Always correct election forecast model predicts Trump win, 51%-48%

[unknown]

Always correct election forecast model predicts Trump win, 51%-48%

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/always-correct-election-forecast-model-predicts-trump-win-51-48/article/2599203

Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard)
8/12/16

Republican Donald Trump should win the presidency by a slim margin according to a model that has accurately predicted the popular vote since 1988.
 
Using several standards to make his prediction, Alan Abramowitz's "Time for Change" model done for the University of Virginia's Center for Politics "Crystal Ball" shows Trump winning 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent for Hillary Clinton.
 
He added that the model shows a 66 percent chance of a Trump victory.
 
"Based on a predicted vote share of 48.6 percent for the incumbent party, these results indicate that Trump should be a clear but not overwhelming favorite to defeat Clinton: There should be about a 66 percent chance of a Republican victory," Abramowitz added.

{.. snip.. see URL for election map and other links.. }

[geronl]

and what ridiculous method is it this time? Tweets about him outnumbering Tweets about Her Heighnous? The chickens with a pic of Trump in their cage laying bigger eggs than a similar chicken in a similar cage looking at Hillary's mug?

[unknown]

and what ridiculous method is it this time? Tweets about him outnumbering Tweets about Her Heighnous? The chickens with a pic of Trump in their cage laying bigger eggs than a similar chicken in a similar cage looking at Hillary's mug?

Well, read the article and get back with me..

[sinkspur]

The poster neglected to put up the very next part of the article:

However, in an unusual move, Abramowitz is throwing his own model under the bus and suggesting that Clinton will win because Trump is so different from past presidential candidates and has such high unfavorability ratings that his election forecast basics can't be trusted.

"Based on the results of other recent presidential elections, however, as well as Trump's extraordinary unpopularity, it appears very likely that the Republican vote share will fall several points below what would be expected if the GOP had nominated a mainstream candidate and that candidate had run a reasonably competent campaign. Therefore, despite the prediction of the Time for Change model, Clinton should probably be considered a strong favorite to win the 2016 presidential election as suggested by the results of recent national and state polls," he concluded on the Crystal Ball site.

 
That is in line with Crystal Ball founder Larry Sabato's prediction also on the site.

So, the forecaster doesn't believe his own forecast.

[geronl]

So, the forecaster doesn't believe his own forecast.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There should be about a 66 percent chance of a Republican victory," Abramowitz added."

There's his first and most obvious mistake right there.

There isn't a Republican running in this election.

[NavyCanDo]

Is unknown pinch-hitting for Mech?  Same MO. Visit the mother ship, copy a story and slap it here - repeat.

[unknown]

The poster neglected to put up the very next part of the article:

So, the forecaster doesn't believe his own forecast.

You read it.. Yea, I thought that interesting also.

He has a model which is uses to be objective, but when the results come out where he doesn't think they should be he adds his own subjective analysis.

It seems this is happening a lot this election.

[sinkspur]

You read it.. Yea, I thought that interesting also.

He has a model which is uses to be objective, but when the results come out where he doesn't think they should be he adds his own subjective analysis.

It seems this is happening a lot this election.

Larry Sabato predicts 341 electoral votes for Hillary, which is Obama vs. Romney proportions.  Sounds about right to me.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

According to the chicken entrails I read, Trump will lose.

[Wingnut]

Is unknown pinch-hitting for Mech?  Same MO. Visit the mother ship, copy a story and slap it here - repeat.

He is a brother of another mescoline mother.

[libertybele]

Not according to Western Illinois University, who has been correct since 1975; they predict Bernie Sanders!

http://realtimepolitics.com/2016/02/28/western-illinois-university-has-predicted-the-next-president-correctly-since-1975/

[Wingnut]

The Official Trump Election forecast: 

[unknown]

The Official Trump Election forecast: 

LOL   

[Oceander]

You read it.. Yea, I thought that interesting also.

He has a model which is uses to be objective, but when the results come out where he doesn't think they should be he adds his own subjective analysis.

It seems this is happening a lot this election.

Hardly.  He very rightly points out that the assumptions the system is built on don't encompass the facts of this election.  This election is out of bounds for the model and, therefore, its results cannot be trusted.

For most purposes, a standard Newtonian system will work, but when you want to generalize into the area of general relativity, a Newtonian system is no longer sufficient and its results will not apply.

[HonestJohn]

According to the chicken entrails I read, Trump will lose.

Butcher of innocent chickens!!!

I weep at Margaret's death!

 

[RoosGirl]

[unknown]

Hardly.  He very rightly points out that the assumptions the system is built on don't encompass the facts of this election.  This election is out of bounds for the model and, therefore, its results cannot be trusted.

For most purposes, a standard Newtonian system will work, but when you want to generalize into the area of general relativity, a Newtonian system is no longer sufficient and its results will not apply.

Ok, so if classic Newtonian determinism isn't a good fit, then do get into the non-deterministic QM model? (Unless you are believer in the pilot wave model of QM as proposed by Louis de Broglie and brought back by Bohm, and today is coming roaring back in vogue with some recent experiments which brings back determinism, and therefore releases us from the classic non-deterministic Copenhagen model.)

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

There's his first and most obvious mistake right there.

There isn't a Republican running in this election.

BOOM!

[Oceander]

Ok, so if classic Newtonian determinism isn't a good fit, then do get into the non-deterministic QM model? (Unless you are believer in the pilot wave model of QM as proposed by Louis de Broglie and brought back by Bohm, and today is coming roaring back in vogue with some recent experiments which brings back determinism, and therefore releases us from the classic non-deterministic Copenhagen model.)

Maybe you should address the issue rather than trying to distract people from the fact your emperor has no clothes.

If the parameters of the model no longer fit, then the model is no longer trustworthy.  This entire election is outside the parameters of almost every other election in living memory.

Remember all those polls that showed Romney winning in a romp?  No individual poll is trustworthy, particularly when the circumstances are outside the bounds for which the model was built.

[Free Vulcan]

What difference does it make?

[unknown]

Maybe you should address the issue rather than trying to distract people from the fact your emperor has no clothes.

If the parameters of the model no longer fit, then the model is no longer trustworthy.  This entire election is outside the parameters of almost every other election in living memory.

Remember all those polls that showed Romney winning in a romp?  No individual poll is trustworthy, particularly when the circumstances are outside the bounds for which the model was built.

well excuse me...

[Oceander]

well excuse me...

You're excused.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Butcher of innocent chickens!!!

I weep at Margaret's death!

 

That chicken lived free range for 2 years.  It had a better life than most chickens.  I never see you getting all weepy over the rabbits I stomp almost daily.

[HonestJohn]

That chicken lived free range for 2 years.  It had a better life than most chickens.  I never see you getting all weepy over the rabbits I stomp almost daily.

Rabbits are rabbits.

Chickens, though...

... if you place one on your head in winter, they keep it toasty warm. (and they massage the scalp with their feet)

Live chicken hats...