OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[kcal09]

Trump cannot be stopped unless either Cruz or Rubio drop out which will not happen any time soon.

[spdrun]

Rubio is neocon filth, Cruz is Jeebus-jumper filth. Neither is better than Trump.

The only GOP candidate that’s not a turd this time around might be Kasich.

[paramount]

A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=paramount]A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.[/quote]

Sounds like a truly awful model.

Trump wins the nomination, the Hillary Machine grinds him under her heels. He’s taken advantage of quirks in the Republican party and republican primary system. Moderate republicans don’t like him. Swing voters HATE him. He’s very poorly positioned to pivot to the middle for the general election campaign. He lacks the strong ground game Barrack Obama had in certain key swing states that helped give him the edge in 2008.

A Trump nomination could be catastrophic to Republicans down-ticket. Right now, if the Republicans nominate Rubio, I can see them keeping the Senate with 51 votes to 49 Democrats (and keeping the House by a healthy margin until 2020 because of gerrymandering). With Trump? The Democrats are likely to take the Senate and might even give the House a fight.

There hasn’t been a candidate quite like Trump before, so any model is likely going to have some issues.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount]A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.[/quote]Well, I just had to look this up cuz I didn’t believe it but it is actually “real” and coming from an academic, no less, lol …

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent” in terms of popular vote, Norpoth prophesied. “This is almost too much to believe,” he told audience members described by the student as nervously laughing. But he is convinced his model won’t be wrong.

“Take it to the bank,” Norpoth confidently suggested.

This College Professor Says There's a 97% Chance Trump Will Win The Election & We Want Whatever He's On

[bearishgurl]

There is really nothing to be “scared of” as the article intimates. All this huffing and puffing is going to disappear if Trump is ever inaugurated. He’s will mobilize the best people in the country to do all the “dirty work” on his agenda and then immediately take to following around seasoned bureaucrats assigned to him as well as heads of Federal agencies to learn the “lay of the land” and will prove to be a “quick study.” This was (inexperienced) Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MO after he was elected Governor of CA and it worked.

[paramount]

[quote]

Sounds like a truly awful model.

[/quote]

I don’t think so…you might as well start calling him President Trump now.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=bearishgurl]He’s will mobilize the best people in the country to do all the “dirty work” on his agenda and then immediately take to following around seasoned bureaucrats assigned to him as well as heads of Federal agencies to learn the “lay of the land” and will prove to be a “quick study.” This was (inexperienced) Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MO after he was elected Governor of CA and it worked.[/quote]

BG, you’ve made the claim that Trump will hire experts and follow their advice thus we needn’t worry several times, but there are a couple problems with this.

1) Every president hires a crew of experts. There is nothing different about Trump that will cause him to hire “better” experts. You pick Arnold as your example of this working, but I can pick G.W.Bush or Barack Obama as counter examples. (Both hired experts and ended up being fairly ineffective presidents largely due to the experts they surrounded themselves with.)

2) Even experts make serious mistakes. Henry Kissinger was always regarded as one of America’s foremost experts on foreign relations. Yet he’s one of the last people I want my president to rely on for advice. And you do remember Alan Greenspan (The Maestro) don’t you?

3) There is nothing in Trump’s business experience to support the idea that he will hire experts and develop them into a cohesive well functioning team. Quite the contrary. His business (real estate) is largely one with small staffing requirements, mostly of people who follow direction well. As far as I can see, there is no evidence that Trump has real leadership skills. (Unless you consider bullying the same as leadership)

[Anonymous]

[quote=paramount]Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.[/quote]

LOL, it’s backtested!

[svelte]

[quote=harvey][quote=paramount]Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.[/quote]

LOL, it’s backtested![/quote]

Yeah, when I saw the article online that was my prediction! 🙂

I too can write an algorithm that is about 100% accurate for anything that has happened in the past.

Next!

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]
Sounds like a truly awful model.

Trump wins the nomination, the Hillary Machine grinds him under her heels. He’s taken advantage of quirks in the Republican party and republican primary system. Moderate republicans don’t like him. Swing voters HATE him. He’s very poorly positioned to pivot to the middle for the general election campaign. He lacks the strong ground game Barrack Obama had in certain key swing states that helped give him the edge in 2008.

A Trump nomination could be catastrophic to Republicans down-ticket. Right now, if the Republicans nominate Rubio, I can see them keeping the Senate with 51 votes to 49 Democrats (and keeping the House by a healthy margin until 2020 because of gerrymandering). With Trump? The Democrats are likely to take the Senate and might even give the House a fight.

There hasn’t been a candidate quite like Trump before, so any model is likely going to have some issues.[/quote]

I don’t know about this analysis. Doesn’t Hillary share a lot of these same draw backs. I don’t know a lot of Democrats that are all that excited about voting for her. They probably will when push comes to shove against Trump, but Hillary certainly doesn’t seem to excite the liberal base. Those that want to preserve the status quo like her but that’s about it. Trump may be pompous and a bully, but policy wise he’s pretty in the middle. Maybe his rhetoric on illegal immigration is a little extreme but doing something to prevent more illegal immigration is certainly popular. He’s not going to be calling for banning gay marriage or abortions as far as I can tell.

Also does Hillary even have a machine. I mean you lost to Obama the last go around when you were the sure thing. You’re scrapping by Sanders this go around and you have the potential to be indicated for improperly handling classified information. I’d almost be willing to bet Trump is the Republican nominee before I’d bet Hillary is the Democratic nominee at this point.

[svelte]

[quote=livinincali]

I don’t know about this analysis. Doesn’t Hillary share a lot of these same draw backs. I don’t know a lot of Democrats that are all that excited about voting for her. They probably will when push comes to shove against Trump, but Hillary certainly doesn’t seem to excite the liberal base. [/quote]

That’s my impression too, which means Dem turnout may be low. What may bring liberal leaners out to vote, however, is the MJ initiatives in many states.

[zk]

[quote=svelte]

That’s my impression too, which means Dem turnout may be low. What may bring liberal leaners out to vote, however, is the MJ initiatives in many states.[/quote]

If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, I don’t think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody’s super-excited about Hillary, but because they’d be super-excited about making sure Trump didn’t win.

To me, though, the brokered convention looks more likely than ever, with Rubio the nominee.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, I don’t think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody’s super-excited about Hillary, but because they’d be super-excited about making sure Trump didn’t win.
[/quote]

I suppose that’s possible, but I think you’d have to really really hate Trump to be motivated to vote just so he doesn’t win. Depending on how the campaigns end up I could see that as a late selling point. Go vote somebody other than Trump because he will ruin America. The 25 years olds and blacks were really excited about voting for Obama, are they really going to be motivated by don’t vote for Trump or are they just not going to care and not show up.

I could certainly make the argument that for many Trump v Clinton, who really cares. What difference does it make.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk]If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, I don’t think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody’s super-excited about Hillary, but because they’d be super-excited about making sure Trump didn’t win…. [/quote]I see the predominantly blue precincts in “problem spots” (such as population centers adjacent to the Int’l Border) as turning from blue to purple or red in the coming months. In other words, a portion of registered dems will re-register in states with closed primaries before their respective primary elections take place. It’s not going to affect the dem base much in solid dem locales such as SF and the peninsula (north and south, incl SV and Marin Co) or the front range of CO but it will affect the million + population in precincts along the Rio Grande Valley (likely 1M+ total pop in the “metropolises” of El Paso/Juarez, McAllen/Reynosa and Brownsville/Matamoros who are tired of putting up with flood of poor Mexican immigrants into their communities.

I believe the precincts in the states of NM and AZ are already mostly red, and, in any case, the population along the border in these states is negligible. I predict El Centro/Mexicali will stay mostly blue and South County SD (pop ~400,000 in five cities) will slowly turn purple/red in the coming months). Tijuana has a population of over 3M which is contributing to a lot of residential “spillover” within four miles of the border on the US side.

I don’t know if this phenomenon is enough to “convert” longtime registered dems to Repubs and I haven’t investigated which states have closed primaries, thus causing registered dems/independents to actually have to make the effort to re-register in order to vote for Trump in the primaries. It’s going to be interesting to see how all this pans out.

Of course, it’s a crapshoot what voters will decide in the general election (regardless of their registration).

[Author]

Posts