Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2020 Predictions
#1
A place for horse race predictions.
Reply
#2
I haven't gotten a response from the moderator, so I'll just cut and paste my post in the "Fitting Trump in the Flow of History" thread here:

Δ for reelection of a previously elected incumbent:

Taft
1908: 51.57%
1912: 23.17%
(2.226)

Wilson
1912: 41.84%
1916: 49.24%
1.177

Hoover
1928: 58.21%
1932: 58.21%
(1.468)

FDR
1932: 57.41% 
1936: 60.80% 
1.059

FDR
1936: 60.80% 
1940: 54.74% 
(1.111)

FDR
1940: 54.74% 
1944: 53.39% 
(1.025)

Ike
1952: 55.18% 
1956: 57.37% 
 1.040

Nixon
1968: 43.42% 
1972: 60.67% 
1.397
 
Carter
1976: 50.08% 
1980: 41.01% 
(1.221)

Reagan
1980: 50.75% 
1984: 58.77% 
1.158

GHW Bush
1988: 53.37%
1992: 37.45%
(1.425)

Clinton
1992: 43.01%
1996: 49.24%
1.145

GW Bush
2000: 47.87%
2004: 50.73%
1.059

Obama
2008: 52.93%
2012: 51.06%
(1.037)


Source: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1944&f=0&off=0&elect=0

OK, the above didn't translate well from my word doc, but the above shows the difference between each incumbent president's election and reelection bids. The last number is the multiplier or divider of the two. Using the Taft example, he got 51.57% in 1909, then 23.17% in 1912. Taft's drop was a divisor of 2.226.

Anyway, if you take out POTUSs effected by economic downturns or whose vote percentage was effected (for good or ill) by substantial facing third party candidates, the differences stay in a fairly narrow range, between a multiplier of 1.10 and a divisor of 1.05.



...FWIW, I'd compare Trump's reelection bid to that of GW Bush's reelection bid, or 45.93% x 1.059 = 48.63%. The Democrat will get 49.77%, based on the "miscellaneous" vote getting 1.6% of the vote (6.03% divided by 3.75%). Based on the likely variation in that increase on a state by state basis, Trump gets about 294 electoral votes.
----  

PBrower2a responded that he thought that Trump's 2020 vote percentage would drop perhaps down to 41.01% (Carter 1980). unlikely. To go from 45.93% down to 41.01% would equal a divisor of 1.119. Divisors like that only come with economic downturns, third party fratricide, or both. Coronavirus hysteria and Republican Never Trumper fantasies aside, that doesn't seem likely.
Reply
#3
From a 2008 post (sometime around the New Hampshire primary, IIRC):
 
jamesdglick;224235 Wrote:This isn't specifically S&H generational theory, but it was inspired by the presidential list in the Appendix of "Generations":

A list of the ages of the 1st term, non-incumbent winners on election day since 1932 (DOB; Election Day):

Reagan 69 yrs, 8 mos, 29 days (b. 6 FEB 1911) (4 NOV 1980)
Bush 64 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days (b. 12 JUN 1924) (2 NOV 1988)
Ike 62 yrs, 0 mos, 21 days (b. 14 OCT 1890) (4 NOV 1952)
Nixon 55 yrs, 9 mos, 27 days (b. 9 JAN 1913) (5 NOV 1968)
Bush 54 yrs, 3 mos, 29 days (b. 6 JUL 1946) (4 NOV 2000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter 52 yrs, 1 mo, 1 day (b. 1 OCT 1924) (2 NOV 1976)
FDR 50 yrs, 9 mos, 1 day (b. 30 JAN 1882) (1 NOV 1932)
Clinton 46 yrs, 2 mos, 15 days (b. 19 AUG 1946) (3 NOV 1992)
JFK 43 yrs, 6 mos, 3 days (b. 29 MAY 1917) (1 NOV 1960)

Truman, LBJ, and Ford aren't included, since their "1st term" came upon taking office to complete their POTUS's term; when they ran for president, they were already incumbents (and Ford lost anyway).

The "R's" are all of the old guys, the "D's" are all of the young guys...
 
To compare this, we have the non-imcumbent losers (Ds):

(Age on Election day) (DOB) (Election Day)
Kerry 60 yrs,10 mos, 26 days (b. 11 DEC 1943)(6 NOV 2004)
Humphrey 57 yrs, 5 mos, 9 days (b. 27 MAY 1911)(5 NOV 1968)
Stevenson 56 yrs, 9mos, 0 days (b. 5 FEB 1900)(5 NOV 1956)
Dukakis 54 yrs,11 mos, 29 days (b. 3 NOV 1933)(2 NOV 1988)
Stevenson 52 yrs, 8 mos, 30 days (b. 5 FEB 1900)(4 NOV 1952)
Gore 52 yrs, 7 mos, 4 days (b. 31 MAR 1948)(4 NOV 2000)
McGovern 50 yrs, 3 mos, 18 days (b. 19 JUL 1922)(6 NOV 1972)

Kerry, Humphrey, and Stevenson (1956 run) were definitely "too old", Stevenson (1952) & Dukakis were possibly "too old".

And...we have the non-imcumbent losers (Rs):

(Age on Election day) (DOB) (Election Day)
Dole 73 yrs, 3 mos, 13 days (b. 22 JUL 1923)(4 NOV 1996)
Goldwater 55 yrs, 10 mos, 0 days (b. 2 JAN 1909)(2 NOV 1964)
Landon 49 yrs, 1 mo, 24 days (b. 9 SEP 1887)(2 NOV 1936)
Wilkie 48 yrs, 8 mos, 17 days (b.18 FEB 1892)(4 NOV 1940)
Nixon 47 yrs, 9 mos, 30 days (b. 9 JAN 1913)(8 NOV 1960)
Dewey 46 yrs, 7 mos, 15 days (b. 24 MAR 1902)(8 NOV 1948)
Dewey 42 yrs, 7 mos, 13 days (b. 24 MAR 1902)(6 NOV 1944)

Except for Dole & Goldwater, all the "R" losers were "too young"; Goldwater was borderline.

DOBs for candidates on election day, 4 NOV 2008:

McCain 72 yrs, 2 mos, 6 days (b. 29 AUG 1936)
Clinton 61 yrs, 0 mos, 9 days (26 OCT 1947)
Obama 47 yrs, 3 mos, 0 days (b. 4 AUG 1961)

FWIW, according to this pattern, McCain is easily "old" enough.

Obama, far from being "too young", is actually center-mass to be elected as a "D".

Unless the 4T brings a new paradigm ("Old Ds" and "Young Rs"), and even if women get "bonus years" for increased longevity, then Clinton blew her last chance to win the presidency in her own right (assuming she wasn't already too old this time around); her only chance to be president now would be to get in as VP, and then wait for the POTUS to die or resign (like Truman or LBJ; Ford lost).

...this held for 2012 and 2016. Romney was old enough to run as a "R", but lost anyway, while Obama's age was irrelevant, since he was the incumbent. Trump was easily old enough to win as a "R", and Clinton was too old to win as a "D" (she was actually too old to win in 2008 as a "D").

The "D" challengers with delegates:

Sanders (b. 8 SEP 1941)
Bloomberg (b. 14 FEB 1942)
Biden 1942 (b. 20 NOV 1942)
Warren (b. 22 JUN 1949)
Klobuchar (b. 25 MAY 1960)
----------------------------------------
Gabbard (b. 12 APR 1981)
Buttigieg (b. 19 JAN 1982)
Reply
#4
The upshot being that Trump is old enough to win as a R, but Biden is too old to win as a D. Maybe.....
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#5
The incumbent ordinarily has the overwhelming asset of getting to set the agenda. The President has the means of praising what he likes and disparaging what he loathes. He can ask Congress to do things and, should Congress balk, run against Congress. He is in an excellent position for getting successes in foreign policy that nobody else can (often because such would be illegal for anyone else). He is also able to ride good economic news to show his competence as a steward of the economy.

Of course if he does badly at such things he fails -- and so does his Presidency. It would seem reasonable, also, to expect the President to live up to certain minimal standards of morality in office.

So what happens when a President fails at this? Incumbency becomes an albatross.
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.


Reply
#6
(03-09-2020, 06:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The upshot being that Trump is old enough to win as a R, but Biden is too old to win as a D. Maybe.....
...or Sanders. Gabbard is the last woman standing, but I wouldn't take a 100:1 bet that she'd win the nomination.


My "Trump gets 48.66% of the vote prediction and 294 electoral votes" prediction assumes a few things:


1) No Economic Downturns, including negative GDP growth, high unemployment, or double-digit inflation. You might think that a great economy would indicate a huge increase, but, if you study the examples, a great economy isn't anywhere near as helpful as a bad economy is destructive;

2) No Security Problems, including war, insurrection, and possibly crime. This doesn't seem to be anywhere near as important as an economic downturn, though. It's also a lot harder to come up with OBJECTIVE metrics for what constitutes a "security" problem;

3) 3rd Party or Independent Candidates whose runs a large enough to harm the incumbent's vote count. To some extent, this might be a symptom of other problems (see 1 & 2);

4) The incumbent VPOTUS candidate (in this case, Pence) is still on the ticket. This only really effects the VPOTUS's home state (IN), which otherwise would have about a 100% chance of going with Trump anyway;

5) Home State of the POTUS/VPOTUS candidates. Again, like 4, this is the home state advantage. Sanders is from VT, which I give Trump about a 0% chance of winning anyway. Biden is from DE (3 electoral votes), which Trump has about a 4% chance of winning; vs. Biden, that goes to 0%. Much more interesting would be if O'Rourke (TX: 38 EVs), Buttigieg (IN: 11 EVs), or Klobuchar (MN: 10 EVs), all of whom endorsed Biden, were VP candidates, although TX or IN would still be long shots for a "D" ticket.

One of these days, I put up my state-by-state analysis, but my Word doc doesn't translate well to this format. One virture of my system (assuming it pans out) is that I did most of the work in 2017.

Eric, where's your astrology based prediction? PBrower2a, any chance you could bring your prediction (with maps) over here? Anyone else? I figure we can consolidate all the predictions here. In November, we'll see who did the best.
Reply
#7
Well thanks for asking James. It's been on here all the time. I gave Sanders or Biden some chance, because their 14-7 horoscope scores are almost as good as Trump's 9-4, with higher positive numbers. I predicted successfully that they would be the candidates left standing in the Democratic race (as it turns out we have 3, and all had the highest scores). But Trump still has a % advantage in his horoscope score. He has an advantage in the new moon before election method that I use too, as well as incumbency. The party in power is favored to win in 2020 by that method.

But there are caveats! The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction coming up on Dec.21 has favored the challenging party 7 out of 11 times in USA history, including the previous 3 times, for the election just preceding the conjunction by a few months. In the 4 cases where the incumbent party won, it was well entrenched or had no opposition (for example FDR in 1940). And in the new moon chart, Uranus squares (90 degree stressful angle) the Ascendant (rising degree and sign) from below the horizon, as it did in 2016. Uranus in that position has usually toppled the incumbent. So, although I give Trump a slight advantage astrologically, I make no firm prediction for 2020.

Although your method of an old Democratic candidate applies to Sanders, it may not, since he has so much youth support. If Sanders were nominated, he might in fact upset your pattern. But unless Joe has a severe attack of dementia in the next few weeks, his nomination seems assured. His appeal to the youth vote is weak, which would support your prediction if young people don't show up, just as they didn't well enough for Hillary.

Brower has been reviewing the Lichtman Keys (a good method similar to what you have written above), and finds Trump lacking. I am not so sure yet.





I think if Biden stays mentally reasonably healthy, he will likely win Pennsylvania (his former home state) and Michigan (normally Democratic) back from Trump, so the question is whether he can win Wisconsin. If he can't, then Biden could still win just by getting all 4 Maine electoral votes back and the extra Nebraska vote too. Or he could possibly win Arizona. And the older Democrats all flocked to Biden on Super Tuesday (and likely today) because they think he also has a chance in North Carolina and Florida, and even maybe in Ohio and Iowa. Well, we'll see.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#8
(03-10-2020, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...But Trump still has a % advantage in his horoscope score. He has an advantage in the new moon before election method that I use too, as well as incumbency. The party in power is favored to win in 2020 by that method...


-Huh. I would have assumed that you would have equated Trump with a full moon. Oh well.



Sounds like you're copping out, Eric... Or perhaps that equates to a close election?



P.S. EDIT:

Again, my Word doc doesn't translate well, but here are my list of states and districts that have an essentially 0% chance of going for Trump:

CA (55), DC (3), HW (3), IL (20), ME1 (1), MD (10), MA (11), NY (29), OR (7), RI (4), VT (3), WA (12).

These essentially have a 100% chance of going for Trump:

AL (9), AR (6), ID (4), KS (6), KY (8), LA (8), MS (6), MO (10), MT (3), NE(-) (2), NE1 (1), NE3 (1), ND (3), OK (7), SD (3), SC (9), TN (11), WV (5), WY (3).
Reply
#9
FWIW, I have a totally different system for judging Presidential elections, based on math alone. No, it's not better or even as good, but it's a useful guide to how things may play. It's a spreadsheet with all the electoral divisions, a score between -1 (D to the max) and +1 (R to the max) for each one and an array of results based on how tilted the election actually is, from -8% to +8%. Right now, the Presidential election seems to center around -1.5, so a 1% win for the Dems will lose the election in the Electoral College. I'm still refining the individual state scoring, so that may change.

A more analytical approach is one by Rachel Bitecofer who argues that elections are now hardwired, because there are no swing voters anymore. She, and her research team, used this model to predict the 2016 election and nailed the House and Senate races in 2018. Her prediction: if the Progressive vote comes to the polls, Trump will lose dramatically and the Senate may flip to the Ds.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#10
(03-10-2020, 04:34 PM)David Horn Wrote: A more analytical approach is one by Rachel Bitecofer who argues that elections are now hardwired, because there are no swing voters anymore.  She, and her research team, used this model to predict the 2016 election and nailed the House and Senate races in 2018.  Her prediction: if the Progressive vote comes to the polls, Trump will lose dramatically and the Senate may flip to the Ds.

I am more seat of the pants.   I called Trump as having flipped the see saw years ago, and don't see the revelation of the deep state during the impeachment or the Coronavirus  policy changing that.  Thus, I agree with Rachel on the basics.

However, I see the middle of the roaders trying to keep either group of extremists from implementing the worst of their respective policies as being key swing voters.  All during the unraveling and crisis it is they who have kept things going back and forth.  The extremists are very unlikely to change their closed minds.  On that, I disagree with Rachel.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#11
Here are the Lichtman keys. Six turning against the Party then holding the Presidency implies that that party will at the least lose the popular vote for the Presidency. Explanations:

1. (President's Party gains seats in  the House from the second-to-last midterm to the most recent one).  This is a tough standard, one that few incumbent Presidents find working for them. Promises often come with costs, and what sounds wonderful often has problems -- including resistance from powerful interests. Just think of the massive reform that Barack Obama promised on health care that, if fully enacted, would cut costs and make medical care more accessible. The only problem is that some people waxed fat on high costs built into the system. Anyone who fails to recognize the virtue of profits irrespective of costs to the common man ignores that the people who make those profits will rebuke anyone who challenges those profits. If you think healthcare costs are difficult to challenge, then think of how difficult it was to put an end to chattel slavery.

This one has turned against Trump, and he cannot win this one back. One against him. 

2. (The incumbent Party does not face a significant challenge from an intra-party challenger).  I was unaware of a numerical value for such a challenge. I thought that it was enough to have someone with some widespread credibility as an opponent of the incumbent. Thus a Lyn Larouche or David DuKKKe, a fringe character, does not matter. The last five incumbent Presidents (Reagan, the elder Bush, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama sailed through the nomination process). Ford faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan, and Carter faced a challenge from Ted Kennedy. Good feelings within the Party don't get put together quickly, and if there is a meaningful challenge, then the opposition Party will exploit it in negative ads. Trump has violated plenty of canons of the center-right, and just about any Democrat will be able to exploit those.

The incumbent President usually experiences no significant dissidence from within his Party unless he is unusually incompetent or unlucky. The perception of vulnerability is exactly what one sees. I am calling this one tentatively against President Trump because people voting for a mainstream opponent in the Primary or casting blank or "uncommitted" votes instead of those for the incumbent indicate that support for the incumbent is not so solid as it was in the election in which the incumbent became President. 9.1% of participants in the Republican primary in New Hampshire went to Bill Weld, who is not a joke. 

This key has some ambiguity, but this one might turn favorably for the President, only for such expression to appear in votes for a Third-Party or independent nominee who siphons away votes that the incumbent needs. 

3. (Incumbent President running for re-election) Enough said. The incumbent President has control of the agenda, which is ordinarily a huge advantage. Even if something should happen to the President that removes him from office (death or a debilitating stroke or coronary), I would predict that Mike Pence runs for a continuation of his term as President. Strong positive for the GOP here.  .

4. (Third Party challenger to the incumbent's Party) Third Parties can ruin an incumbent Party's campaign by taking away part of the Party's natural constituency. To be sure, this criterion (Ross Perot) hurt the elder Bush in 1992 no more than it hurt Bill Clinton in 1996. The Nader vote in 2000 was much larger than the winning margins for Dubya in both Florida and New Hampshire -- and voters for Nader were not taking votes away from Dubya; either state would have tipped the election for Al Gore. The George Wallace candidacy of 1968 got a bigger share of the popular vote than the margin by which Nixon won in the following states:

OK 8
VA 12
NC 12
TN 11
FL 14
SC 8
KY 8
WI 12
DE 3
CA 40
IL 26
AK 3
OH 26
NJ 17
MO 12

Wallace really was a big-government pol, a veritable socialist. He differed from the Democratic establishment only in his racism. Nixon won 301 electoral votes, and Humphrey won 191... but it is relatively easy to see how Humphrey could have gotten 79 more electoral votes from this combination of states. You might ignore California because Nixon was from California.

Back to current times: possible, but it has yet to happen. Any right-of center nominee who takes away significant votes from the President's re-election bid would seal his defeat.  



5. (Economy not in recession, stagflation or hyperinflation) Since Hoover, economic stewardship has become de facto a responsibility of the President who has some control over monetary policy (which Hoover bungled severely). Administrations can buy elections through loose fiscal and monetary policy, only to achieve stagflation; Nixon won big in 1972 only to cost re-election bids of Ford and Carter. Stagflation may not be a recession, but it implies under-investment for which society will pay heavily. It is far easier to challenge a President who has the misfortune to have high unemployment and falling securities prices.

...I differ from Lichtman in recognizing stagflation and hyperinflation as similarly troublesome to an incumbent President. I doubt that Lichtman would disagree with me on that. Note well that any bubble can burst, and the recent week and a half of decline in the stock market might be the start of a bear market. Much of Trump's appeal has been on the strength of the American economy, most notably on the valuation of securities.  

6. (More economic growth than the previous President) Presidents get credit for economic growth out of a recession or a depression, and not doing as well as the predecessor at that does not look good. After a recession or depression is underway, expectations go down, which makes things easier for any incumbent President. This is a tough standard, an Trump fails here because he cannot surpass the growth that Obama had out of a really-bad recession. This key turns against President Trump, and it will stay turned. I am not sure that it is justified in his case, but it he is to be re-elected he must be able to afford a key going against him.  

7. (The President is able to force major changes in policy) Nothing is said on whether the policy change is benign or catastrophic. The Smoot-Hawley tariff that made the economic meltdown of 1929-1932 more severe would have counted as a positive key no matter what else went wrong. A President capable of forcing change is more effective than one who can't. Trump so far has nothing but a tax cut dedicated to his plutocratic allies, which counts for little. This key so far turns against him, and I cannot imagine any major change in policy happening between now and November. President Trump has a radical-right agenda and the Democratic majority in the House can stop that. 

8. (No significant unrest) Every President will face some dissent, but as long as it does not transmute into riots and ethnic or religious violence, things aren't so bad.

It may be picky on my part; racist violence occasionally happens and it can be lethal. A President with any moral compass condemns such unambiguously. There have been two ugly incidents of people firing upon (and killing) Jews in religious ceremonies. Most of us, if President, would have expressed contempt with the threat of through federal investigation and prosecution. It is President Trump's weak response that suggests Presidential failure. Add to this his infamous statement that "there are good people on both sides" in the aftermath of a neo-Nazi running over a protester at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. There are no good people on both sides of racist violence any more than there are good people on both sides on arson, child molestation, armed robbery, or drug trafficking.  Trump fails to show effective and responsible leadership on this.     

9. (No major scandals) Scandals involving the Presidency are extremely rare. Getting away with a scandal might be possible for a while; Nixon was doing fine until people thought that the Watergate scandal was more than a third-rate burglary. Dubya got away with a corrupt boom from shady lending... but that would lead to a financial panic that would destroy any chance of John McCain winning the Presidency. The Teapot Dome scandal fizzled out with honest prosecutions under Harding's successor.

At worst, scandals can result in an impeachment. The scandals implode the Trump Presidency, and those might be enough to take him down. Americans have shown that they have little tolerance for political corruption except under machine governments whether in such a giant city as Chicago or in some hamlet in Mississippi in which white people will vote for a corrupt white Republican over an honest black Democrat or in which black people will vote for a corrupt black Democrat over an honest white Republican solely due to the tribal (ethnic) split in the electorate.

Americans typically show little tolerance for corruption scandals involving Senators, Governors, and Congressional Representatives, so why should this not affect the Presidency? This key has turned so severely that it could by itself ensure the defeat of the President in November.  Although the President was impeached and not removed, such happened on a rigid party-line divide. I see Donald Trump as acting without accountability. 

10. (No significant failure of foreign policy) What is a major failure? The 'loss' of a seemingly reliable ally that is shakier than people realize. Military defeat (rare in American history). Republicans were never going to let Truman get away with "losing" China, and they were never going to let Carter get away with "losing" Iran.

Getting a deal that implodes is worse than no deal at all. Does anyone here trust either the Taliban or North Korea?  

11. (A significant success in foreign policy) The opposite of #10... turning an enemy into a mere rival... military success... getting a peace treaty or an arrangement to reduce the stock of nuclear weapons.

I see none yet. There is no enforcement in place. A President has more leeway with foreign policy than with domestic policy because partisan carping looks bad. 

12. (The Party's nominee has charisma) You know charisma when you see it.

Donald Trump is a wreck. This key has turned against him. 

13. (The opposing nominee either has no charisma nor recognition as a military hero) Ditto. 

It looks as if Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. I don;t see charisma... this key seems to work for Trump. 

Numbers #1, #6, #8, #9, and #12  already have turned unambiguously against the President. If #2 doesn't get him, then #4 probably will, but I don't see either having turned yet.

#3 and #13 are on his side and aren't going away. #7, #10, and #11 are ambiguous and can go bad if time runs out on this President.

#5 suddenly became shaky. Any bear market that results in increases in unemployment will doom this Presidency because there will not be enough time to get decisively out of any recession and get credit for such. Any sustained bear market usually has a recession attached. Much of the rationale of this President has been that he has inspired faith in the American economy to establish a lasting prosperity.  

The fundamentals of the American economy are anything but strong. There is not enough saving to back the investment necessary for creating new jobs. Securities values have been excessive, and the wealth effect can erode with the complete loss of consumer confidence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The inverted yield curve ensures that companies on life support will die and that a credit crunch will cut into such high-priced consumer activities as remodeling and big-ticket purchases.  

 In view of a recent downturn in securities valuations that I cannot easily see being reversed, I can easily see that one turning against him. So far the meltdown
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.


Reply
#12
(03-10-2020, 06:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 04:34 PM)David Horn Wrote: A more analytical approach is one by Rachel Bitecofer who argues that elections are now hardwired, because there are no swing voters anymore.  She, and her research team, used this model to predict the 2016 election and nailed the House and Senate races in 2018.  Her prediction: if the Progressive vote comes to the polls, Trump will lose dramatically and the Senate may flip to the Ds.

I am more seat of the pants.   I called Trump as having flipped the see saw years ago, and don't see the revelation of the deep state during the impeachment or the Coronavirus  policy changing that.  Thus, I agree with Rachel on the basics.

However, I see the middle of the roaders trying to keep either group of extremists from implementing the worst of their respective policies as being key swing voters.  All during the unraveling and crisis it is they who have kept things going back and forth.  The extremists are very unlikely to change their closed minds.  On that, I disagree with Rachel.

IMNSHO, the middle-of-the-road set are really nonpolitical.  Think about it: how can anyone with an interest in politics not form a solid opinion of some kind -- especially today?  Folks in that group may have strong alliances, but they are religious, social, cultural or tribal in some way.  They relate on a level that can be translated to politics (e.g. think of the Trumpians filling his rallies), but their hold on politics is, well, not political.  Politics requires some thought, and that only appeals to those who have an interest.

To be honest, I'm afraid that the fervor in the Trump camp may be very long lasting, because it's more primal than the intellectual focus of other political types.  Trump may run the party, even though he's out of office.  That has some serious implications, being more the mindset of autocratic regimes.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#13
(03-11-2020, 02:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here are the Lichtman keys. Six turning against the Party then holding the Presidency implies that that party will at the least lose the popular vote for the Presidency. Explanations...

2. (The incumbent Party does not face a significant challenge from an intra-party challenger)...  The perception of vulnerability is exactly what one sees. I am calling this one tentatively against President Trump because people voting for a mainstream opponent in the Primary or casting blank or "uncommitted" votes instead of those for the incumbent indicate that support for the incumbent is not so solid as it was in the election in which the incumbent became President. 9.1% of participants in the Republican primary in New Hampshire went to Bill Weld, who is not a joke. 

This key has some ambiguity, but this one might turn favorably for the President, only for such expression to appear in votes for a Third-Party or independent nominee who siphons away votes that the incumbent needs...

4. (Third Party challenger to the incumbent's Party) Third Parties can ruin an incumbent Party's campaign by taking away part of the Party's natural constituency...

8. (No significant unrest) Every President will face some dissent, but as long as it does not transmute into riots and ethnic or religious violence, things aren't so bad.

...There have been two ugly incidents of people firing upon (and killing) Jews in religious ceremonies. Most of us, if President, would have expressed contempt with the threat of through federal investigation and prosecution. It is President Trump's weak response that suggests Presidential failure. Add to this his infamous statement that "there are good people on both sides" in the aftermath of a neo-Nazi running over a protester at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. There are no good people on both sides of racist violence any more than there are good people on both sides on arson, child molestation, armed robbery, or drug trafficking.  Trump fails to show effective and responsible leadership on this...    
10. (No significant failure of foreign policy) What is a major failure? The 'loss' of a seemingly reliable ally that is shakier than people realize. Military defeat (rare in American history). Republicans were never going to let Truman get away with "losing" China, and they were never going to let Carter get away with "losing" Iran.

Getting a deal that implodes is worse than no deal at all. Does anyone here trust either the Taliban or North Korea?  

...

12. (The Party's nominee has charisma) You know charisma when you see it.

Donald Trump is a wreck. This key has turned against him...

Numbers #1, #6, #8, #9, and #12  already have turned unambiguously against the President. If #2 doesn't get him, then #4 probably will, but I don't see either having turned yet.

#3 and #13 are on his side and aren't going away. #7, #10, and #11 are ambiguous and can go bad if time runs out on this President...

Oh boy. I'll deal with some of the partisan silliness, then do some analysis of your analysis.

On 8: Trump did not call Nazis "good people". He was referring to people who don't want to take down rebel statues:


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p...story.html

Sheesh.

As for violence on both sides, Trump was correct. The so called Black Lives Matters types (racists) and the so-called Anti-Fa (Communists and Anarchists) were, and are, violent.

You alluded to the attacks on Azhkenazi Jews in NYC, but neglected to mention that they were inspired by the Black Hebrew Israelites, people with sort of mentality as the people who filled the pews of Jeremiah Wright and his buddy Louis Farrakhan. Who was it that considered Wright his mentor, again?

BTW, the BHIs are the same group that phony veteran Nathan Phillips claimed were threatened by the Covington Catholic school kids last year. Hardy har har.

On 10: I don't remember you having a problem with Obama trusting the regime his administration called the foremost supporter of state sponsored terrorism, but maybe I missed it. Meanwhile, the deal with the Taliban is conditional, and Trump has given North Korea nothing.

Anyway...

On Key 2 & Key 4:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Repub..._primaries

...I officially declare William Weld "a joke".

On Key 8: Really? Compared to what?

On Key 12: I think you haven't been paying attention for the past four years. Trump fills a stadium in the rain or snow better than any "D", including Crazy Bernie. I now await your predictable violation of Godwin's Law. Big Grin
Reply
#14
(03-10-2020, 04:34 PM)David Horn Wrote: ... I'm still refining the individual state scoring, so that may change...


The election over election state-by-state vote can vary quite a bit.

The variation in the 2004 vs. 2000 state-by-state vote for the "R" (GWB):

Change Bush ® 2000 vs. 2004 =

1.059 (rounded down)
1. RI 1.211
2. HW 1.208  
3. NJ 1.147
4. CT 1.143  Lieberman ‘00
5. NY 1.137
6. MA 1.131  Kerry ‘04
7. TN 1.110  Gore ‘00
8. AL 1.105 
9. DE 1.091
10. OK 1.087 
11. LA 1.079
12. WV 1.079
13. AZ 1.075
14. UT 1.070
15. KS 1.068
16. MD 1.068
17. FL 1.066
18. CA 1.065
19. GA 1.060
20. NE 1.058
21. AR 1.058
22. IN 1.058
23. MO 1.057
24. KY 1.053
25. MN 1.046
26. IL 1.044
27. DC 1.043
28. PA 1.042  
29. AK 1.041
30. NM 1.041
31. ND 1.036
32. OH 1.036
33. MI 1.035
34. WI 1.035
35. IA 1.034
36. MS 1.031
37. TX 1.030  Bush ’00 ‘04
38. VA 1.023
39. WA 1.023
40. SC 1.020
41. NV 1.019 
42. CO 1.018
43. ID 1.018
44. NH 1.016
45. WY 1.016 Cheney ’00 ‘04
46. OR 1.014
47. ME 1.013
48. MT 1.010
49. NC (1.001) Edwards ‘04
50. SD (1.007)
51. VT (1.049)


(Again, I apologize for the Word doc transfer).

For example, in 2004, GWB improved his performance in MN by a multiple of 1.046. His 2004 performance in TN and CT was much higher than his 2000 performance because Gore and Lieberman were no longer on the ticket (or so I assume). His performance in NC was much lower (one of only three states where GWB lost vote percentage), probably due to Edward's presence on the ticket. TX and WY were solid "R" states, and an incumbent is only likely to raise the vote so much. I can't explain MA, other than KERRY SUCKED! Big Grin I honestly don't know what the deal was there.

Interestingly, the greatest improvement occurred in states that "didn't" matter i.e., states that were going to be "R" or "D" anyway, not in so-called battleground states.

How my system applies this to a 2020 prediction: Having compared 2000-2004 with 2016-2020, I figure that the state-by-state variation will be similar. Not that each state will literally see the exact same change in 2020 as it did in 2004, e.g., the incumbent's (Trump's) vote in MI (47.50%) must multiply by 1.035 (49.16%), but that to get to a certain percentage, say, 50.00%, that he would need a multiplier of 1.053 to get there (47.50% x 1.035 = >50.01%). What I use, is that a 1.053 multiplier occurred in 24 out of 51 elections in 2004. Now, I deduct the the elections where the guys on the ticket came from because it probably effects things a bit, so 24 out of 51 becomes 21 out of 45 (46.66%) chance of getting to 50.0%. I eventually deduced a way to calculate the non-"D" and non-"R" vote for 2020 by taking the 2016 miscellaneous vote and dividing by 3.75 (the miscellaneous vote in 2000 was 3.75%, in 2004, it was 1.00%). This gives me the percentage by which the Trump could win by a plurality, in this case 49.31%, which adds another 6/45 to his chance of winning, for a total of 27/45 (60.00%).
Reply
#15
Presidential Winners/Losers, with highest held office (again, transferal from Worddoc to 4TF isn't everything I'd hope):
Year    Winner                           //      Loser
1904 President (Elected as VP)  //     Judge ( NY Court of Appeals)
1908 Cabinet Secretary (War) //       former Representative
1912 Governor                        //       President
1916 President                         //      Justice (Supreme Court of the US)
1920 Governor                           //    Governor
1924 President (Elected as VP)      // former Representative
1928 Cabinet Secretary (Commerce) // Governor
1932 Governor                           //     President
1936 President                            //      Governor
1940 President                            //    Citizen (or 1st Lieutenant)
1944 President                            //   Governor
1948 President (Elected as VP)   //       Governor
1952 retired 5-Star General        //   Governor
1956 President                           //    Governor
1960 Senator                          //      Vice President
1964 President (Elected as VP)   //     Senator
1968 former Vice President         //       Vice President
1972 President                          //     Senator
1976 former Governor             //    President (Appointed as VP)
1980 former Governor             //    President
1984 President                       //          former Vice President
1988 Vice President                 //       Governor
1992 Governor                        //        President
1996 President                      //         Senator
2000 Governor                       //         Vice President
2004 President                        //        Senator
2008 Senator                          //      Senator
2012 President                      //          former Governor
2016 Citizen                          //     former Cabinet Secretary (State)


To sum up:

Presidents (Elected as POTUS): 10 won vs. 4 lost (not inc. former POTUS T. Roosevelt 1912)
Presidents (Completing Elected POTUS’ term; originally Elected/Appointed as VPOTUS): 4 won vs. 1 lost
Vice Presidents: 2 (inc. 1 former) won vs. 4 (inc. 1 former) lost
Cabinet Secretaries: 2 won vs. 1 (inc. 1 former) lost
Governors: 7 (inc. 2 former) won vs. 9 (inc. 1 former) lost
Senators: 2 won vs. 5 lost
Representatives: 0 won vs. 2 lost
Justices: 0 won vs. 1 lost
Judges: 0 won vs. 1 lost
5-Star Officers: 1 (retired) won vs. 0 lost  
Citizens: 1 won vs. 1 lost
Reply
#16
One of the Lichtman keys, #5 (economy not in recession, stagflation, or hyperinflation) may be turning against Trump.

The DJIA closed nearly 3000 points down in the absolute largest one-day drop and the second-highest percentage drop ever. Of the six largest drops by percentage, five are in 1929 or 2020. The other is the largest percentage drop was the odd drop of 50 points (over 22%) on 19 October 1987 which was reversed rather quickly because there was no underlying cause for a recession.This time (as in 1929)... there is one.

The worst three one-day declines by percentage in 2008 were #11, #15, and #16.

Maybe the Great and Unqualified Genius can solve all our problems for us
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.


Reply
#17
The Lichtman test is imperfect in that it relies partially on interpretation, but I would still call it a solid system, provided that metrics are used to determine a few of the more ambiguous keys. Some are already outlined in the book or in this thread, but I would like to compile criteria:

*Contest: Serious primary challenger garners at least one-third of delegates
*Third party: Significant third party candidate is polling at least 5% of the vote nationally or statewide
*Policy change: Incumbent achieves something major that they campaigned on
*Social unrest: No sustained riots (not just protests)
*Foreign success: Achieves an economic/nuclear agreement with adversary, doesn't lose an ally to revolution (i.e. Truman with China or Carter with Iran), oversees kill or capture of a key terrorist, or a war is quickly won rather than prolonged indefinitely
*Candidate charisma: Candidate has public/personal approval rating of at least 50-60%

Other keys such as economic growth, midterm results, or incumbency are more evident and easily determinable.
Reply
#18
(03-16-2020, 03:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: One of the Lichtman keys, #5 (economy not in recession, stagflation, or hyperinflation) may be turning against Trump.

The DJIA closed nearly 3000 points down in the absolute largest one-day drop and the second-highest percentage drop ever. Of the six largest drops by percentage, five are in 1929 or 2020. The other is the largest percentage drop was the odd drop of 50 points (over 22%) on 19 October 1987 which was reversed rather quickly because there was no underlying cause for a recession.This time (as in 1929)... there is one.

The worst three one-day declines by percentage in 2008 were #11, #15, and #16.  

Maybe the Great and Unqualified Genius can solve all our problems for us

A coronavirus-driven recession would turn key #5, and also #6 if severe enough. Factoring those in with the criteria listed above, I'd put the 13 keys in the following columns:

Trump Keys (7)
*Contest
*Incumbency
*Third party
*Policy change (most of it by executive action and SCOTUS appointments, but policy change nonetheless)
*Social unrest
*Foreign/military success
*Challenger charisma

Biden Keys (6)
*Party Mandate
*Short-term economy
*Long-term economy
*Scandal
*Foreign/military failure
*Incumbent charisma

I still give Trump the foreign success key because although there wasn't ever a NK deal and the agreement with Iran went up in flames, he did negotiate and get ratified a replacement for NAFTA, along with plans to finally get out of Afghanistan. It's a mixed category.

If you were to ask me a week ago, I'd have said Trump would likely win again. Hurricane Corona has thrown everything up in the air. This puts the score at 7-6 which by Lichtman terms is no serious lead at all, since five or less need to go to the challenger to secure reelection. One important distinction: the system only accounts for the popular vote, so the six that Biden has might mean a repeat of 2016.
Reply
#19
(03-11-2020, 01:00 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:
(03-11-2020, 02:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here are the Lichtman keys. Six turning against the Party then holding the Presidency implies that that party will at the least lose the popular vote for the Presidency. Explanations...

2. (The incumbent Party does not face a significant challenge from an intra-party challenger)...  The perception of vulnerability is exactly what one sees. I am calling this one tentatively against President Trump because people voting for a mainstream opponent in the Primary or casting blank or "uncommitted" votes instead of those for the incumbent indicate that support for the incumbent is not so solid as it was in the election in which the incumbent became President. 9.1% of participants in the Republican primary in New Hampshire went to Bill Weld, who is not a joke. 

This key has some ambiguity, but this one might turn favorably for the President, only for such expression to appear in votes for a Third-Party or independent nominee who siphons away votes that the incumbent needs...

4. (Third Party challenger to the incumbent's Party) Third Parties can ruin an incumbent Party's campaign by taking away part of the Party's natural constituency...

8. (No significant unrest) Every President will face some dissent, but as long as it does not transmute into riots and ethnic or religious violence, things aren't so bad.

...There have been two ugly incidents of people firing upon (and killing) Jews in religious ceremonies. Most of us, if President, would have expressed contempt with the threat of through federal investigation and prosecution. It is President Trump's weak response that suggests Presidential failure. Add to this his infamous statement that "there are good people on both sides" in the aftermath of a neo-Nazi running over a protester at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. There are no good people on both sides of racist violence any more than there are good people on both sides on arson, child molestation, armed robbery, or drug trafficking.  Trump fails to show effective and responsible leadership on this...    
10. (No significant failure of foreign policy) What is a major failure? The 'loss' of a seemingly reliable ally that is shakier than people realize. Military defeat (rare in American history). Republicans were never going to let Truman get away with "losing" China, and they were never going to let Carter get away with "losing" Iran.

Getting a deal that implodes is worse than no deal at all. Does anyone here trust either the Taliban or North Korea?  

...

12. (The Party's nominee has charisma) You know charisma when you see it.

Donald Trump is a wreck. This key has turned against him...

Numbers #1, #6, #8, #9, and #12  already have turned unambiguously against the President. If #2 doesn't get him, then #4 probably will, but I don't see either having turned yet.

#3 and #13 are on his side and aren't going away. #7, #10, and #11 are ambiguous and can go bad if time runs out on this President...

Oh boy. I'll deal with some of the partisan silliness, then do some analysis of your analysis.

On 8: Trump did not call Nazis "good people". He was referring to people who don't want to take down rebel statues:


https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p...story.html

Sheesh.

As for violence on both sides, Trump was correct. The so called Black Lives Matters types (racists) and the so-called Anti-Fa (Communists and Anarchists) were, and are, violent.

You alluded to the attacks on Azhkenazi Jews in NYC, but neglected to mention that they were inspired by the Black Hebrew Israelites, people with sort of mentality as the people who filled the pews of Jeremiah Wright and his buddy Louis Farrakhan. Who was it that considered Wright his mentor, again?

BTW, the BHIs are the same group that phony veteran Nathan Phillips claimed were threatened by the Covington Catholic school kids last year. Hardy har har.

On 10: I don't remember you having a problem with Obama trusting the regime his administration called the foremost supporter of state sponsored terrorism, but maybe I missed it. Meanwhile, the deal with the Taliban is conditional, and Trump has given North Korea nothing.

Anyway...

On Key 2 & Key 4:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Repub..._primaries

...I officially declare William Weld "a joke".

He is a former State governor, and generally recognized as effective.   


Quote:On Key 8: Really? Compared to what?


Compared to itself. To be sure, these are lone-wolf attacks. I mentioned the attacks on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway. These attacks are not against a religious assembly out of a personal grudge.  The attack on the Pittsburgh synagogue was about a Jewish congregation facilitating the immigration of people that the shooter hated. Trump's anti-immigrant speech has consequences. Then there was a nutcase in Florida who turned his van into a veritable bomb factory. His van was decorated with pro-Trump paraphernalia. 

Trump has been weak in addressing domestic terrorism. Contrast Reagan.

Quote:On Key 12: I think you haven't been paying attention for the past four years. Trump fills a stadium in the rain or snow better than any "D", including Crazy Bernie. I now await your predictable violation of Godwin's Law. Big Grin

Charisma is the ability to get people to do things that they otherwise would not do, as to set aside an agenda contrary to that of a Leader on behalf of something better. He is not winning people over.
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.


Reply
#20
(03-16-2020, 06:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Charisma is the ability to get people to do things that they otherwise would not do, as to set aside an agenda contrary to that of a Leader on behalf of something better. He is not winning people over.

Charisma is more effective when you are trying to convince people of something they already want to believe. The Tea Party existed before Trump. I suspect he remade himself to speak what people wanted to hear. Thus, the big rallies. Thus, the disconnect between what he says (drain the swamp) and what he does (hire alligators).

Eventually, even the middle of the country will recognize the difference.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Michigan plot, October 2020 pbrower2a 13 1,057 03-05-2021, 11:11 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Election 2020 pbrower2a 1,250 97,097 02-12-2021, 02:34 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Election Night 2020 thread pbrower2a 78 4,529 12-24-2020, 06:02 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Election 2020 Eric the Green 56 17,042 10-09-2020, 07:05 AM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  The Democrats Will Win In 2020 naf140230 56 23,636 01-29-2017, 07:41 AM
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
  2020 Redistricting playwrite 12 4,383 11-21-2016, 03:31 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)