09-22-2022, 06:55 PM
We are a month and a half away from the election, so I can interpolate how an advantage works at a month and a half. Linear interpolation (barring the possibility of division by zero) is a good approximation except for the divide involving chances for someone with a 20% lead at this point.
(Here is the) probability of a Senate candidate winning (1998 to 2008) with a certain lead (1, 5, 10, and 20 points) at one year, six months, three months, one month, one week, and one day. Because statewide races for President are much like statewide races for the Senate -- with the qualification that Presidential nominees do not usually make appearances where they see themselves losing -- unless they really are losing nationwide.
Time to election |1 point|5 points||10 points|20 points|
one day............. |...64%|....95%|.....99.7%|.99.999%|
one week........... |...60%|....89%|.......98%|...99.97%|
one month......... |...57%|....81%|.......95%|.....99.7%|
three months..... |...55%|....72%|.......87%|........98%|
six months..........|...53%|....66%|.......79%|.......93%|
one year.............|....52%|...59%|.......67%|.......81%|
Interpolation on 9/22:
1 and 1/2...........|...56%|....78%|........93%|.......99%|
For a 5% lead at a year, one has about 3/5 of a chance of winning. At that point one might have no idea of who the primary challenger is. The economy could go haywire, ore there could be a military or diplomatic debacle to the disadvantage of anyone in campaigns with the President's Party. Cultural or demographic change might sink a marginal campaign, but that might not then be evident. There might be a challenger from inside one's party that exposes one's vulnerabilities in a forthcoming general election.
So one gets through the primary, and challengers usually show why they are the challengers and not the incumbents. Soon after the primary is over the incumbent usually gets to define himself through his achievements and define the challenger as inadequate or at the least out of touch with his community. That is what usually happens. If that is how things remain after May, perhaps a 5% disadvantage goes from having one chance in three of winning to having one chance in five in early October, one chance in ten on the last Wednesday in October to one chance in 20 on Election Eve. Even with so little as a 5% lead the leader can tear off dates on the old calendars often used for showing the running out of days on a movie prop. Those ahead usually do nothing risky, but those behind or leaders in incompetence can do crazy things most likely to lead to an electoral blowout or throw away a lead.
(Here is the) probability of a Senate candidate winning (1998 to 2008) with a certain lead (1, 5, 10, and 20 points) at one year, six months, three months, one month, one week, and one day. Because statewide races for President are much like statewide races for the Senate -- with the qualification that Presidential nominees do not usually make appearances where they see themselves losing -- unless they really are losing nationwide.
Time to election |1 point|5 points||10 points|20 points|
one day............. |...64%|....95%|.....99.7%|.99.999%|
one week........... |...60%|....89%|.......98%|...99.97%|
one month......... |...57%|....81%|.......95%|.....99.7%|
three months..... |...55%|....72%|.......87%|........98%|
six months..........|...53%|....66%|.......79%|.......93%|
one year.............|....52%|...59%|.......67%|.......81%|
Interpolation on 9/22:
1 and 1/2...........|...56%|....78%|........93%|.......99%|
For a 5% lead at a year, one has about 3/5 of a chance of winning. At that point one might have no idea of who the primary challenger is. The economy could go haywire, ore there could be a military or diplomatic debacle to the disadvantage of anyone in campaigns with the President's Party. Cultural or demographic change might sink a marginal campaign, but that might not then be evident. There might be a challenger from inside one's party that exposes one's vulnerabilities in a forthcoming general election.
So one gets through the primary, and challengers usually show why they are the challengers and not the incumbents. Soon after the primary is over the incumbent usually gets to define himself through his achievements and define the challenger as inadequate or at the least out of touch with his community. That is what usually happens. If that is how things remain after May, perhaps a 5% disadvantage goes from having one chance in three of winning to having one chance in five in early October, one chance in ten on the last Wednesday in October to one chance in 20 on Election Eve. Even with so little as a 5% lead the leader can tear off dates on the old calendars often used for showing the running out of days on a movie prop. Those ahead usually do nothing risky, but those behind or leaders in incompetence can do crazy things most likely to lead to an electoral blowout or throw away a lead.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.