> For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996 ... Also note that for all elections from 1912 to 2012 the Primary Model picks the winner, albeit retroactively, every time except in 1960.
It can't be true that this model correctly predicts both the election winner and the popular vote winner, since Bush won one and lost the other in 2000.
I am extremely skeptical of this model, partly because I find the idea that voters pay attention to the primaries, but not to anything that happens later, very implausible. But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. There are tons of degrees of freedom, not just in the model weights but in the choice of which primaries to consider.
The authors picked NH in previous elections, and this year fairly arbitrarily decided to include SC as well. It's no surprise that you can make good retroactive predictions when you have many effective model parameters to play with.
> But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem.
Exactly. I was thinking about how easy it would be to create a model that accurately predicted the last 100 years' election results that would likely fall flat on its face in the next.
My theory, many people are actually voting for Trump, for whatever reason it may be, but they will not tell others. Polls, friends, community, etc. It seems many communities, including SV, have tried to ostracize those with opposing viewpoints. Trump's strength is built on that, whether an individual will be public about it or not. I read somewhere (sorry no source) that this election has seen the fewest bumped stickers/yard signs in recent history.
Edit: Remember, this is HN, not Reddit, keep it civil. And also keep in mind, odds are pretty low you will change anybody's view at this point, especially over comments ;)
If that were true, then down-ticket Republicans wouldn't be seeing as much of a sag in their support. And that wouldn't account for the narrow margins in states where the Republicans usually have stronger positions. And, there's still a fairly high level of undecideds and 3rd-party voters who might switch late (as usually happens)--polls seem to be indicating that these are swinging favorably to Clinton, and not to Trump.
People are more likely to lie about their voting intentions when the media create a climate of moral stigma around their candidate. I am sure this is going to happen in the uk too. The Democrats have run the wrong campaign.
Sounds like you are proposing something similar to the Bradley Effect. From wiki, it was suggested that "white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well."
It's not a white/black choice this time around but the social exclusion in some circles of people who support Trump might see something similar in play. That said, it would need to be a pretty big effect to make a difference if the gap is really 6 or 7 points.
> My theory, many people are actually voting for Trump, for whatever reason it may be, but they will not tell others. Polls, friends, community, etc.
I know quite a few in this camp.
> It seems many communities, including SV, have tried to ostracize those with opposing viewpoints. Trump's strength is built on that, whether an individual will be public about it or not. I read somewhere (sorry no source) that this election has seen the fewest bumped stickers/yard signs in recent history.
I'd believe that. It'd be a combination of people not actually liking Clinton enough to want to show support and people being scared of actively showing support for Trump. The Clinton camp has done a decent job of bucketing all Trump supporters as racists assholes so it naturally makes it uncomfortable for people to voice their support. I'm pretty sure that's working as intended.
Wouldn't this be the sort of indirect, gut level factor that betting markets would capture better than anything else? And they have Trump winning at around 15-20%.
The exact same thing has been said about 2008 in regards to Obama's popularity in popular media and the idea that it was socially unacceptable to oppose him. It was wrong then and the final outcome closely resembled the polls leading up to the election [0]. I suspect this theory is wrong in this case as well.
Why would people need to lie to the professional pollsters, though? If the election were held today and Trump won, it would be way outside of the margin of error on the polls.
"So when they see that the media élite is driven out of their mind at the success of Donald Trump it makes them want to root for him. It’s like giving the middle finger to the rest of the country."
I don't think any model has accounted for how personally distasteful Trump is. Regardless of his politics (which I find abhorrent as well, but that's another matter), there are a lot of Republicans who refuse to support him simply because he has shown himself to be unqualified to lead ANYTHING.
Even if you're an ardent Trump supporter, you have to admit that Hillary showed how easily manipulated he is in the 3 debates. She just poked at his soft spots and tried to get a reaction, and it worked.
None of this is about electing Hillary; it's entirely about keeping a petulant child out of the most powerful job in the country. Is she in bed with special interests? Definitely. Was she trying to avoid FOIA documentation requirements with a private e-mail server? Of course she was. Are the American people sick of elitist political dynasties like the Clintons and Bushes? Absolutely. These things are all true of most politicians.
But in contrast to Trump, Hillary is an adult. I trust Hillary to be able to put aside her ego and do what's right for the country. I don't feel the same about Trump; and I don't want to get involved in World War 3 because some world leader made a comment about Trump's hair.
The GOP should have won this election handily -- but they've painted themselves into an untenable platform that simultaneously is built on racism and diversity. No candidate could form a cohesive vision out of the nonsensical platform they put forward (limited government + legislating morality; business-friendly + anti-immigration; guns should be legal but not drugs; etc.) so they ended up with a nonsensical candidate and a disaster of a party. The party is so fractured over Trump that even if the GOP can retain a majority in the house and senate, the Democrats will likely be able to find enough Republicans to break ranks to get legislation passed.
But this election isn't about politics. It's about whether we are angry enough at the whole system to burn it all down. This should serve as a wake-up call that over 40% of the country thinks things are so bad that they're willing to elect a would-be dictator.
"The Primary Model relies on presidential primaries as a predictor of the vote in the general election. For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996. In recent elections the forecast has been issued as early as January of the election year."
If I'm reading it correctly this isn't a new prediction; this is a new article about the Primary Model's existing prediction dating from March 7 of this year.
If Trump had been a normal candidate, he would have beat Clinton. No tawdry sex scandals, crazy public fights with Ms Universe, gold star parents, leading members of his own party. If he had raised money on the same scale as Romney or established a ground game and analytics like Clinton. Based solely on primary data, yes, he probably would win.
Wait wait wait...
"for elections since 1952 only the New Hampshire Primary has been used to measure primary performance."
How is that legit at all? I could probably pick another state and show no correlation, or even show that primary winners are general election losers. Especially if i can change which states are used half way through...
Its a swing state, chock full of independents, so you get the pulse of the average independent, assuming they're politically relevant this time around. Its mostly a white state with whatever implications you have for race in the election (hillary won in '08 for racial reasons but 99.9% of black people everywhere else voted for Obama with a predictable result ... and likewise this time around Hillary isn't going to get the black turnout that Obama got from that racial block of 99.9% D voters both in the primaries and in November). Its very small and proportionately politically active so the residents tend to get involved more than a large empty state so at least in theory it predicts how politically active people across the country will tend to vote. Wikipedia claims a win results in a historical average boost of 27% of total primary votes. Every other election comes after the news media pounds who is a winner and who is a loser into the brains of votes which surely has some predictive capability looking at an un-influenced voter. Barring special racial situations or whatever (see '08) it historically has strong predictive capabilities.
Note that you can "win" the primaries like Bernie did and still have your nomination stolen from you. I'm sure the Bern victims will be just as motivated to vote for Hillary as they were to vote for Bernie, I mean the Bern victims sure are a big bunch of globalist corrupt banker supporters, LOL, so they'll fit in perfectly with Hillaries supporters. Data from NH does predict excitement and likelihood of voter turnout and so forth which has certain implications in November. All 30% and then some who voted Trump are almost certain to vote in November, the 30% Bern victims well maybe not so much.
Good predictive capability often has nothing to do with how much the results or methods are liked.
Honestly, I want to see calamity. I want a tied electoral college. I want the election to be thrown into utter chaos. Why? Because it will actually throw a monkey wrench into what has been the worst election, with the worst candidates, in the history of this nation.
A tied electoral college wouldn't "throw the election into utter chaos" at all. It just means that the President would be picked by the House of Representatives.
How about the violence at Trump rallies towards protesters and journalists? Or the case of Trump supporters beating a homeless Hispanic man, about which Trump noted "my supporters are very passionate"?
Let's not pretend that there hasn't been violence associated with Trump's campaign.
Edit: responding to the claim that there has been nothing on the right compared to the left. Not trying to excuse the behavior of the left by arguing who is worse.
Agreed. I'm not a Trump "supporter", but I am also not easily swayed by what the media has to say.
Whenever I attempt to clarify my understanding of what he's said with what the media said he said I'm shot down, laughed at or receive weird looks. People want to believe the news.
It's very easy to blame the other side for things when it fits a narrative, but your second example link is most notably missing a shred of evidence that "the left" (what does that even mean? Lumping in Communists and the Green Party, too?) is responsible. I agree with you that behaviors in this election have been concerning, but taking a victim stance and just blindly pointing at a side is probably most concerning of all because it isn't really refutable despite your edit.
[+] [-] teraflop|9 years ago|reply
> For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996 ... Also note that for all elections from 1912 to 2012 the Primary Model picks the winner, albeit retroactively, every time except in 1960.
It can't be true that this model correctly predicts both the election winner and the popular vote winner, since Bush won one and lost the other in 2000.
I am extremely skeptical of this model, partly because I find the idea that voters pay attention to the primaries, but not to anything that happens later, very implausible. But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. There are tons of degrees of freedom, not just in the model weights but in the choice of which primaries to consider.
The authors picked NH in previous elections, and this year fairly arbitrarily decided to include SC as well. It's no surprise that you can make good retroactive predictions when you have many effective model parameters to play with.
[+] [-] nkozyra|9 years ago|reply
Exactly. I was thinking about how easy it would be to create a model that accurately predicted the last 100 years' election results that would likely fall flat on its face in the next.
[+] [-] Cshelton|9 years ago|reply
Edit: Remember, this is HN, not Reddit, keep it civil. And also keep in mind, odds are pretty low you will change anybody's view at this point, especially over comments ;)
[+] [-] Finnucane|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crocowhile|9 years ago|reply
People are more likely to lie about their voting intentions when the media create a climate of moral stigma around their candidate. I am sure this is going to happen in the uk too. The Democrats have run the wrong campaign.
[+] [-] docdeek|9 years ago|reply
It's not a white/black choice this time around but the social exclusion in some circles of people who support Trump might see something similar in play. That said, it would need to be a pretty big effect to make a difference if the gap is really 6 or 7 points.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
I know quite a few in this camp.
> It seems many communities, including SV, have tried to ostracize those with opposing viewpoints. Trump's strength is built on that, whether an individual will be public about it or not. I read somewhere (sorry no source) that this election has seen the fewest bumped stickers/yard signs in recent history.
I'd believe that. It'd be a combination of people not actually liking Clinton enough to want to show support and people being scared of actively showing support for Trump. The Clinton camp has done a decent job of bucketing all Trump supporters as racists assholes so it naturally makes it uncomfortable for people to voice their support. I'm pretty sure that's working as intended.
[+] [-] savanaly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bko|9 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/natio...
[+] [-] dangoor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hprotagonist|9 years ago|reply
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-probabl...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-could-the-polls-be-...
Probably not.
[+] [-] prostoalex|9 years ago|reply
"So when they see that the media élite is driven out of their mind at the success of Donald Trump it makes them want to root for him. It’s like giving the middle finger to the rest of the country."
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ensorceled|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] exelius|9 years ago|reply
Even if you're an ardent Trump supporter, you have to admit that Hillary showed how easily manipulated he is in the 3 debates. She just poked at his soft spots and tried to get a reaction, and it worked.
None of this is about electing Hillary; it's entirely about keeping a petulant child out of the most powerful job in the country. Is she in bed with special interests? Definitely. Was she trying to avoid FOIA documentation requirements with a private e-mail server? Of course she was. Are the American people sick of elitist political dynasties like the Clintons and Bushes? Absolutely. These things are all true of most politicians.
But in contrast to Trump, Hillary is an adult. I trust Hillary to be able to put aside her ego and do what's right for the country. I don't feel the same about Trump; and I don't want to get involved in World War 3 because some world leader made a comment about Trump's hair.
The GOP should have won this election handily -- but they've painted themselves into an untenable platform that simultaneously is built on racism and diversity. No candidate could form a cohesive vision out of the nonsensical platform they put forward (limited government + legislating morality; business-friendly + anti-immigration; guns should be legal but not drugs; etc.) so they ended up with a nonsensical candidate and a disaster of a party. The party is so fractured over Trump that even if the GOP can retain a majority in the house and senate, the Democrats will likely be able to find enough Republicans to break ranks to get legislation passed.
But this election isn't about politics. It's about whether we are angry enough at the whole system to burn it all down. This should serve as a wake-up call that over 40% of the country thinks things are so bad that they're willing to elect a would-be dictator.
[+] [-] jjawssd|9 years ago|reply
s/the country/herself/g
[+] [-] jjawssd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leesalminen|9 years ago|reply
Why that choice of word?
[+] [-] teach|9 years ago|reply
If I'm reading it correctly this isn't a new prediction; this is a new article about the Primary Model's existing prediction dating from March 7 of this year.
[+] [-] jhou2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] norikki|9 years ago|reply
How is that legit at all? I could probably pick another state and show no correlation, or even show that primary winners are general election losers. Especially if i can change which states are used half way through...
[+] [-] VLM|9 years ago|reply
Note that you can "win" the primaries like Bernie did and still have your nomination stolen from you. I'm sure the Bern victims will be just as motivated to vote for Hillary as they were to vote for Bernie, I mean the Bern victims sure are a big bunch of globalist corrupt banker supporters, LOL, so they'll fit in perfectly with Hillaries supporters. Data from NH does predict excitement and likelihood of voter turnout and so forth which has certain implications in November. All 30% and then some who voted Trump are almost certain to vote in November, the 30% Bern victims well maybe not so much.
Good predictive capability often has nothing to do with how much the results or methods are liked.
[+] [-] thomas4g|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcphage|9 years ago|reply
Um, okay.
[+] [-] weallfalldown|9 years ago|reply
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#i...
[+] [-] brianwawok|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsandert|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vnglst|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|9 years ago|reply
This has actually happened twice before.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] artursapek|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rybosome|9 years ago|reply
Let's not pretend that there hasn't been violence associated with Trump's campaign.
Edit: responding to the claim that there has been nothing on the right compared to the left. Not trying to excuse the behavior of the left by arguing who is worse.
[+] [-] leesalminen|9 years ago|reply
Whenever I attempt to clarify my understanding of what he's said with what the media said he said I'm shot down, laughed at or receive weird looks. People want to believe the news.
[+] [-] jsmthrowaway|9 years ago|reply