Professor Helmout Norpoth Has Correctly Predicted Each Presidential Election Since 1996 Says? (1 Viewer)

LOONEY

gulf war vet
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
4,854
Reaction score
3,479
Age
52
Location
NorthShore
Offline
Professor Helmut Norpoth from Stony Brook University today told Lou Dobbs Donald Trump has an 87% chance of winning the November presidential election.

Professor Norpoth is a political science professor at Long Island’s Stoney Brook University.

His model has been correct since 1996 on predicting the popular vote.

This 2016 forecast rests on a model that tracks cyclical movements in American presidential elections. It goes back to 1828, when popular voting became widespread and the two-party system took hold. Over nearly two centuries, American presidential elections have exhibited a distinct cycle. This is not the pattern associated with partisan realignments that may last 30 years or so, but a shorter cycle that relates to party control of the White House.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,805
Offline
So Gore is his only miss, well for who won the election, since he's always gotten popular vote winner and Gore got that.
 

Brandon13

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
4,187
Reaction score
2,570
Age
32
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
Fivethirtyeight.com now gives Trump a 40.3% chance of winning the election in their Polls-plus forecast.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk
 

Domefan504

SR is my life!
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
15,027
Reaction score
13,022
Location
Metry/NOLA
Offline
This one picks Hillary

Moody's Predicts Clinton 2016 Election Win Over Donald Trump | The Daily Caller

One of the world’s most well-known financial institutions which correctly predicted every presidential election since 1980 is predicting a win for Hillary Clinton.

Moody’s Analytics, a subsidiary of credit ratings agency Moody’s, believes President Obama’s strong approval ratings will give the Democratic nominee a significant advantage come November



Read more: Moody's Predicts Clinton 2016 Election Win Over Donald Trump | The Daily Caller
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Professor Helmut Norpoth from Stony Brook University today told Lou Dobbs Donald Trump has an 87% chance of winning the November presidential election.

Professor Norpoth is a political science professor at Long Island’s Stoney Brook University.

His model has been correct since 1996 on predicting the popular vote.

This 2016 forecast rests on a model that tracks cyclical movements in American presidential elections. It goes back to 1828, when popular voting became widespread and the two-party system took hold. Over nearly two centuries, American presidential elections have exhibited a distinct cycle. This is not the pattern associated with partisan realignments that may last 30 years or so, but a shorter cycle that relates to party control of the White House.
I am not sure how his model works but I feel very confident in saying a conventional Republican candidate would probably win this election.

But, and this probably speaks more against his model, a conventional Democratic candidate that is not named Clinton more than likely beats that conventional Republican candidate.
 

Domefan504

SR is my life!
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
15,027
Reaction score
13,022
Location
Metry/NOLA
Offline
Allan Lichtman called each one right since 1984


Experts predict Clinton win during Hammer Museum lecture | Daily Bruin

Lichtman explained his model “The 13 Keys to the White House,” which helps him predict election results. The model consists of 13 true or false statements about the country, incumbent party and challenger, like “The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president” and “The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.”

If six or more of the statements are false, the model predicts the incumbent party will lose the election, Lichtman said.

“Every election is basically a referendum on the incumbent party,” Lichtman said. “If it does a good job, their candidate gets reelected. If it does a bad job, their candidate gets thrown out.”

Lichtman added his model currently predicts Clinton will win about 52 percent of the vote because eight of the test statements are true.

Lichtman's 13 keys,

Source
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nce-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/


Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
 

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
15,303
Location
Denver
Offline
I am not sure how his model works but I feel very confident in saying a conventional Republican candidate would probably win this election.

But, and this probably speaks more against his model, a conventional Democratic candidate that is not named Clinton more than likely beats that conventional Republican candidate.
How do you define "conventional"?

Cruz was the runner up in the primaries, and I think he would get crushed in a general election.

Someone like Bush or Kasich, ok, or even Rubio, but those guys can't come close to winning a GOP primary against the likes of Trump or Cruz.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
How do you define "conventional"?

Cruz was the runner up in the primaries, and I think he would get crushed in a general election.

Someone like Bush or Kasich, ok, or even Rubio, but those guys can't come close to winning a GOP primary against the likes of Trump or Cruz.
You are right about Cruz. I would define him as conventional. he is right wing, but conventional. And I am not confident he would win. So, I guess I would amend to say "conventional, except for Ted Cruz types" - which makes my point meaningless. So never mind.
 

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
15,303
Location
Denver
Offline
You are right about Cruz. I would define him as conventional. he is right wing, but conventional. And I am not confident he would win. So, I guess I would amend to say "conventional, except for Ted Cruz types" - which makes my point meaningless. So never mind.
I don't think your point is meaningless. I think what you're trying to say is that if the GOP had nominated a non-wing nut, sane, reasonable, traditional conservative candidate, that person would likely beat Hillary head to head.

I agree with that. But the GOP voter base doesn't want that candidate.
 

Domefan504

SR is my life!
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
15,027
Reaction score
13,022
Location
Metry/NOLA
Offline
I think I saw a few days ago that Obama's approval rating is 58%, which is astounding for a two-term President in his last year.
Yep,

Obama's approval rating is at its highest point in years, and that could be a big problem for Donald Trump
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-approval-rating-highest-point-171727372.html

In a Washington Post poll released over the weekend, the president's approval rating hit an astounding 58%. That is 15 points higher than it was in a Post poll from right before the 2014 midterm elections. And it's the highest level since he hit that point six months into his presidency.

"He is the most popular Democrat in the country, and as his term comes toward an end, the intensity of love for him only grows," said Steve Schale, a former Obama campaign state director. "'Elect Hillary to protect President Obama's legacy' is a very powerful message for Democrats."

The threshold might seem arbitrary. But historical precedent suggests it could bode well for Clinton, Obama's former secretary of state.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
22,040
Reaction score
19,636
Age
49
Location
Between here and there
Online
Good lord if I ran this year at this point I'd get elected simply because a) I'm not crazy And b) I'm not corrupt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Obama's approval rating is phenomenal. I am fairly sure it is oneo fhte highest for a 2 term president in his last year.
Did Clinton have this high of approval? I don't think Reagan did. Nixon? - LMAO. And W might have had one of the lowest.

If I were Trump I would be trying to get those Colin Powell emails on every tv show in the country - where someone - maybe it was Powell - talks about how much the Clintons hate Obama.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
I don't think your point is meaningless. I think what you're trying to say is that if the GOP had nominated a non-wing nut, sane, reasonable, traditional conservative candidate, that person would likely beat Hillary head to head.

I agree with that. But the GOP voter base doesn't want that candidate.
Yeah, i should have said - I could be wrong because I don;t know the specifics, but it seems like his model doesn;t take into account the specifics of the candidates in the election. It is more geared towards macro-indicators - particularly election history. If you start in 1996 the only potentially hard election from a macro standpoint would have been 2012.
 

crosswatt

Gone Fishing.
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
32,282
Reaction score
46,065
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline
I just still can't believe we're gonna have one of these bloviating fopdoodles as our next President.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,279
Reaction score
28,278
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
You are right about Cruz. I would define him as conventional. he is right wing, but conventional. And I am not confident he would win. So, I guess I would amend to say "conventional, except for Ted Cruz types" - which makes my point meaningless. So never mind.
I think it's a great point.

If Rs had nominated a sane sort of candidate the likes of which it no longer seems to support, it would have won in a landslide over HRC. That said, had the Ds nominated a good candidate against Trump, this election would be 80 - 20.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom