Predictions

Random Thoughts

by

The big war (not the Iraq campaign) isn’t over. We have continuing problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we’ve suppressed our enemies for a while in most places. However, eventually we are going to have to fight large battles again, because our enemies will eventually attack us in a way that we can’t ignore. I suspect that we are now in a situation like that of Israel, which has never been allowed or willing to defeat its enemies decisively and so has to fight a major campaign every decade or so. We will probably have to keep fighting until we develop the political will to win decisively. This is going to be true no matter who is President or which party is in charge in Washington.

One counterexample to my speculations is Korea, where we have been in a mostly peaceful stalemate for more than fifty years. And there are always conflicts simmering around the world that rarely do us harm. But North Korea is an isolated regime that seems likely to fall apart eventually. Radical Islam is a much more distributed, dynamic, ambitious and aggressive enemy that does not seem likely to stop fighting unless it is defeated. Remember the anecdotes that suggest that the Syrians and Iranian mullahs and Hamas want Obama to win? The usual assumption by Obama critics is that Hamas et al favor Obama because they think he’s one of them. I suggest that they are favoring him because they think he’ll pursue policies that will make it easier for them to defeat us.

In the old days America could walk away from wars, because most of the costs of our walking away would be borne by non-Americans. Technology has removed this security and we should update our sense of security accordingly. Most of us haven’t, or have become complacent, because 9/11 now feels like distant history. But the metaphor of distance is misleading here. We are not physically more distant from threats; advances in technology and in the technological sophistication of our enemies may even make us more vulnerable. Like it or not we are probably going to be at war for many more years, even if it doesn’t feel like war most of the time.

We Don’t Know What’s Going On

by

Last November (2007) conventional wisdom held that the Democrats held a lock on the next presidential election and that Hillary Clinton held a lock on the Democratic nomination. However, by  February  (2008), a mere three months later, Obama came from out of nowhere and seized the lead. By July (2008) Obama had won the Democratic convention and most people seemed assured that he would easily win the general election. Then McCain picked Palin a month later and suddenly McCain stands either tied with Obama or slightly ahead.  

Why didn’t all the thousands of professional political analysts in the media, think tanks, political groups and  academia  predict the impact someone like Palin would have on the election? Why do we keep paying these people or even listening to them?

Face it, for all that we all, amateurs and professionals alike,  pontificate  on politics, none of us really understand what drives elections or can predict how they will turn out. We don’t know what’s going on.  

[Thoughts inspired by this post  via Instapundit]

“The Palin Effect in the Intrade Presidential Election Futures Market”

by

Arthur De Vany:

At the Tools Page on Mathestate.com, Dr. Bob Rimmer analyzes the price data in the elections futures market. It is very sophisticated modeling, using stable distributions to forecast the probability of winning for McCain and for Obama.
 
The raw data show the Palin Effect in the dramatic turn around in the futures prices with McCain trailing for many months and Obama leading. In early September there is a sudden reversal. Politics, like life, is dominated by extreme events which only a heavy tailed distribution can capture. None of the other election models are capable of capturing these extreme events. They are far too static and tame. The polls only partly capture the Palin Effect. It is real and dramatic.

(Via John Lott.)

UPDATE:

black swan

Singing W’s Praises

by

Steve H. is in great form with his latest post. I mostly agree with him. Bush screwed a lot of things up, wouldn’t fire incompetents and can’t communicate worth a damn. But on the main issue of our day he showed vision, courage and resolve at a time when anything less would have been disastrous. I doubt that either Gore, Kerry or Bill Clinton would have done nearly as well, and I suspect that Bush will eventually be seen by Americans in a much more positive light than is currently the case.

UPDATE: Ginny points out Glenn and Helen’s interview with Doug Feith, which is probably worth listening to.

UPDATE 2: A commenter points out The Diplomad’s excellent post on this topic. I read it several days ago, it probably influenced me and I should have credited it.

Discussing the Elections

by

Transcript of an email exchange between Lex and me (edited to remove off-topic remarks):

—————–

Lex:
Interesting day yesterday. I was hoping it would be a blowout for McCain and Obama so Hillary would be out and we could start getting ready for the general election. Instead, much remains open.

Obama had a good day though, he is very much in the race. He got Hispanic votes, contra some predictions. He may yet take down Hillary. Fingers crossed.

Read more