Election outcome predictions?

by philg

Folks:

What are your election outcome predictions?

So much of the ballot in our town is taken up by candidates running unopposed that I haven’t put much effort into considering Massachusetts outcomes.

We have three ballot questions, though. Let me go on record with guesses regarding those.

Nurses want state-set staffing minimums. Nearly everyone in Massachusetts is somehow dependent on the health care industry, so I think this will fail. Max Weber would agree with my prediction, I think.

Question 2 is about forming a commission to complain about Citizens United (nothing is worse than free speech when people say stuff that the righteous don’t want to hear). I predict that this will fail due to its obvious futility. (Though maybe it will win because it enables people to show their righteousness while wasting only a few $million?)

Question 3 is about whether people who attempt to interfere with a biological male using the women’s locker room, for example, should be imprisoned for one year (a longer sentence than the typical Nazi war criminal served). I predict that the “Yes” votes win (preserve the current law, which allows those who fail to keep up with the LGBTQIA times to the pokey). There is no cheaper way to feel virtuous than voting in favor of something that will purportedly help the transgendered.

I haven’t studied the close Democrat/Republican races too closely (I am unable to vote in them), but my general assumption is that most Americans want a planned economy so they’ll vote for Democrats unless a corrupt or similarly flawed candidate is put forward. Then, on the other hand, Americans are fearful of change, so they’ll vote for incumbents. So I will guess that Democrats win 80 percent of the “close” races in which neither candidate is incumbent, 95 percent of the close races in which a Democrat is the incumbent, and only 50 percent of the close races in which a Republican is the incumbent.

Readers: What are your best guesses right now?

9 thoughts on “Election outcome predictions?”

  1. Fool me once shame on you…. I successfully predicted the 2016 presidential race by saying Trump would win the presidency but loose the popular vote. Our host has promised to buy me lunch but that has not happened!!!!! Anyway my predictions…… Republicans narrowly hold the house but it will be too close to call tomorrow. Republicans will gain seats in the senate. Republicans will loose a few governors races. If I am right maybe our host will buy me dinner!

  3. I would like Toucan to be correct. I will enjoy the ululating if that is the result.

    I too predicted Trump’s win to several of my Dem friends. A couple of which still talk to me. I don’t really have a good sense for today. It will be a surprise when I see the results tomorrow as I’ll be watching the hockey game tonight.

    There are things more important than elections.

  6. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-massachusetts-elections.html are in! I was hugely wrong about Ballot Question 2, the one that creates the pointless “citizens commission” of talk-gooders. A full 71.2% of folks in MA want to waste time and money on this fight against free speech and the First Amendment (the Citizens United decision).

    Our incumbent Republican (but he expresses hatred for Trump and all of his policies!) governor won easily. Our incumbent Native American Senator won easily. The Times didn’t bother to report a bunch of lower-level jobs for which Democrats were generally running unopposed.

    PC-12-owner Claire McCaskill is out in Missouri (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-missouri-elections.html ), having failed to give Christine Blasey Ford a ride (see https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2018/09/21/why-wont-claire-mccaskill-pick-up-christine-blasey-ford-in-her-pilatus-pc-12/ )

    NYT says the Republicans are gaining in the Senate, but losing in the House. Why the divide? The country is becoming more supportive of Democrats (as I predicted in my original post), but there is more variance in the smaller sample of Senate races?

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html

    has an interesting map. Almost the entire country is red, but so many people are living on the Democrat-supporting coasts that the Democrats can win the House!

  7. You answered your own question. Each state has senators, regardless of population. So individuals in rural states are over-represented. Also, all House seats were up for election, nut only 1/3 of those in the Senate. So the composition of the Senate in January won’t reflect the current mood.

  8. Since the House of Representatives was capped[1] in 1929, rural states are also now increasingly over-represented. In 1930 the rural population was 44% versus under 25% today [2]. So when you say “Almost the entire country is red” that means that empty land votes Red and humans prefer Blue.

    1. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/
    2. https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1800-1990-changes-urbanrural-us-population/

Comments are closed.