There is already a substantial preference for incumbents (about 65-35 I think), and I think this would be much stronger if the challenger was completely unaffiliated with politics (I want to say something like 90-10 if challenger and sitting president were equally electable otherwise, maybe 75-25 if the challenger is actually substantially better than the president, 99-1 if they’re just average).
Say there’s 5% chance they’re equally or more electable, 2% they’re substantially more electable. Then there’s 0.5% on them being equally electable and winning, 0.5% on them being substantially more electable and winning and 1% on them being less electable but winning anyway.
So 98% overall.
Edit: didn’t consider that the major party might organise in support of the candidate, this changes things a lot. Say there’s a 20% chance that the out-of-power party campaigns for the rando (40% the rando is somewhat-aligned, 50% conditional that the party can get their shit together to campaign for them); then the incumbency advantage will be more like the standard 65-35, assuming equal presidentiality (but I still think they’re probably a lot less presidential)
All told...this gets me to 96% chance the sitting president wins.
You are the only person who has actually answered the question; thank you.
The thing that interests me about this is that it seems like if you are right, both major parties are doing a terrible job of selecting candidates to run against the sitting president. There seem to be millions of people who would win. Maybe they care about more than just winning the election? Or maybe even though there are millions of people who would win, there’s no one who has a legibly higher chance of winning than [whatever candidate the GOP ends up selecting?]
I think that’s the deadly bagel fallacy. Or at least close enough that I get to link the video.
(To belabor the point: A 98% probability doesn’t mean that 2% of the people are the destined winners, it can represent uncertainty about things that have nothing to do with the person running, like their opponent’s mistakes or whether we’re at war.)
Yeah, good point. I should have asked “how many people are there who would have a >40% chance of winning if they were selected.” Seems like David’s answer would be about 5% (so, a few million) given the breakdown given above.
If there are 2% of the population more electable “all else equal” to the sitting president (and this is a pretty wild guess), then I think you’d need a pretty good selection procedure to produce candidates who are, on average, better than the current procedure.
Really? I feel like there are loads of selection procedures that reliably discern much smaller populations than that.
For example, I would guess that if you were an elite university and you wanted a selection process such that the people you admit are each probably within the top 0.1% of the nation by academic ability, you can do that. (SAT tests, GPA, etc.)
I would also guess that athletes in the Olympics are in the top 0.1% of the world, plausibly top 0.001% or more.
Not a very principled answer, but: 98%
There is already a substantial preference for incumbents (about 65-35 I think), and I think this would be much stronger if the challenger was completely unaffiliated with politics (I want to say something like 90-10 if challenger and sitting president were equally electable otherwise, maybe 75-25 if the challenger is actually substantially better than the president, 99-1 if they’re just average).
Say there’s 5% chance they’re equally or more electable, 2% they’re substantially more electable. Then there’s 0.5% on them being equally electable and winning, 0.5% on them being substantially more electable and winning and 1% on them being less electable but winning anyway.
So 98% overall.
Edit: didn’t consider that the major party might organise in support of the candidate, this changes things a lot. Say there’s a 20% chance that the out-of-power party campaigns for the rando (40% the rando is somewhat-aligned, 50% conditional that the party can get their shit together to campaign for them); then the incumbency advantage will be more like the standard 65-35, assuming equal presidentiality (but I still think they’re probably a lot less presidential)
All told...this gets me to 96% chance the sitting president wins.
You are the only person who has actually answered the question; thank you.
The thing that interests me about this is that it seems like if you are right, both major parties are doing a terrible job of selecting candidates to run against the sitting president. There seem to be millions of people who would win. Maybe they care about more than just winning the election? Or maybe even though there are millions of people who would win, there’s no one who has a legibly higher chance of winning than [whatever candidate the GOP ends up selecting?]
I think that’s the deadly bagel fallacy. Or at least close enough that I get to link the video.
(To belabor the point: A 98% probability doesn’t mean that 2% of the people are the destined winners, it can represent uncertainty about things that have nothing to do with the person running, like their opponent’s mistakes or whether we’re at war.)
Yeah, good point. I should have asked “how many people are there who would have a >40% chance of winning if they were selected.” Seems like David’s answer would be about 5% (so, a few million) given the breakdown given above.
That’s what you’re after, right?
Yes, exactly. That’s why I said “millions.”
If there are 2% of the population more electable “all else equal” to the sitting president (and this is a pretty wild guess), then I think you’d need a pretty good selection procedure to produce candidates who are, on average, better than the current procedure.
Really? I feel like there are loads of selection procedures that reliably discern much smaller populations than that.
For example, I would guess that if you were an elite university and you wanted a selection process such that the people you admit are each probably within the top 0.1% of the nation by academic ability, you can do that. (SAT tests, GPA, etc.)
I would also guess that athletes in the Olympics are in the top 0.1% of the world, plausibly top 0.001% or more.