fcheblog »

Trackback link:

Personally I would guess.

Real funding for Stem Cell Research
Obama: 95%
McCain: 40%

Climate Change Policy
Obama: 60%
McCain: 40%

Effective Climate Change Policy
Obama: 25%
McCain: 35%

War With a New country
Obama: 20%
McCain: 50%

Creationism/ID turns up in classrooms
Obama: 5%
McCain: 20%

Science Funding goes up
Obama: 90%
McCain: 60%

War on science lessens (ok, hard to quantify)
Obama: 80%
McCain: 40%

Islamic Terrorist attack on US soil
Obama: 20%
McCain: 30%

Drops dead leaving a crazy lady in charge
Obama: 0.5%
McCain: 20%

Other issues are too tricky/time consuming to try quantifying right now.
aaron (URL) - 2008-10-31 17:03

That’s not bad, Aaron, but those percentages leave plenty of “never mind” cushion. Is there anything actually answerable with a “yes or no” that you (a fellow non-US-voter) might imagine using as a test?
Frank - 2008-10-31 19:00

I’m hesitant about saying yes/no since it’s fundamentally a bayesian question and getting probabilities from someone you can get a better idea of their predictive ability.

I suppose I could just say anything 95%+ is a yes and likewise for no. So Obama would mean no ID in science class (well not from the federal level, I don’t know how much power the states have), as well more science funding (incl. stem cells). The war on science ending (at the administrative level) I’m also pushing up to 95% and a “yes” as well (ok, my percentages have big error margins ;).

As for McCain I have a lot of trouble putting anything at the >95% or <5% range. Even eliminating the 20% Palin presidency scenario he’s really changed from a moderate secular conservative to someone more conservative and comfortable with the religious right, I don’t know which persona reflects his actual beliefs or what policies he’d enact as president. I figure a 30% possibility the conversion is genuine but 60% that he’ll rule according to the more conservative persona if elected.

As to a +50% approval rating in 3 years in I’d say 75% for Obama, I think he’s good enough a speaker to keep that up, his policies will work out well, and the main criticisms of him (ie socialist & terrorist ties) don’t actually show up in his policies or speeches and thus would diminish. The only big problem I could see is a blow up when he tries to leave Iraq, so much of the stability there is dependent upon ndividuals like Al-Sadr and how they integrate the Awakening movements I have no idea what will happen.
Aaron - 2008-11-04 15:29

Aaron, then it looks like you have only a few firm expectations for a B.H.O. presidential win:

• approval ratings, as a function of his eloquence (?!) and suppressing his socialist/terrorist influences


• federally funded embryonic stem cell research (as opposed to “war on science”?!)

• no new war

I guess I could add we’ll be gone from Iraq in 4 years (likely, though not as certain with McCain). But I think there’s another issue in making predictions with 95% confidence in that reality doesn’t occur with 95% confidence. Supplying a large proportion of power with wind becomes rational if and only if the technology makes it feasible. Nuclear is the current best option for clean energy, but I won’t say a good leader will build new plants with 95% confidence since a better alternative may develop. No one could have predicted 9/11 and thus their predictions for the Bush presidency would have been completely off (a similar terrorist attack could derail any Iraq disengagement as well, or spark war with Iran).

I think the important thing is their judgment, and on a fairly consistent basis Obama seems to adopt the same positions that I would, that gives me confidence that he would continue to adopt similar positions as president. Unfortunately this quality is somewhat harder to quantify, and easily becomes perverted to “vote for guy I want to have a beer with” but it’s the basis of representational democracy.
aaron (Email) (URL) - 2008-11-04 17:02

Many of those predictions aren’t looking too good just now.
Frank - 2011-03-20 13:46

Real funding for Stem Cell Research:

I think this is a hit, though I recall a lawsuit here based on an old law may be derailing it.

Climate Change Policy:

I’d call this a miss, though they did try but didn’t have sufficient votes.

Effective Climate Change Policy:

A hit.

War With a New country:

A hit in that he made it 3 years. As for whether Libya will become a war we’ll know in a month.

Creationism/ID turns up in classrooms:

I’d still call it a hit (though they’re trying to change that), though I’ll also say it was a bad prediction as I didn’t realize how much of Education was state controlled.

Science Funding goes up:

I think this was a hit though it may change now.

War on science lessens (ok, hard to quantify):

I’d call this a hit, not as good as I’d like but it’s better.

Islamic Terrorist attack on US soil:

I’d call this a hit. Ft Hood might be an exception though I’d argue a) terrorism generally means attacks on civilians, not military facilities, and b) looks more like a lone nutjob than a terrorist attack.

Drops dead leaving a crazy lady in charge:

Hit

I’d say my main miss is on the approval rating, though I attribute most of this as to not appreciating just how much Fox News would promote disinformation.
aaron (Email) - 2011-03-20 15:12

Hey, thanks for being a good sport!

Regarding the details, “effective climate change policy” is certainly a miss if “climate change policy” is.
“war with a new country” is a clear miss as of a few days ago. The question is whether it can be a quick enough one so as to not matter.
“islamic terrorist”, you’re forgetting the underpants guy. And the Times Square guy. miss.

Oh well, that is the risk of making forecasts. They’re all so darned uncertain.
Frank - 2011-03-20 15:35

I should of been more clear,

my prediction was
“Effective Climate Change Policy
Obama: 25%
McCain: 35%”

Since it didn’t happen and I didn’t expect it too I call that a hit (the hits aren’t necessarily good for Obama, they just mean the prediction came through).

For the war I misread and thought the window was for within the first three years. In that case it’s looking more like a miss though I might claim a hit if it doesn’t escalate to a ground invasion.

As for the underpants guy, that was an attempted attack (of which there have been many) but not a successful attack. Perhaps we have a different definition of attack but I was relying on terrorist stupidity when I made the prediction.
aaron (Email) - 2011-03-20 15:47