WSJ: Notable & Quotable: The GOP Fundamentals

[Oceander]

August 17, 2016

Notable & Quotable: The GOP Fundamentals
‘There should be about a 66% chance of a Republican victory.’


Aug. 16, 2016 7:03 p.m. ET
13 COMMENTS

From “Forecasting the 2016 Presidential Election: Will Time for Change Mean Time for Trump?” by Alan Abramowitz on Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball website, Aug. 11:

The Time for Change forecasting model has correctly predicted the winner of the national popular vote in every presidential election since 1988. . . . Based on a net approval rating for Barack Obama of +6 in the Gallup weekly tracking poll for the week of June 27-July 4, an estimated second quarter change in real GDP of 1.2% according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is seeking a third consecutive Democratic term in the White House, the Time for Change Model predicts a narrow victory for Donald Trump—51.4% of the major party vote to 48.6%. . . .

Based on a predicted vote share of 48.6% 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% chance of a Republican victory.

Despite the excellent track record of the Time for Change model, there are good reasons to be skeptical about the 2016 forecast. For one thing, the overwhelming majority of national polls during the spring and summer of 2016 have shown Clinton leading Trump. National polls completed shortly before and after the national party conventions gave Clinton an average lead of about five percentage points, and Clinton is up by about eight points now. Beyond the poll results, the Time for Change forecasting model is based on two crucial assumptions—first, that both major parties will nominate mainstream candidates capable of unifying their parties and, second, that the candidates will conduct equally effective campaigns so that the overall outcome will closely reflect the “fundamentals” incorporated in the model. . . .

The nomination of Trump by the Republican Party in 2016 appears to violate both of the Time for Change model’s key assumptions. Trump is clearly not a mainstream Republican and he does not appear to be running a competent campaign—he has lagged far behind Clinton in both fundraising and grassroots organizing in the swing states, and his rhetoric on the campaign trail has frequently brought sharp criticism from prominent Republicans as well as Democrats. . . .

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.

I believe one needs a subscription to view the article at wsj.com

[Oceander]

This concisely explains why this poll, which has otherwise correctly predicted every race since 1988, is most likely flawed this time around:  (at least) two of its fundamental assumptions are not true this election.  Specifically:

(a)  Trump is not a mainstream GOP candidate, and

(b)  Trump is not running a competent campaign

garbage in/garbage out - if the premises are false, then the conclusion is false, or at least, its truth-value cannot be determined on the basis of the remainder of the argument.

[thackney]

I believe one needs a subscription to view the article at wsj.com

Often if you use the direct link, a subscription is needed.  If you find the article via many internet title searches, you typically can read the full article.  In this specific case, I found access both ways.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-the-gop-fundamentals-1471388632

If you first go to:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Notable+%26+Quotable%3A+The+GOP+Fundamentals&oq=Notable+%26+Quotable%3A+The+GOP+Fundamentals&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
and click the first link, you can read the article.