Atlas Forum

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2016 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: Mister Mets on February 16, 2015, 06:20:03 pm



Title: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Mister Mets on February 16, 2015, 06:20:03 pm
National Journal has a piece on political scientists skeptical of Hillary Clinton's chances of being the next President. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/predictive-intelligence-20150213)

Quote
For Clinton to reach 50 percent of the popular vote, under this model's rules, the president would need to see a 5-point increase in his approval rating and GDP growth would have to hit 3.5 percent. It's certainly possible, but it's fair to call that a best-case scenario for Obama in his final year as president.

So while Democrats see the recent gains in both Obama's approval and economic growth as signs that Clinton enters the race as the favorite, the academic modeling suggests that assessment is far too sunny. In fact, the recent uptick is the only thing keeping her from being a prohibitive underdog.

The reason Clinton struggles under seemingly decent conditions is obvious. After one party holds the presidency for two terms, voters want change. In the model, this desire for a new direction manifests itself as a 4-point reduction in the candidate's take of the popular vote compared with what candidates could expect had their party held the White House for just one term.

"One of the regularities you'll find for all presidential elections since World War II is, after a party has been in power eight years and is trying to hold on to the White House for a third consecutive term, it gets harder," Abramowitz says. "Another way of looking at it: In the first election after a party takes over the White House, you have a significant advantage. And the next time, after you've held another term, you lose that advantage."

Campaign operatives love to hate this academic assessment of politics, much like Wall Street belittles the technical analysts who use past performance to predict stock-market moves.

The tension between the strategists and the scientists speaks to the distinct approaches they employ: Political professionals (including journalists) study strategy, tactics, the day-to-day activities of a campaign, while political scientists see fundamentals shaping every election, almost no matter the strength of a candidate.

In 2012, for example, most strategists think Obama won because he ran one of the best presidential campaigns in American history while Mitt Romney ran one of the worst. According to political scientists, however, Obama's victory was a product of favorable conditions, such as an improving economy, decent approval ratings, and his incumbency. The unemployment rate was high, yes, but the state of the economy matters little compared with the direction it's headed.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Cory Booker on February 16, 2015, 07:11:06 pm
It's really about the trajectory.  The disappoval of a G O P lead House and Senate and what type of VP she picks.  And the Senate map tend to favors the Dems.  But, she must make it out of the primary and although she appeals to females, there is a populist streak of young voters that disapprove of the handouts to Wallstreet.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Landslide Andy on February 16, 2015, 11:21:30 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: OldDominion on February 17, 2015, 01:05:55 am
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 17, 2015, 02:33:11 am
Most of the time the party holds the White House for a 3rd term.

Yes: 1796, 1812, 1836, 1868, 1908, 1928, 1940, 1988
Stolen: 2000
No: 1920, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2008

Hillary is perfectly capable of losing this without Obama's help.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: BlueSwan on February 17, 2015, 03:27:52 am
For once, the "scientists" are wrong and the political operatives are right. You just CANNOT predict the outcome of an election between two persons based on past elections and "fundamentals", while ignoring the qualities of those two persons.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Ritchie Valens on February 17, 2015, 06:17:37 am
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: PresidentTRUMP on February 17, 2015, 08:51:38 am
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Lol classic, oh and i agree :)


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 17, 2015, 09:40:44 am
Abramowitz and Norpoth did predict Obama victories.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/31/forecasting-the-election-most-models-say-obama-will-win-but-not-all/)


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: pbrower2a on February 17, 2015, 10:09:59 am
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

It was a 52-48 split in favor of the Democrats in 2008 and 2012 (Democrats got a majority of the vote in House seats in 2012, but GOP-majorities had successfully gerrymandered most Congressional districts to favor the GOP) and about a 52-48 Republican split in 2010 and 2014. A 52-48 split hardly indicates electoral dominance unless something is screwy. The Republicans basically found ways to set up a few D-dominant districts in which the Democrat is likely to win 70-30 and dilute the rest of the Democratic vote in districts that go 54-46 Republican.

FoX News Channel may be the most watched cable  "news" network, but it is also the most reviled.  Rush Limbaugh is a sick joke except among right-wingers.  If liberals get stuck listening to him they ask to change the channel. If nobody changes the channel they do so themselves. That's draft-dodging militarist Rush Limbaugh who bullied a maid into getting street oxycontin for him.  

Republican elected officials may be the majority -- but their approval ratings are abysmal. As a nation we have had a hard time, and we are fussy. Some well-heeled plutocrats found a way of exploiting that discontent while saddling America with pols likely to do nothing but enrich those well-heeled heels. The ideal American to them is someone who asks for a pay cut and is so thankful for getting to keep his job.

Most of the potential Republican nominees for President have huge gaping holes in their personalities or stand for extreme positions.

I look at the map of GOP support and I see more connections to 'whiteness',  religious affiliation (especially Mormons and Southern Baptists) or to thin population.  

For political careers the best prediction on long careers is "perform or perish". Performance can be as simple as getting appropriations for job-creating public works. For most Republicans the key to success in getting campaign funds is to obey the Koch syndicate. "My" representative is a case in point; he gets lavish support from interests intent upon bleeding the the American middle class for a few plutocrats for whom we are told to suffer with a smile.

I wipe my hands on my shirt or my slacks rather than dirty them on Koch paper products.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bedstuy on February 17, 2015, 10:11:11 am
You can't have a "model" of who will win a Presidential race.  

Anyone knows that campaigns, candidates and unpredictable events matter to the outcome.  So, if your model doesn't account for those variables, and it can't, it's worthless.

At the same time, the data points for any model are lacking.  Presidential elections only happen once every 4 years.  Plus, you can't really include data points about Presidential elections that happened outside of the current paradigm.  So, you're basically left with an n size of 8-10.  The result is ultimately just a mix of banal truisms and conjecture.  A bad economy is bad for the incumbent party... wow what a stunning insight.

Over the course of time, we've seen the best single predictor of the outcome is public polling.  At this point though, it's also of limited reliability because so much can change.  And, if you test Hillary Clinton vs. someone without name recognition, it's not really fair.  So, there's nothing you can really say that's worth a damn about predicting the election.  Hillary Clinton is obviously the favorite, but there are no guarantees.  


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: TheElectoralBoobyPrize on February 17, 2015, 10:17:39 am
This article's basically right, although a Republican win isn't inevitable either. It's really impossible to predict the outcome of an open seat presidential race this early in the cycle (races with incumbent presidents are a little easier).

And why are people saying the model favored Romney in 2012? The article explicitly says that isn't the case. The only thing in Romney's favor was the bad economy, but as other people have noted, what matters most to voters is the DIRECTION (i.e. is getting better or worse) of the economy, not whether's it's bad or good.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Landslide Andy on February 17, 2015, 02:26:04 pm
Junk model, obviously!
#HillaryIsInevitable
#DemographicsAreDestiny
#TheGOPHasNoSeriousCandidateWhoCaresAboutTheModelNoOneCanBeatHillary
#muhModelAlsoPredictedARomneyWinEvenThoughItDidn't
#MuhModelDoesn'tConsiderTurnout

For once, the "scientists" are wrong and the political operatives are right. You just CANNOT predict the outcome of an election between two persons based on past elections and "fundamentals", while ignoring the qualities of those two persons.

Uh, then why did everyone cheer Nate Silver? Why did so many Democrats predict Democratic wins in the South because of Demographics? Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Nate Silver's model is mostly based on polling. These ones are based solely on "fundamentals" and "economic indicators", and assumes that candidates don't matter. The Republicans will win whether they nominate Palin/Trump or Kasich/Martinez. A pretty ludicrous concept.

As for the models predicting a Romney win, my initial post in this thread was tongue in cheek. Obviously the "models" in general all didn't predict a Romney win, because there is no consistency among the models. Some of them had Obama winning in a landslide, some of them had a razor thin election, some of them had a Romney landslide. The hacks of both parties constantly touted the models showing their respective party winning in a landslide. The rational people ignored them entirely.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Biden If Buttigieg on February 17, 2015, 04:49:49 pm
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: PR on February 17, 2015, 06:14:34 pm
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

And if watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh counts as "political engagement", than people who do neither are better off (and better informed).


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: pbrower2a on February 17, 2015, 10:50:58 pm
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

Engaged -- sure. But they are also disinformed and manipulated. They are old, and they are dying off. They are not influencing younger voters who may be more interested in relief from student loans than in "gun rights".

Barack Obama built a far-sturdier and far-more-successful coalition than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. His electoral apparatus has gone lock, stock, and barrel to Hillary Clinton... and that is how things start.



Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: OldDominion on February 17, 2015, 11:07:40 pm
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

Engaged -- sure. But they are also disinformed and manipulated. They are old, and they are dying off. They are not influencing younger voters who may be more interested in relief from student loans than in "gun rights".

Barack Obama built a far-sturdier and far-more-successful coalition than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. His electoral apparatus has gone lock, stock, and barrel to Hillary Clinton... and that is how things start.



^


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Devils30 on February 17, 2015, 11:12:31 pm
A lot of the academics are only looking post WW2, a huge mistake. The best period to look at is probably the late 1800s which had a GOP presidential majority but Democrats often controlled Congress. A lot of the elections were close in the 1880s and gave the GOP 51-47, 52-46 majorities in the 1890s. The problem for today's GOP is that demographics opened up the GOP's margins in the early 1900s, something that can happen for today's Democrats as more minorities become regular voters. And this will eventually trickle down to Congress as it did then.

If the GOP wins in 2016 then they could reverse their decline with young people and minorities but they also could be a one-term wreck like Carter was in 1980.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Likely Voter on February 17, 2015, 11:40:33 pm
I guess it all depends on which tea leaves you want to look at. This analysis of post-WW2 trends is bad for the Dems. And there is the precedent that the younger candidate tends to win (and everyone is younger than Hillary)

Then there are things that show Dem advantages:
- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)
- Demographic analysis trend
- Betting odds
- Polls (w/ Hillary)

So there is something for everybody to hang hat on


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: TheElectoralBoobyPrize on February 18, 2015, 12:13:40 pm
- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Mister Mets on February 18, 2015, 12:37:43 pm
A lot of the academics are only looking post WW2, a huge mistake. The best period to look at is probably the late 1800s which had a GOP presidential majority but Democrats often controlled Congress. A lot of the elections were close in the 1880s and gave the GOP 51-47, 52-46 majorities in the 1890s. The problem for today's GOP is that demographics opened up the GOP's margins in the early 1900s, something that can happen for today's Democrats as more minorities become regular voters. And this will eventually trickle down to Congress as it did then.

If the GOP wins in 2016 then they could reverse their decline with young people and minorities but they also could be a one-term wreck like Carter was in 1980.
I don't see the point in looking at the late 1800s. A lot more has changed from an era when women didn't even have the right to vote.

I'm also suspicious of any model that suggests consistent close losses for Republicans, as it doesn't allow for much of a margin of error.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Likely Voter on February 18, 2015, 05:05:22 pm
- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bobloblaw on February 18, 2015, 06:00:18 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bobloblaw on February 18, 2015, 06:01:20 pm
Most of the time the party holds the White House for a 3rd term.

Yes: 1796, 1812, 1836, 1868, 1908, 1928, 1940, 1988
Stolen: 2000
No: 1920, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2008

Hillary is perfectly capable of losing this without Obama's help.

2000 wasnt stolen, though Gore tried awfully hard. Too bad you leftist dont believe in the 14th Amendment.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bobloblaw on February 18, 2015, 06:07:56 pm
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

It was a 52-48 split in favor of the Democrats in 2008 and 2012 (Democrats got a majority of the vote in House seats in 2012, but GOP-majorities had successfully gerrymandered most Congressional districts to favor the GOP) and about a 52-48 Republican split in 2010 and 2014. A 52-48 split hardly indicates electoral dominance unless something is screwy. The Republicans basically found ways to set up a few D-dominant districts in which the Democrat is likely to win 70-30 and dilute the rest of the Democratic vote in districts that go 54-46 Republican.

FoX News Channel may be the most watched cable  "news" network, but it is also the most reviled.  Rush Limbaugh is a sick joke except among right-wingers.  If liberals get stuck listening to him they ask to change the channel. If nobody changes the channel they do so themselves. That's draft-dodging militarist Rush Limbaugh who bullied a maid into getting street oxycontin for him.  

Republican elected officials may be the majority -- but their approval ratings are abysmal. As a nation we have had a hard time, and we are fussy. Some well-heeled plutocrats found a way of exploiting that discontent while saddling America with pols likely to do nothing but enrich those well-heeled heels. The ideal American to them is someone who asks for a pay cut and is so thankful for getting to keep his job.

Most of the potential Republican nominees for President have huge gaping holes in their personalities or stand for extreme positions.

I look at the map of GOP support and I see more connections to 'whiteness',  religious affiliation (especially Mormons and Southern Baptists) or to thin population.  

For political careers the best prediction on long careers is "perform or perish". Performance can be as simple as getting appropriations for job-creating public works. For most Republicans the key to success in getting campaign funds is to obey the Koch syndicate. "My" representative is a case in point; he gets lavish support from interests intent upon bleeding the the American middle class for a few plutocrats for whom we are told to suffer with a smile.

I wipe my hands on my shirt or my slacks rather than dirty them on Koch paper products.

You numbers are off

2012 Dems won 48.8% to 47.6%. Since we dont run candidates at large nationally, one point is nothing and there have been elections in the past that were close in the popular vote for congress that werent in term of seats won. In fact in 1968 the GOP lost the House vote by 1.5 points and got only 190 seats.

2014: The GOP won 50.9 to 45.6. That is over a 5 point victory.


Despite hating Israel, Israel has the electoral system that the left wants. Proportional representation and everyone runs at large. It results in unstable governments that are at the mercy of fringe parties to create a government


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bobloblaw on February 18, 2015, 06:12:09 pm
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

Engaged -- sure. But they are also disinformed and manipulated. They are old, and they are dying off. They are not influencing younger voters who may be more interested in relief from student loans than in "gun rights".

Barack Obama built a far-sturdier and far-more-successful coalition than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. His electoral apparatus has gone lock, stock, and barrel to Hillary Clinton... and that is how things start.



One of the great follies the left engages in is in thinking that how people vote when they are young is how they will vote all their lives.

They point out how conservative older voters re, but they miss the fact that these older voters were JFK supporters, voted LBJ by greater than the national popular margin and were Nixon's weakest demographic in 1972.

The left is EXTREMELY wedded to the idea of a permanent majority caused by demographics because the left fundamentally doesnt like elections. They years for a one party progressive state that creates a utopia. Where the one party isnt defeated by recession, corruption or foreign policy issues. The left's ideal looks a lot like Mexico under the PRI from 1929-2000 or Post 1994 South Africa.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Devils30 on February 18, 2015, 06:39:48 pm
With only 17 Presidential elections since 1948 that's just not a strong sample size. Even in the history of the country there's only been 57 elections. Every single data point should be looked at, even the late 1800s. Particularly as it was a period of polarization similar to today.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Landslide Andy on February 18, 2015, 11:20:10 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly

This model was widely touted by the right wing blogosphere during 2012. Don't try to rewrite history.

Quote
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university#sthash.Yd7lxnQp.dpuf


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: TheElectoralBoobyPrize on February 19, 2015, 01:00:51 am
- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

He wrote that before the midterm elections. Key 1 has fallen, albeit just barely.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Mister Mets on February 19, 2015, 11:33:42 am
Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

Engaged -- sure. But they are also disinformed and manipulated. They are old, and they are dying off. They are not influencing younger voters who may be more interested in relief from student loans than in "gun rights".

Barack Obama built a far-sturdier and far-more-successful coalition than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. His electoral apparatus has gone lock, stock, and barrel to Hillary Clinton... and that is how things start.



One of the great follies the left engages in is in thinking that how people vote when they are young is how they will vote all their lives.

They point out how conservative older voters re, but they miss the fact that these older voters were JFK supporters, voted LBJ by greater than the national popular margin and were Nixon's weakest demographic in 1972.

The left is EXTREMELY wedded to the idea of a permanent majority caused by demographics because the left fundamentally doesnt like elections. They years for a one party progressive state that creates a utopia. Where the one party isnt defeated by recession, corruption or foreign policy issues. The left's ideal looks a lot like Mexico under the PRI from 1929-2000 or Post 1994 South Africa.
Romney also won voters 18-20.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/10/democrats-have-a-young-people-problem-too/

Quote
If we zero in even further on the youngest of the millennials in these polls — those who turned 18 during Obama’s first term — the potential challenges for Democrats become even clearer. Among self-reported voters who were 18 years old in 2012, Mitt Romney, not Obama, won the majority: 57 percent.  Romney also won 59 percent among 19-year-olds, and 54 percent among 20-year-olds.  These youngest voters of 2012 had entered the electorate in 2010-2012, when Obama’s popularity was much lower than the high point of his inauguration.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: SPC on February 19, 2015, 12:26:41 pm
- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

He wrote that before the midterm elections. Key 1 has fallen, albeit just barely.

Does the current state of Libya, Syria, and Iraq not qualify as losing the tenth Key as well?


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Ghost of Ruin on February 19, 2015, 03:17:26 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Mister Mets on February 19, 2015, 04:13:05 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.
They managed to avoid this in the 2014 cycle.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Devils30 on February 19, 2015, 08:28:03 pm
Romney did not win voters 18-20, that survey was flawed. You can't reconcile that with the exit poll.
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#exitPoll

Unless Obama won 80% of 22-24 voters there is zero chance Romney won voters in the age 18-20 range.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Ghost of Ruin on February 20, 2015, 01:32:55 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.
They managed to avoid this in the 2014 cycle.

No, they didn't.
http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/




Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bobloblaw on February 20, 2015, 02:01:57 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly

This model was widely touted by the right wing blogosphere during 2012. Don't try to rewrite history.

Quote
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university#sthash.Yd7lxnQp.dpuf

The Time For A Change model predicted an Obama win


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: bobloblaw on February 20, 2015, 02:04:55 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.

It seems the left's entire strategy is hope the GOP gaffes and demographics will deliver a win.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Landslide Andy on February 20, 2015, 03:23:39 pm
President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly

This model was widely touted by the right wing blogosphere during 2012. Don't try to rewrite history.

Quote
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university#sthash.Yd7lxnQp.dpuf

The Time For A Change model predicted an Obama win

Yes, that's the point. Models ran the gamut from an Obama landslide to a Romney landslide.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Devils30 on February 20, 2015, 05:16:29 pm
Typical Republican: "The White House isn't won by a party three times in a row so we can run out someone from the same family as the guy who left the WH with 25% approval 8 years ago."

Good luck trying to explain that to workers in Ohio.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: TheElectoralBoobyPrize on February 21, 2015, 08:57:44 am
- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

He wrote that before the midterm elections. Key 1 has fallen, albeit just barely.

Does the current state of Libya, Syria, and Iraq not qualify as losing the tenth Key as well?

It's a close call...it takes something dramatic to turn Key 10. I don't think any of those events BY THEMSELVES  count, but combined they might. I'll just say it's a key in play for now.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: 2,868,691 on February 21, 2015, 11:15:51 am
National Journal has a piece on political scientists skeptical of Hillary Clinton's chances of being the next President. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/predictive-intelligence-20150213)

Quote
In 2012, for example, most strategists think Obama won because he ran one of the best presidential campaigns in American history while Mitt Romney ran one of the worst. According to political scientists, however, Obama's victory was a product of favorable conditions, such as an improving economy, decent approval ratings, and his incumbency. The unemployment rate was high, yes, but the state of the economy matters little compared with the direction it's headed.


Really? "Most" experts believe these two things? That's news to me...


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: Mister Mets on February 21, 2015, 11:21:49 am
National Journal has a piece on political scientists skeptical of Hillary Clinton's chances of being the next President. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/predictive-intelligence-20150213)

Quote
In 2012, for example, most strategists think Obama won because he ran one of the best presidential campaigns in American history while Mitt Romney ran one of the worst. According to political scientists, however, Obama's victory was a product of favorable conditions, such as an improving economy, decent approval ratings, and his incumbency. The unemployment rate was high, yes, but the state of the economy matters little compared with the direction it's headed.


Really? "Most" experts believe these two things? That's news to me...
He referred to strategists, not necessarily all experts.

Strategists are the subgroup of experts most likely to exaggerate the significance of campaigning.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: King on February 28, 2015, 11:02:55 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lJ3tfQFpc

Strategists are the subgroup of experts most likely to exaggerate the significance of campaigning.

Republican strategists who ran SuperPACs that blew all their donors money looking save their hide believe this, not strategists in general.


Title: Re: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
Post by: King on February 28, 2015, 11:11:40 am
Look, the Democratic advantage with youth won't last forever. It will eventually become the party of Mom and Dad, and the Republicans will win youth. This is what the 1980s were vs. New Deal.

But it takes actual work.

For claiming to be against entitlements, a lot of Republicans here are thinking they are entitled to winning 2016 and youth voters now because it's their turn. No. You have it earn these new voters. It's the truth and it is possible but it's not going to happen without making fundamental changes.