The Professor predicts...

[deltex1]

and he is seldom if ever wrong. He predicted Gore would win....the popular vote...

Good news for our man Trump.

"
This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.

“You think ‘This is crazy. How can anything come up with something like that?’ ” Norpoth said “But that’s exactly the kind of equation I used to predict Bill Clinton winning in ‘96, that I used to predict that George Bush would win in 2004, and, as you remember four years ago, that Obama would win in 2012.”

Norpoth then added data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries to narrow down the forecast to specific candidates. As he brought up the first slide with matchup results, the silence was broken by muttering from the audience.

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent [of the popular vote]. This is almost too much to believe.” Norpoth said, with a few members of the audience laughing nervously. “The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank.’ ”


Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"a few members of the audience laughing nervously..."

I suspect a few members of this forum did as well

 

[The VOR]

"a few members of the audience laughing nervously..."

I suspect a few members of this forum did as well

I laugh at everything this idiot post, and not nervously.

 

[imawhosure]

and he is seldom if ever wrong. He predicted Gore would win....the popular vote...

Good news for our man Trump.

"
This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.

“You think ‘This is crazy. How can anything come up with something like that?’ ” Norpoth said “But that’s exactly the kind of equation I used to predict Bill Clinton winning in ‘96, that I used to predict that George Bush would win in 2004, and, as you remember four years ago, that Obama would win in 2012.”

Norpoth then added data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries to narrow down the forecast to specific candidates. As he brought up the first slide with matchup results, the silence was broken by muttering from the audience.

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent [of the popular vote]. This is almost too much to believe.” Norpoth said, with a few members of the audience laughing nervously. “The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank.’ ”


Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner

I am sorry, even if it bolsters the troops, to many variables could happen between now and then.

Good news, yes. But could other factors enter the race? Absolutely.

The most impressive bit of news from this equation, is that it doesn't show Hillary blowing Trump out of the water, helping negate all the lefty propaganda they put forth. We now have something to hang our hat on that has consistently proven who wins. A sense of security to keep the troops churning along? Yes, definitely! An absolute reality? No! But it does mean, Trump's glide path is navigating in the correct direction.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"a few members of the audience laughing nervously..."

I suspect a few members of this forum did as well

I laugh at everything this idiot post, and not nervously.

Nobody cares...nobody

 

[deltex1]

So...The Very Odiferous Rectum mumbles again....lmao!

 

[deltex1]

And Daws breathes deeply...

 

[The VOR]

and he is seldom if ever wrong. He predicted Gore would win....the popular vote...

Good news for our man Trump.

"
This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.

“You think ‘This is crazy. How can anything come up with something like that?’ ” Norpoth said “But that’s exactly the kind of equation I used to predict Bill Clinton winning in ‘96, that I used to predict that George Bush would win in 2004, and, as you remember four years ago, that Obama would win in 2012.”

Norpoth then added data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries to narrow down the forecast to specific candidates. As he brought up the first slide with matchup results, the silence was broken by muttering from the audience.

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent [of the popular vote]. This is almost too much to believe.” Norpoth said, with a few members of the audience laughing nervously. “The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank.’ ”


Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner

Hey nitwit, you do realize somebody started a thread on this earlier this morning, right?

 

[Skylar]

When you get specific, Northrop's model is considerably less accurate:

Norpoth's forecast makes Senator Obama the favorite by a razor-thin margin, predicting a 50.1% to 49.9% Obama victory, but also indicates only a 50% chance that Obama will gain a majority.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2008-10-presidential-election-obama-popular-vote.html#jCp

Obama won by 10 million votes with 53% of the vote. And 63% of the electoral vote. Meaning that Northrop's prediction of odds was way, way off. He predicted even odds for an election that was a blow out nor even remotely close.

And notice that there's no information given for Helmut's 2000 predictions or the odds he gave. I've looked. You have to dig deep. And when you do, you find this:

Economic models published by political scientists during the spring and summer uniformly pointed in this direction, with predictions estimating that the share of the popular vote would be anywhere
from 53–60 per cent in favour of Al Gore over George Bush.*


* The estimates made at the September annual meeting, 26 May 2000, of the American Political Science Association were 52.8% ( James Campbell, University of Buffalo), 52.9% (Brad Lockerbie, University of Georgia), 53.2% (Alan Abramowitz Emory University), 55% (Helmut Norpoth, SUNY), 55.2% (Christopher Wlezian, University of Houston) and 60.3% (Thomas Holbrook, University ofWisconsin).

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Articles/Articles published in journals_files/USCampaign2000_Pregnant_Chads_2000.pdf

Again, Helmut's numbers were way, way off. Gore got only 48.4% of the popular vote. And lost the presidency.

The phrase 'predicted with modification' used to describe Helmut's model is a bit of a red flag. That means that Helmut adjusts his numbers after the fact when his model doesn't work and didn't predict the correct outcome. As Helmut did when he tried to blame Gore for why Helmut's predictions were wrong:

On the other hand, some observers – including some of the most prominent election forecasters – have concluded that the problem was not with the forecasting models but with Al Gore as a candidate. “Gore didn’t run a campaign consistent with the model,” according to Helmut Norpoth (quoted by Miller 2000). He didn’t stress the economy. He didn’t embrace the popular incumbent president. He was too uncharismatic. Too ideological. Not ideological enough. In short, as one post-mortem had it, Gore was “a flawed candidate who squandered a prime opportunity to capture the White House”.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.471.3300&rep=rep1&type=pdf

So Helmut is rock solid. Unless he isn't.

 

[deltex1]

and he is seldom if ever wrong. He predicted Gore would win....the popular vote...

Good news for our man Trump.

"
This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.

“You think ‘This is crazy. How can anything come up with something like that?’ ” Norpoth said “But that’s exactly the kind of equation I used to predict Bill Clinton winning in ‘96, that I used to predict that George Bush would win in 2004, and, as you remember four years ago, that Obama would win in 2012.”

Norpoth then added data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries to narrow down the forecast to specific candidates. As he brought up the first slide with matchup results, the silence was broken by muttering from the audience.

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent [of the popular vote]. This is almost too much to believe.” Norpoth said, with a few members of the audience laughing nervously. “The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank.’ ”


Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner

Hey nitwit, you do realize somebody started a thread on this earlier this morning, right?

So stay on that board...we don't need your stink here.

 

[The VOR]

and he is seldom if ever wrong. He predicted Gore would win....the popular vote...

Good news for our man Trump.

"
This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.

“You think ‘This is crazy. How can anything come up with something like that?’ ” Norpoth said “But that’s exactly the kind of equation I used to predict Bill Clinton winning in ‘96, that I used to predict that George Bush would win in 2004, and, as you remember four years ago, that Obama would win in 2012.”

Norpoth then added data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries to narrow down the forecast to specific candidates. As he brought up the first slide with matchup results, the silence was broken by muttering from the audience.

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent [of the popular vote]. This is almost too much to believe.” Norpoth said, with a few members of the audience laughing nervously. “The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank.’ ”


Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner

Hey nitwit, you do realize somebody started a thread on this earlier this morning, right?

So stay on that board...we don't need your stink here.

The thread is on this board, dopey. Whew. Talk about dense.