Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No, we're not. First of all, it's impossible for me, myself to extrapolate on the usefulness of the model based on the article, because that article and the article it links through to both include almost no information to that point. Second, it is extremely easy to lull yourself into thinking you've created a highly predictive model in this way unless you are deep, deep, deep into statistics, which this professor is not. Third, I don't feel like typing out my own reasoning in strenuous detail, so I'll steal a well-written bit from commenter "David Brown":
Finally it is worth noting that most of the presidential elections in the calibration dataset haven’t been close. So yes, when an incumbent does very poorly in an early primary that is usually a bad sign for the incumbent party, but that simplistic relationship isn’t going to work in all cases. And yes, when a challenger dominates their primary that is usually the sign of a strong challenging candidate but this year by any objective measure the GOP field is incredibly weak and fractured.
It might also be worth noting that he has only used the model in predictive mode twice, and predicted Obama to beat McCain by 0.2% in 2008 whereas he actually beat McCain quite soundly. Counting only wins and losses without looking at the size of the error relative to the closeness of the election is misleading.
So the professor’s model has some fundamentally sound reasoning, but at this point he has only 2 true validation points. And for one of those data points his model was actually quite far off!
edited 26th Feb '16 9:06:57 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.Gonna copy over a couple comments from the article.
Don't we all, sometimes?
Well, at least it was a learning opportunity!
On the topic of Political Science, WaPo has this article
on some interesting research that I really enjoyed reading about (as a Poli Sci nerd), although I'm still mulling over what flaws they might have in their methodology.
![]()
Well, I haven't seen him in the last 20 or so posts, so I kind of miss him.
On a side note... well, more like "on topic", I find it amusing how my country isn't all that worried about the US elections despite the fact that we'd get a very bad time depending on who wins the primary/general.
Either our government is already preparing tobend over and give away half of our territory (again) or the rumours about us being protected by Russia's nuclear umbrella are true.
edited 26th Feb '16 9:23:42 PM by Cid
I'm not too worried about my own country (Canada) if the GOP, other than Cruz, wins the White House. With Harper gone there is little chance that Ottawa will send soldiers to die for whatever debacle the neo-cons decide to do this time. And the chances of Trump invading Canada because he mistook it for Mexico are pretty light.
I'm more worried about the civil rights of over 300000000 people being eroded if the GOP wins.
edited 26th Feb '16 9:54:10 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Crazy that Trump is a more progressive candidate than not only the other Republican candidates, but also Clinton. He could utterly demolish her in Ohio and Wisconsin by telling the truth about 'free trade.'
During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.” She later declared, “I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”
But newly released emails show that as secretary of state, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal, even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.
Froman — a former Citigroup executive who as trade representative was lobbying for passage of the deal — responded by thanking Clinton for her "help and support.” Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton at the State Department, later chimed in, telling her “terrific job” and “GREAT line on Columbian [sic] workers!!!!!”'''
Hillary Clinton Pushes Colombia Free Trade Agreement In Latest Email Dump
The economist and author has written in support of Sanders and his economic plans, calling Hillary Clinton's proposals too modest, but previously stopped short of officially endorsing Sanders.
In a statement posted to Facebook, Reich wrote: "I have the deepest respect and admiration for Hillary Clinton, and if she wins the Democratic primary I’ll work my heart out to help her become president. But I believe Bernie Sanders is the agent of change this nation so desperately needs."
Former secretary of labor endorses Sanders
edited 26th Feb '16 10:50:17 PM by SolipsistOwl
Ashley Williams, a 23-year-old activist who is African-American and identifies as queer, confronted Clinton in Charleston, South Carolina, on policies she supported as first lady. Those policies, including a 1994 crime bill that worsened the disproportionate incarceration rate among African-Americans, were the Clintons’ prescription for the nation’s high rates of crime and violence.
Videos are in the link.
I'll admit it freely: I am less interested in kool-aid from 22 years ago and more of what Clinton's current plans for reducing/fixing the ever present race relations and racial inequality problems are.
Also, if folks want to panic about something, the possibility that Hillary's emails contain actually incriminating stuff would be the first place to start.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAFL-CIO will withhold endorsement until after the primary
Wait, this is from the 17th. Is this old news to the thread? If so, I missed it.
edited 27th Feb '16 5:10:02 AM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.![]()
It's a fair point to bring up, though, if Hillary had previously used "dog-whistle" style language when talking about black people and crime - that type of perspective generally doesn't change so much as get hidden. Alternatively, she used such language to win support, which proves Sanders' point regarding her duplicity - another Morton's Fork regarding her election prospects.
The emails back up the latter notion, where she'll say some things publicly to win support, then do a complete 180 in private.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"a) Trump has a ton of white supremacists voting for him, dude. How many do you think are voting for Clinton? Let's not be silly, here.
b) The truth about free trade? That the majority of economists think it's overall beneficial? I don't think that would help Trump's case.
A lot of people think free trade kills jobs, though. A sufficient amount of people to swing an election, in fact.
Plus, a lot of "free trade" deals come with lots of strings attached (e.g the "investor tribunals" in TPP and TTIP) that do not have such a defense.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanTrump's platforms include renegotiating NAFTA and trade deals, preserving Medicare and Social Security, taxing hedge funds, and increasing the minimum wage.
The Republican donor establishment hates Trump for not being extreme *enough.* These are actually very moderate positions that would suit Trump well in the general election as the GOP nominee.
Considering Clinton has personally lied and lobbied for 'free trade' deals while So S, I see no reason why Trump couldn't make gains by hammering her on that in blue-collar, former manufacturing states.
edited 27th Feb '16 8:32:37 AM by SolipsistOwl
Not really? It's only Ohio where the GOP has a chance out of the old rust belt. Pennsylvania is the Republicans' white whale, as much as appalachia and our strong core of white blue collar workers makes us look red, we were the only state in the union to flip the governor from R to D in 2014 and we flipped our state supreme court from R to D in 2015 too.
Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and New Mexico would be the other big battlegrounds, and most of those are sunbelt-type states with different profiles.
And the problem with Trump trying to rally working-class whites in these states is going to be near-lockstep opposition from blacks and hispanics. Even if Trump does make inroads with elusive "missing white voters," it's going to be hard to win these states with even less hispanic support than the GOP has gotten before.

The examples the professor offers as evidence his model works are all from elections where presidents were running for their second term. And only from Clinton onwards. How does "Incumbents likely to get reelected" translate to "Trump will win"?