The New York Times ran a column this weekend by Steve Rattner, "Trump’s Formidable 2020 Tailwind."
A Treasury official under Obama, Rattner wrote, "The economy invariably ranks among the top issues on the minds of voters in presidential elections. At the moment, it appears to offer President Trump a meaningful tailwind."
He cited at length a forecast by Ray Fair of Yale, who got the last three presidential elections "correct" in that he predicted the eventual winner. He also mentioned two other models.
Beware of liberals telling you what you want to hear. They are a devious people who regularly mislead more often then they lie, and they lie with a regularity your gastroenterologist would envy.
Rattner wrote, "One of the first — and perhaps still the best — of these models was created by Ray Fair, a professor at Yale. He found that the growth rates of gross domestic product and inflation have been the two most important economic predictors — but he also found that incumbency was also an important determinant of presidential election outcomes."
But Fair overstated Obama's popularity by two points in 2008, and by three in 2012. Fair overstated President Donald Trump's victory by 5.5 points, which means his model is as accurate as those global cooling/global warming/climate change computer models.
Fair relies too much on computations. I learned the first rule of computers more than 40 years ago.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Which explains the prediction of Mark Zandi, which Rattner also cited. Zandi was With Her in 2016.
Rattner wrote, "the question for 2020 may well be whether Mr. Trump can overcome the majority of voters’ poor perception of him and use a good economy and incumbency to win re-election."
Liberals continue to get President Trump's support wrong, just as Republicans missed Clinton in 1996.
Both men won with a minority of the vote. Both opposition parties had good House races in the midterm. Both opposition parties felt the president won on a fluke,
Their mistakes were failing to realize that the loyalty of the supporters of the president, and failing to acknowledge the success of the president.
Incumbents have won 11 of the last 14 presidential elections in which a president sought another term.
I go by Ohio, which has been the bellwether state. Since Lincoln's election in 1860, only Grover Cleveland and Jack Kennedy won without her.
Ohio today is Trump country.
That says more than any computer models from liberals. Remember Nate Silver? He got 49 of the 50 states right in 2008 and all 50 right in 2012 -- and blew 2016 by a country mile.
Our biggest unknown is the extent of the fraud machine, and the apparent lack of will to confront it. All I can do at this point is trust the genius of Brad Parscale and PDJT to not only know their enemies, but have plans in place to deal with them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Ohio will be a bellwether anymore.
ReplyDeleteWhen the electoral split in this country was north/south, Ohio (and Indiana) were right in the middle, sometimes voting with the south, more often with the north. It was the perfect bellwether in that situation.
It continued to be a perfect bellwether (although Indiana had ceased being one) when the divide was re-arranged to coastal/interior. Ohio, the most "eastern," geographically and culturally, was still at the midpoint of American politics.
But now the parties are reconfiguring and new coalitions are emerging. The Dems have added the wealthy elite to the "outsider" coalition of racial minorities, gays, coastal hipsters, single women, and university town denizens. The GOP is now the party of the white working class. Ohio no longer looks to be astride the center, equal parts Dem and GOP coalition components. Ohio is now more Republican than the national average. Nevada, my state, has also been a consistent bellwether, but the California influx seems to be moving the Silver State in the other direction, to the Dems, just like the Boston influx did to New Hampshire.
Right now, Florida and North Carolina look to be the states right at the center between the two parties. Trump took both in 2016 as part of his 306 electoral votes. They are essential to his winning coalition in 2020. Even if he adds Minnesota (and I expect he will), he cannot lose both Florida and North Carolina and be elected. (Technically, he could, as Minnesota would take him up to 316, and the loss of the 44 electoral votes of FL and NC combined would only drop him to 272, but given the record number of "unfaithful electors" in 2016, two votes is not enough for victory.)
So those are the new bellwethers to watch, in my opinion.
-TK
I don't listen to the Left in the first place.
ReplyDeleteRattner was Zippy's car czar, the guy who engineered the GM bailout, so that should tell you something right there.
ReplyDeleteAny given model has to change because we elect Presidents every 4 years. The economy changes, foreign policy changes, pick your favorite hot button.
People telling us what worked in '08 will work now are blowing smoke
Beware Microsoft's recent involvement in creating voting machine software in partnership with an arm of the DOD. When you read who's involved, it's stinks to high heaven. As opposed to the Dems' cheating, these bastards represent the swamp. Trump represents us, the most hated and feared group on earth, yet the most peaceful. The only real weapon we have is votes. This time around, everyone will be trying to steal them. Our main defense is huge turnout.
ReplyDelete- Gary B
Blacks comprise 12-13% of the population, and by extension, of the electorate. Voting as essentially a solid block, historically, they are critical for the Dems to hold together. Zero won in 2012 by 3% in the popular vote count, with 95% of that 12-13% of the black vote as part of that 53%.
ReplyDeleteSplit the black vote in 2012 and Utah's prized gelding would have been elected with 53% of the popular vote.
Hillary simply was unable and o motivate the black vote in the large, Midwestern cities, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland as well as Philadelphia and parts of NC.
After seeing they could actually have a black candidate, black voters no longer can or will be excited by anyone but one of their own as candidate (sorry Kamala, you aren't in that camp).
Not only will they not get that candidate (unless America's Forever First Lady jumps in the race) Trump has pared off enough black voters to cause panic in the D party.
Labeling him racist, which means nothing anymore, is a hard road to get folks in Cleveland to the polls to vote against him. The election is decided in the urban areas of the upper Midwest in 2020.
I believe the democrats have badly miscalculated Latino support. 1st, they comprise the most entrepreneurial demographic in America. they don't want a job as much as they want to start their own small business. trump bin berry berry good to small business, both in taxes and regulations.
ReplyDelete2nd, they are often extremely religious.trump may be a lot of things, but he is no baby killer.
The prediction to watch is that of Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University. He correctly predicted Trump's 2016 election. The model has been correct for every election since 1912 except for the 1960 election — which pitted winner John F. Kennedy against loser Richard Nixon.
ReplyDeleteIn total, Norpoth observed, his forecasting formula he has created has been correct 96.1 percent of the time since 1912.