Summary: The polls dominate the election news, but there are better ways to forecasts of its results. Here is one of the best: aggregating the various forecasting models. The results gives us time to prepare for the Clinton administration. See below for links to posts describing what we’ll see.
Prediction: a landslide for Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College
From the PollyVote website
“The PollyVote is based on the principle of combining forecasts. That is, PollyVote combines forecasts from different forecasting methods, the so-called component methods, each of which relies on different data. The PollyVote forecast is calculated by following a two-step approach:
- Averaging forecasts within each component method.
- Averaging the resulting forecasts across component methods.
“In other words, we use equal weighting of all forecasts within each component method, then equal weighting across these forecasts from different methods. This is the same approach that the PollyVote successfully used to forecast U.S. presidential elections since 2004, and the 2013 German federal election.” {Read the rest here.}
“The PollyVote was launched in 2004 by forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong and the political scientists Alfred Cuzán and Randy Jones. In 2007, Andreas Graefe joined the project. For more information about the team click here.”
Read about their track record and their publications about the PollyVote project. To learn more see their Frequently Asked Questions page. News stories about PollyVote data are automatically generated by software of the German-based company AX Semantics. Here’s how they do it…
Forecasts of the six methods PollyVote uses
History of the popular vote forecasts
Conclusions
This is a volatile election, and only the most sophisticated tools can guide us. So far Clinton looks like a certain winner, albeit with big event risk (e.g., a big terrorist event, a seizure on prime time TV). That’s logical, more so than the small gap in the polls.
Knowledge of the state of the race profoundly influences the race. For example, in a close race candidates take bolder positions and supporters on both sides are more likely to donate and vote. But if PollyVote’s forecast is correct we instead should be thinking about what President Clinton will do in the White House:
- What to expect from Team Hillary in the White House.
- A look at the likely foreign and domestic policies of HRC.
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Campaign 2016, about ways to reform America’s politics, and these about Clinton…
- Forecast: Clinton will crush Trump in November.
- An anthropologist explains why Trump will win in November.
- The five reasons Trump will lose in November.
- A solid leftist shows why Trump might win.
- The best response to Campaign 2016: anger.
Hillary explains what she’ll do as President
From the publisher…
“For more than a year, Hillary Clinton has laid out an ambitious agenda to improve the lives of the American people and make our country stronger and safer. Stronger Together
“Building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. Making the biggest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II, including infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy, and small business. Making debt-free college a reality and tackling the student debt crisis. Defeating ISIS, strengthening our alliances, and keeping our military strong. Breaking down the barriers that hold Americans back by reforming our broken immigration system, ending mass incarceration, protecting voting rights, and fixing our campaign finance system. Putting families first through universal, affordable health care; paid family and medical leave, and affordable child care.
“Stronger Together
I understand the models you are using and how you arrive at the results but I am not certain the prediction will turn out to be correct. Conversations I’ve had with a decent (but much smaller than normal) range of people have revealed the following in my community:
– Support for Hillary is frankly weak. Nobody I’ve spoken with outside of the Democratic party leadership speaks strongly of supporting Hillary. Her primary support seems to come from the “Not Trump” crowd, which is large but less than 50% of the population. I’ve not seen this in 40 years of observing the political process. LBJ probably enjoyed similar levels of “support” in 1968 but that is the closest modern comparison I can find. I find this odd because on the surface she is a perfectly acceptable candidate. My conclusion is that the American people are a lot less happy with the status quo (which she obviously represents) than the media and the 1% believe.
– By contrast, Trump supporters are adamant. They like their candidate regardless of what he says. When asked why, the reasons boil down to two things (1) he will disrupt the status quo and the person imagines they will benefit (I strongly disagree) and (2) he is entertaining to watch (I can’t argue that one).
– Hillary is outspending Trump 10:1 in the key battleground states and is still losing ground.
– Third party candidates should be doing pretty well under these circumstances (Ross Perot got 19% in 1992) but are not. I believe this is because Trump has broken so far from the Republican party positions of 2012 (compare his statements with Mitt Romney’s, it is head-spinning) that he is essentially a third party candidate who has hijacked the Republican party. This is essentially what Bernie tried to do with the Democrats and failed. A Bernie-Trump election campaign would have been even weirder than our current contest.
Of course, events, particularly the debates, will have an out-sized impact on the outcome. But my thesis that this election is not yet predictable seems accurate.
Pluto,
“I understand the models you are using”
Models I am reporting about. As for understanding how they work, I glanced at the papers — but don’t claim to know how they work.
“I am not certain the prediction will turn out to be correct.”
That shows you are smart. Only fools believe model forecasts on the edge of science (which includes climate science, all the social sciences, etc) are certain. Of course, there are lots of those.
“Conversations I’ve had with a decent (but much smaller than normal) range of people have revealed the following in my community:”
That tells us nothing. America has always had strong regional tilts to our politics. Also, even in a community getting reliable results requires reaching out extensively to demographics other than your own. Did you visit retirement homes & meetings of SIRS, the nearest inner city, the local 4H clubs, meetings of Am Assoc of University Women, etc?
I suggest sticking with the polls to get the kind of info you are seeking. They do that very well.