Elections Prediction Models look Dismal for Obama - Page 3

notorious · 07-31-2012, 02:35 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/add-it-up--the...till-win-.html

By: Jeff Greenfield

Add it up: The prediction models look dismal for Obama. Can he still win?

I got into writing and thinking about politics because I was told there would be no math.

Boy, was I misled. It’s not just the torrent of polls that we have to deal with, but the numbers that supposedly forecast Presidential elections with uncanny accuracy. Depending on whom you turn to, the key lies in second quarter real GDP growth, the optimism or pessimism of the electorate, individual or family real income growth or a dizzying mix of these and other measurements.

They’re usually economic, although one prognosticator—Allan Lichtman, history professor at American University—uses broader measurements, asking whether the incumbent or challenger is charismatic or whether the incumbent party has presided over a major change in social policy. (This is considered a positive, although I don’t know if we’ve ever had a case like the Affordable Care Act, which—unlike every other major social change—passed without bipartisan backing and remains broadly unpopular.)

I’m a skeptic about the predictive power of these numbers for many reasons. For one thing, the “sample size,” which totals about twenty or so Presidential elections since most of these measurements were first made, is too small. For another, they work—unless they don’t. In 1968, strong economic figures were trumped by a divisive war and by social unrest. In 2000, every economic forecasting model predicted that Al Gore would win a comfortable or landslide plurality. They were “right” in the sense that he got half a million more votes than Bush; they were “wrong” in the fundamental outcome they offered.

So it’s with that skepticism in mind that I offer, not a prediction, but a flat pre-election assessment: If President Barack Obama is to win, he is going to have to overcome a set of numbers that no incumbent President, or incumbent party, has ever managed to surmount.

The jobless rate has been stuck at just above 8 per cent for months; you have to go back to 1936 to find a President re-elected with a higher unemployment rate. And in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s case, it was a far better number than he had inherited. Plus, growth was booming.

Today, real growth is at 1.5 per cent. In the economic forecasting models, this portends what even the liberal arts majors have been predicting: a very close election.

The core question for many voters—“Are you generally satisfied with the country’s direction, or has the U.S. gone off on the wrong track”—gets a 32.7-60.7 negative answer, according to the RealClearPolitics average. Generally, an incumbent party needs to have at least a 35% positive response to this question to win the election, says the Gallup Organization.

The consumer confidence level is now about 60 per cent. No incumbent party has ever kept the White House with a number anything like that. (It was slightly higher, at 65 per cent, in 1980 when Carter lost in a landslide.)

Now, try this as a thought exercise. Forget who is running, what the latest gaffe of the day is, who is outraged and what latest insult to what group has been perpetrated by the candidate or his staff. Ignore whom you’re rooting for, and just look at those numbers with the ice-cold heart of a bean counter.

What you would conclude, I think, is that there is no way an incumbent President could get re-elected given these current numbers.

In this sense, the 2012 election is going to test just how predictive many of these “fundamental” models are, and whether the assertion of some forecasters—that the outcome can be known irrespective of candidates and campaigns—is valid.

Why? Because, to put it bluntly: The Republicans have nominated a bad candidate.

Some (very) brief history and a hypothesis. Six years ago, Mitt Romney and his team realized that he could never win the Republican nomination as the pragmatic, moderate-conservative with moderate-to-liberal views on everything from abortion to gun control to the environment to health care. (The mandate was a conservative position back then, but put that aside.) When Team Romney saw Sen. George Allen, the likely 2008 social conservative hero, lose his re-election bid in 2006, they found an opening, and decided to reach, or lunge, for that slot.

And so, throughout the 2008 campaign and throughout this one, Romney has been running as if to claim that his four years in higher office was a case of mistaken identity. I think it has forced him to campaign in mortal fear of every word he utters, to pander to local pride and political constituencies in a manner that seems a parody of the clumsy politician.

At root, Romney is a candidate in the grip of performance anxiety. And whether on the tennis court or in more intimate settings performance anxiety is a near-guarantee of poor performance.

It’s often said that a re-election campaign is always about the incumbent; like many political observations, that’s partly, but not wholly, true. Even when the electorate is disposed to replace the President, it has to be satisfied that the challenger is up to the job. Mitt Romney has yet to meet that test.

The Obama campaign, however, can take very limited comfort from Romney’s discomfit. If the “fundamental” numbers continue to be as grim as they now are, the desire to change course will deepen. And the more that longing intensifies, the lower the bar Mitt Romney will have to clear.

Donger · 07-31-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Engineering a war against innocent people just to maintain power by convincing the public to follow along is one of the most treasonous acts a "leader" can do.

You sat around for hours and came up with that? You think that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq?

Bambi · 07-31-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

You sat around for hours and came up with that? You think that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq?

Never has a connection been made between Iraq and Al Queda. Normal people you and me knew that. They identified warehouses that were to contain wmd. They were just buildings.

So yes, they knowingly lied. Not the first time something like that has happened.

WV · 07-31-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bewbies

It's really hard not to like Obama.

cosmo20002 · 07-31-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

How did Bush screw up Afghanistan? And if I may ask a follow up, if he did, why hasn't Obama straightened it out in 3 1/2 years?

I find the premise of the question pretty ridiculous. If you're still there 7 years later (which was the end of W's term), you screwed it up. That simply speaks for itself.

How did he screw it up? Probably by starting a ground war with not enough troops and equipment in a place where such efforts have always failed. Instead, most resources went to Iraq.

Why hasn't Obama straightened it out? That's a completely seperate issue, but he was also saddled with Iraq, and getting out is often harder than getting in. I would have liked to see us be out of there by now.

**mlyonsd** · 07-31-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I find the premise of the question pretty ridiculous. If you're still there 7 years later (which was the end of W's term), you screwed it up. That simply speaks for itself.

How did he screw it up? Probably by starting a ground war with not enough troops and equipment in a place where such efforts have always failed. Instead, most resources went to Iraq.

Why hasn't Obama straightened it out? That's a completely seperate issue, but he was also saddled with Iraq, and getting out is often harder than getting in. I would have liked to see us be out of there by now.

I can't help the premise of the question since you were the one that raised the point.

I suppose you can cling to the 'resources went to Iraq' position even though the democrats were on board and openly encouraged forcing Saddam out with a military intervention. Your lack of criticism towards them is noted.

Also noted is your criticism of Bush for screwing up Afghanistan based on timeline while at the same time not criticizing Obama for us still being there after 3 1/2 years of his leadership.

If I didn't know better I'd almost think you were being partisan.

cosmo20002 · 07-31-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I can't help the premise of the question since you were the one that raised the point.

I suppose you can cling to the 'resources went to Iraq' position even though the democrats were on board and openly encouraged forcing Saddam out with a military intervention. Your lack of criticism towards them is noted.

Also noted is your criticism of Bush for screwing up Afghanistan based on timeline while at the same time not criticizing Obama for us still being there after 3 1/2 years of his leadership.

If I didn't know better I'd almost think you were being partisan.

You're overstating Ds wanting to remove Saddam with a military intervention, but what you are saying is that a D who was "on board" to allow W to fight terrorism is as much responsible for screwing up Afghanistan as the commander-in-chief? Geez, and you guys claim we can never say anything is Obama's fault. I guess W was just doing what the minority Ds were making him do.

I do criticize Obama for not getting out sooner, but I cut the guy cleaning up the mess a bit more slack than the guy who f'd it up in the first place. And that goes for the economy as well.

**mlyonsd** · 07-31-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You're overstating Ds wanting to remove Saddam with a military intervention, but what you are saying is that a D who was "on board" to allow W to fight terrorism is as much responsible for screwing up Afghanistan as the commander-in-chief? Geez, and you guys claim we can never say anything is Obama's fault. I guess W was just doing what the minority Ds were making him do.

I do criticize Obama for not getting out sooner, but I cut the guy cleaning up the mess a bit more slack than the guy who f'd it up in the first place. And that goes for the economy as well.

I'm not overstating anything. The push for Iraq regime change started with the Clinton administration and was followed up by legislation sponsored by Daschle/Lott and Hastert/Gephardt.

And I'm not sure where you get that I'm criticizing democrats on screwing up Afghanistan. My point is your argument that Bush screwed it up is baseless since we're still there under Obama.

Fairplay · 07-31-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

How anyone can want to give obama 4 more years is unimaginable to me. I just cannot get my arms around that concept.

I agree. I would be embarrassed to have him for president and have him represent my party.

cosmo20002 · 07-31-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I'm not overstating anything. The push for Iraq regime change started with the Clinton administration and was followed up by legislation sponsored by Daschle/Lott and Hastert/Gephardt.

And I'm not sure where you get that I'm criticizing democrats on screwing up Afghanistan. My point is your argument that Bush screwed it up is baseless since we're still there under Obama.

Go look up the resolution regarding regime change under Clinton. It had to do with supporting certain Iraqi groups who met certain criterea, and it was pretty meaningless. It had nothing to do with using the US military to invade the country. Look it up.

Again, just the fact that we were still in Afg. after 7 years of W is evidence that it was screwed up.

**mlyonsd** · 07-31-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Go look up the resolution regarding regime change under Clinton. It had to do with supporting certain Iraqi groups who met certain criterea, and it was pretty meaningless. It had nothing to do with using the US military to invade the country. Look it up.

Again, just the fact that we were still in Afg. after 7 years of W is evidence that it was screwed up.

I don't have to look it up. I lived it.

And again, your second thought is just partisanship whining.

cosmo20002 · 07-31-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I don't have to look it up. I lived it.

And again, your second thought is just partisanship whining.

You lived it? What does that mean? Doesn't matter what you lived, the resolution had nothing--nothing--to do with US military action. If you think it did, then you need to actually look at it.

**mlyonsd** · 07-31-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

You lived it? What does that mean? Doesn't matter what you lived, the resolution had nothing--nothing--to do with US military action. If you think it did, then you need to actually look at it.

If you didn't think the democrats helped sell the removal of Saddam and the Iraq war you really are dillusional. Or you weren't alive. Or you're just being partisan.

**patteeu** · 07-31-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I guess if "aftermath" doesn't include invading the wrong country, screwing up Afghanistan so badly that we're still there, and claiming that he doesn't care about or think about Osama bin Laden all that much. He did good when he used the bullhorn at Ground Zero.

You live in a fairy tale created by democrats to enhance their political fortunes. Congratulations.

Bambi · 07-31-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

You live in a fairy tale created by democrats to enhance their political fortunes. Congratulations.

Mission Accomplished

**patteeu** · 07-31-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Never has a connection been made between Iraq and Al Queda.

Not true.

07-31-2012, 02:35 PM
notorious I Lay Wood for a Living Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $93646	Prediction Models look Dismal for Obama http://news.yahoo.com/add-it-up--the...till-win-.html By: Jeff Greenfield Add it up: The prediction models look dismal for Obama. Can he still win? I got into writing and thinking about politics because I was told there would be no math. Boy, was I misled. It’s not just the torrent of polls that we have to deal with, but the numbers that supposedly forecast Presidential elections with uncanny accuracy. Depending on whom you turn to, the key lies in second quarter real GDP growth, the optimism or pessimism of the electorate, individual or family real income growth or a dizzying mix of these and other measurements. They’re usually economic, although one prognosticator—Allan Lichtman, history professor at American University—uses broader measurements, asking whether the incumbent or challenger is charismatic or whether the incumbent party has presided over a major change in social policy. (This is considered a positive, although I don’t know if we’ve ever had a case like the Affordable Care Act, which—unlike every other major social change—passed without bipartisan backing and remains broadly unpopular.) I’m a skeptic about the predictive power of these numbers for many reasons. For one thing, the “sample size,” which totals about twenty or so Presidential elections since most of these measurements were first made, is too small. For another, they work—unless they don’t. In 1968, strong economic figures were trumped by a divisive war and by social unrest. In 2000, every economic forecasting model predicted that Al Gore would win a comfortable or landslide plurality. They were “right” in the sense that he got half a million more votes than Bush; they were “wrong” in the fundamental outcome they offered. So it’s with that skepticism in mind that I offer, not a prediction, but a flat pre-election assessment: If President Barack Obama is to win, he is going to have to overcome a set of numbers that no incumbent President, or incumbent party, has ever managed to surmount. The jobless rate has been stuck at just above 8 per cent for months; you have to go back to 1936 to find a President re-elected with a higher unemployment rate. And in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s case, it was a far better number than he had inherited. Plus, growth was booming. Today, real growth is at 1.5 per cent. In the economic forecasting models, this portends what even the liberal arts majors have been predicting: a very close election. The core question for many voters—“Are you generally satisfied with the country’s direction, or has the U.S. gone off on the wrong track”—gets a 32.7-60.7 negative answer, according to the RealClearPolitics average. Generally, an incumbent party needs to have at least a 35% positive response to this question to win the election, says the Gallup Organization. The consumer confidence level is now about 60 per cent. No incumbent party has ever kept the White House with a number anything like that. (It was slightly higher, at 65 per cent, in 1980 when Carter lost in a landslide.) Now, try this as a thought exercise. Forget who is running, what the latest gaffe of the day is, who is outraged and what latest insult to what group has been perpetrated by the candidate or his staff. Ignore whom you’re rooting for, and just look at those numbers with the ice-cold heart of a bean counter. What you would conclude, I think, is that there is no way an incumbent President could get re-elected given these current numbers. In this sense, the 2012 election is going to test just how predictive many of these “fundamental” models are, and whether the assertion of some forecasters—that the outcome can be known irrespective of candidates and campaigns—is valid. Why? Because, to put it bluntly: The Republicans have nominated a bad candidate. Some (very) brief history and a hypothesis. Six years ago, Mitt Romney and his team realized that he could never win the Republican nomination as the pragmatic, moderate-conservative with moderate-to-liberal views on everything from abortion to gun control to the environment to health care. (The mandate was a conservative position back then, but put that aside.) When Team Romney saw Sen. George Allen, the likely 2008 social conservative hero, lose his re-election bid in 2006, they found an opening, and decided to reach, or lunge, for that slot. And so, throughout the 2008 campaign and throughout this one, Romney has been running as if to claim that his four years in higher office was a case of mistaken identity. I think it has forced him to campaign in mortal fear of every word he utters, to pander to local pride and political constituencies in a manner that seems a parody of the clumsy politician. At root, Romney is a candidate in the grip of performance anxiety. And whether on the tennis court or in more intimate settings performance anxiety is a near-guarantee of poor performance. It’s often said that a re-election campaign is always about the incumbent; like many political observations, that’s partly, but not wholly, true. Even when the electorate is disposed to replace the President, it has to be satisfied that the challenger is up to the job. Mitt Romney has yet to meet that test. The Obama campaign, however, can take very limited comfort from Romney’s discomfit. If the “fundamental” numbers continue to be as grim as they now are, the desire to change course will deepen. And the more that longing intensifies, the lower the bar Mitt Romney will have to clear.
Posts: 22,316

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode