The Best Predictor of Presidential Elections
This one simple trick is leaving the experts stunned . . .
When our kind governmental overlords look the other way, we have surefire ways to predict presidential elections among other events. Namely, prediction markets like PredictIt, Election Betting Odds, and Kalshi. Of course Americans are too stupid to be trusted with these (according to our government), so we better come up with some alternatives.
When zoo animals aren’t predicting the Super Bowl, they turn their skills to elections—spoiler alert: they suck at both. Go figure. Another candidate would be if the Washington Football team (formerly Redskins) wins its last home game or something, then the incumbent or incumbent party or candidate who attended a party not attended by the incumbent will win the presidency. And to complete the circle it turns out the Super Bowl isn’t the best predictor of the U.S. stock market, which is itself not a good predictor of the U.S. presidential election—despite what some people claim.
Fear not. I noticed something the other day that seems to me to have a remarkably high accuracy rate in predicting the winner of U.S. presidential elections. Over my lifetime it successfully selected 10 out of 12 winning presidents. What’s more, it is very simple.
How does it work? Basically the softer, gentler, and more likable presidential candidate almost always wins. Put everything else aside. This is all you have to look at to be correct 83% of the time. That’s right—83% of the time it works every time!
I’m not exactly the first one to notice this. For a long time there has been a general idea that relatability is extremely important in politics. This has been conceptualized in the folk wisdom that the candidate who will win is the candidate voters would most want to sit down and have a beer with.1
Notice how this operates in a bit of conflict for how nominees are determined—especially in today’s polarized and aggressive political climate. In a new and disheartening way, the worst seem to get on top yet again. But perhaps fortunately when it comes to the general election, we get the better of two bad options—better meaning a slightly nicer person.
Might this just be all you need to consider when forecasting who will be the next president? <see below>
P.S. Do I actually believe this? No, no I do not. The most I will allow is that it is one meaningful predictor among many—a cause within a multi-causal relationship.
Keep in mind this is a relative comparison. This is not to say that these winners (or losers) were themselves nice or good people. Arguably there are several war criminals on this list. And I can make a strong case that each and every one of them should have been impeached and removed for multiple causes.