special-interest wishes.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

16 February 2015

Didn’t miss that, Paul. What you are missing is that the National Chamber of Commerce represents the average business owner like the National Chiefs of Police represent the cops, or the labor unions claiming to represent the workers. TP and conservatives are the most pro-business groups out there. Just not your crony capitalist type of business.
“Near govt shut down” – you do buy into what ever the news media tells you, Paul. The feds were up and running just fine. You apparently missed that the feds were out in force shutting off public (and private) areas to tax paying citizens. The public needed to be “punished” and the Rs needed to be blamed. All kabuki theater for the low info crowd.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

16 February 2015

Scott
I don’t think you can ignore the fact that big business prefers safe middle of the road politicians they can control with the dollar. that is pretty much established fact and is the reason they will support Bush, Christie or Romney over more conservative types because they do not like to shake things up and would rather exert quiet control by having their hands on the money spigot. I know I’m beating a drum here but the Trans Pacific Partnership is a huge deal and they won’t support anyone who does not buy into its secret dealings which should be the devil incarnate to any Tea Party supporter. Romney was in as is Clinton, Obama and almost surely Bush because it’s in the family tradition to support nternational trade deals such as NAFTA, WTO and the TPP.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

16 February 2015

“I don’t think you can ignore the fact that big business prefers safe middle of the road politicians…”
You originally just said ‘business’ – now you’ve changed that to ‘big business’. We’re talking past each other, Paul. Please note that words mean things. Not trying to play gotcha, but it’s hard to discuss topics when you dodge and weave all over the place.
Even ‘big business’ doesn’t even accurately describe the difference I’m trying to explain. The size of the business really doesn’t matter as much as how entwined the business is with govt. I think it’s safe to say that the bigger the business is, the more they tend to want stability and lots and lots of govt regulation. But there are plenty of big companies that are stridently libertarian and plenty of small companies that exist only to service govt contracts or to serve private companies that only need their services to full fill needless govt regs.
And then there are the large banks and a lot of Wall Street. They looooove big govt and lots of regulation. Also they love the Fed right now. Big time. Obama and his hench-woman, Yellen are systematically destroying the middle class. Yellen even admitted her policies would hurt the savers in the middle class. The worst part of it is the ever-growing illusion that the middle class’s pensions are doing great with the growing bubble in the stock market. No doubt there is a lot of money to be made in the market right now for the players, but for the pensions it will be worse than ’08. Big govt always leads to an ever-widening gap between the wealthy and the middle class. The poor don’t have and never will have anything no matter what the govt does, so I don’t include them in any talk about a wealth gap.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

16 February 2015

Scott
I don’t think we have a fundamental disagreement on this. Thanks for the respectful discussion.

LikeLike
drivebyposter

16 February 2015

“I don’t think you can ignore the fact that big business prefers safe middle of the road politicians they can control with the dollar. that is pretty much established fact and is the reason they will support Bush, Christie or Romney over more conservative types”
No doubt, but keep in mind that an awful lot (most perhaps?) of what drives primary elections to the middle is the fact that states that are out of play in the Presidential general election have a lot of say in the primaries. Most California Republicans are a far cry from a rancher in Utah.
Really, it’s kind of a peculiar system. There’s a lot to be said for the concept of the head of the ruling party or coalition running the executive branch of a country. They can get booted in an instant and there’s typically a lot more in the way of resume building before you get the gig. Political flyweights like Bush II or Obama are a kind of scary result of marketing to the mob.

LikeLike
George Rebane

16 February 2015

re ScottO’s 1205pm – “Big govt always leads to an ever-widening gap between the wealthy and the middle class. The poor don’t have and never will have anything no matter what the govt does, so I don’t include them in any talk about a wealth gap.”
That has been a strong tenet of the RR socio-political view. The bigger government gets, the bigger becomes the inequality between the haves and have nots (see also Gini Index), and conversely, the smaller becomes the per capita GDP. Progressives like to contradict that by pointing to Red China, but that’s a no brainer because they had a big hole to climb out of and they did it by liberalization and permitting more local control.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

16 February 2015

drivebyposter is partly correct about why primaries typically drive the politics to the middle. Remember also that both major parties love to brow beat the electorate about how any candidate that is perceived to be too much to the left or right (according to the establishment) will ultimately fail in the national election. Hence, we have Obama running as anti-gay marriage and claiming to sit at the feet of R Lugar for foreign policy wisdom.
With the electoral college being gutted, voters such as California Rs can only make a difference in the primaries. In the national election for pres anyone in California not voting for the Dem candidate may as well just throw their vote in the waste paper basket. The Dem party wrote the book on how to disenfranchise voters.

LikeLike
Russ

16 February 2015

I get an ad for one of these in my mail box almost everyday now. They seem to be growing in popularity.
http://patriotdepot.com/just-say-no-to-monica-lewinskys-boyfriends-wife-t-shirt/?

LikeLike