Reading time: 3 minutes
Our perceptions of the risks that each candidacy poses determines a lot about them. Biden runs as Obama 2.0 the tried and true candidate of yore bringing back normalcy. The nostalgia candidate if you will. Warren runs as the big structural change candidate with a plan for everything.
Which are seen as posing the higher risk? How will that effect the way we vote?
Reading time: 5 minutes
Okay, it’s a bit long in the tooth, but it’s worth it to figure out whose gonna win, right? My predictions have a history of being accurate. Stop laughing. I’m serious.
Anywho, I go through and discuss each of the top four candidates chances using behavioral economics decision making under uncertainty, specifically focused on how people react to perceived risk. If there were ever a risk election, brother this would be it. This is a high risk election.
We may not be able to predict who the Dem candidate for president will be, but can we predict the type of candidate? What does the danger and craziness of Trump do to the psyche of the electorate as we head into the 2020 election cycle?
A re-blogging of an interview of March Hetherington by Exra Klein on Vox.com. They discuss Hetherington and Weiler’s theory that the political divide between Repubes and Dems is based on how each side views the world. The Repubes view the world as fundamentally dangerous, the Dems as safer. I add that makes Repubes risk averse and Dems risk tolerant. Let me know what you think in the comments.
How you viewed the condition of the country probably determined your vote. If you saw the country as doing OKAY, you probably saw the Ol’ Pussy Grabber as too big of a risk. But if you saw the country has going in the wrong direction, you were tempted to take a chance on the Ol’ Pussy Grabber. What does behavioral economics, loss aversion, and risk seeking tell us about 2018?
How did Trump become a thing? Read about how Daniel Kahneman and risk assessment can be used to explain how Obama made Trump possible. Thanks Obama!