Why I am a Bad Person

Well, there are many reasons, actually. But high on the list is probably how easily I am amused, particularly when it comes to minor human deformities. So I'm sitting here in Panera, just chilling out. I theory, I should be punching out my dissertation proposal, but instead, I'm just zoning out, doing a crossword, and people-watching. So, in walk a couple girls, who sit down. I notice that one of them is sort of cute. So I pay a little more attention. And then I see her take out not one, but two small, clear mouthpieces. After a few seconds, I realize that they're actually the InvisAlign braces, which make things funnier. And then I realize that this girl has a lazy right eye. She looks one way, and a split-second later the right eye catches up. She looks the other way, and a split-second later the right eye catches up. At this point, I'm chuckling out loud. But I have a computer and a newspaper in front of me so it doesn't appear that I'm laughing at anyone. Then I imagined trying to have a conversation with this person. And it was over. I'm just laughing out loud like a lunatic in the middle of Panera. Little quirks like this just amuse me thoroughly. It's like when my little bro was sitting behind OD while we were driving out to Cooperstown back in NY, and happened to notice that OD's ears were just a bit uneven. Noticing that amused me to no end, much to OD's chagrin. The little things that people try to hide are horribly intriguing to me.

Of course, I was planning on writing about a couple things. The first is a brief Super Bowl review. Long story short, Brady played so-so until the 4th quarter, when he looked pretty good. New England made some tactical errors, which is sort of stunning for a Belichick led team. And Eli got lucky. He had 1 unlucky pick, 1 legit pick. There were 5 other times after he let go of the ball when I said out loud that a pick was coming. Watching Eli was like watching Brett Favre a couple weeks ago against the Giants. It looked like Eli was just trying to throw the game away. But he got bailed out by the underrated Giants receiving corps. I'm sad that I didn't get to see history, but I am highly amused that Eli won a championship before Phillip Rivers (who I still think looks like Ryan Leaf when he's got his helmet off). Brady will be back, and when he finally wins #4 (and maybe 5 and 6), he'll put himself on top of the QB Mt. Rushmore. As it stands, I still have him behind Joe Montana, and right with Aikman and Elway. I fully expect that to change in the next few years.

From Super Sunday to Super Tuesday, it's interesting to see how Obama has closed the gap. Obama will probably slaughter whoever the GOP puts up in November, but Hillary is defeatable. Lots of folks that are slightly right of center will gravitate toward Obama, but will be vehemently against Hillary (see how bad she does in the Midwest). Let's face it. California, NY, and NJ are probably going Democrat in November, regardless. However, in swing states like Ohio, Hillary may not play as well, particularly if a moderate GOP candidate like McCain emerges, which looks likely. Because Romney is done. He's the choice that goes farthest to the right in this election (save Ron Paul, who's still irrelevant), whereas Huckabee's morals run right, but his policies seem slightly left of center, actually. And McCain is similar.

So what does this mean?

If you think back to the Hoteling model, if you believe that you can put candidates on a single continuum, voters will go for whoever they believe is closest to them in terms of this left-right distinction, so the candidate that is the first to hit the center of the voting population wins. I don't think that it's quite that simple, but you can quick look at it. First, if you scale everything from -1 to 1, it simplifies things. So, let's say that me, Stalin and Hitler are on the extreme right, and Marx is on the extreme left. This puts Ron Paul at about .95, Romney at about .9, and James Dobson at 1.3 (just kidding, if you cap things off at 1, then you probably put him at .9). The more moderate Huckabee places right around .4, since his morality is close to the far right, but his policy is almost left-center. And McCain is probably a .25, since he runs a bit more left than Huckabee. I'd guess that perceptions of Obama have him at -0.15 or so, and Hillary places at about -0.5. It appears that McCain will only get people within .65 to even consider him, so he loses the far right. Hillary has a similar problem, in that only those within .5 will consider her (I can't see Republicans voting for her, no matter how moderate they are, unless Hillary were to run against Hugo Chavez). Obama may not have as big of a restriction as McCain,

Let's start with Obama v. McCain. Obama takes all of the left, and jostles with McCain for the middle. The problem for McCain is that the folks at the far right may just not bother to vote at all, if you buy into James Dobson. This is makes the Dobson-ites useless in this election, and probably kills McCain. Obama wins this race 80 out of 100 times, I'd say. Oddly enough, Huckabee may have a better chance against Obama, because he (albeit reluctantly) wins the vote of the far right, and is moderate enough that he can spin his position to be a little more centrist. But Obama still wins something like 70% of the time.

Moving on to Hillary v. McCain, you see that Hillary takes the extreme left, but McCain carves into the moderate-left. If you believe Dobson, then you still have a gap on the right for McCain. But McCain competes enough for the left-center to make things interesting. I'd say that Hillary wins 55% of the time against McCain. Hillary likely mops up Huckabee, simply because votes are probably along party lines. More Democrats have been voting in the primaries than Republicans. This would be something like 80% for Hillary.

So what does this mean right now? Let's say that Obama and Hillary are 50-50. And McCain is 90-10 over Huckabee. This suggests that we'll see Obama v. McCain 45% of the time, Obama v. Huckabee 5% of the time, Hillary v. McCain 45% of the time, and Hillary v. Huckabee 5% of the time. Put in the victory numbers, and you start to see some overall chances for each candidate:

Obama looks to be the front runner, not because he's ahead of Hillary, but because he's so dominant over the GOP candidates. My little simulation puts him at 39.5% to be the next POTUS. Right after him comes McCain at 29.25%. This is mainly because Hillary has a good chance to beat Obama, which is good for McCain. In 3rd, is Hillary at 28.75%. She's neck and neck with Obama, but more vulnerable to the GOP candidate in November. Of course, my guy Huckabee is coming in at only 2.5%. Really, you have to say that Romney has about the same chance as Huckabee right now, so it's more like 1.25% each for both Huckabee and Romney.

You can certainly build more complex models, particularly if you go into 2D or 3D spaces, but instinctively, this seems to be about right. You can quantify why the percentages are the way they are a little more, and get a more refined view, as well. But if you assume that the victory percentages are accurate, then this is how the numbers work out.

And once again, I drone on longer than I was planning. I think that I had other stuff to vent on, but I've forgotten it all. But I'll leave you with this. The second-most recent example of how I am a bad person is that despite being curious, and even analytical about the election, I didn't bother voting. Which makes me awesome.

-Chairman