Predicting which party will win the White House: follow the numbers

Boston Globe ^ | 11/15/2015 | By Eric Fehrnstrom

[SeekAndFind]

It's hard to keep up with the twists and turns in this presidential race. Hillary Clinton under fire on Benghazi! Ben Carson has a theory about the pyramids! Bernie Sanders wrote about rape fantasies! Donald Trump . . . well, Donald Trump! Figuring out which headline will have the biggest impact on the general election is a bit of a parlor game. But what if they have no impact at all?

After the 2012 election, political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck wrote a book called"The Gamble"that looked at the cause of President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney. They sifted through the quantitative voting and polling data and concluded that the supposedly game-changing events --- like Romney's "47 percent" comment, or Obama's poor debate performance in Denver -- had no effect on the outcome.

What mattered, they found, was the direction of the economy. The decline in unemployment, and the growth in GDP, was just enough for Obama to make a credible case for his reelection. Everything else was just noise.

Likewise, there are two statistical measurements that, more than anything else, will determine whether the White House changes parties in 2016: Obama's job approval and the direction of the country, measured by whether voters think we're on the right track or the wrong track.

In terms of job approval, Obama has been under 50 percent for most of his presidency. The most recent Real Clear Politics monthly polling average says just 45 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama has been doing, while 52 percent disapprove. If the president remains net negative, voters should expect to hear a lot from Republicans on how the Democratic nominee is really running for Obama's third term.

[Impy]

They have Bush winning Hawaii too. LOL. Missouri and Arizona would fall in a rat landslide long before Wyoming, Utah and Idaho.

And his running mate is Rubio, good thing they lost Florida or else the electors would only be able to vote for one of them. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Lex Green’s running mate is Rand Paul! Rand Paul the crown Prince of Libertarians in the 2nd position to the guy who was the LP nominee for IL Governor in 2010.

And I thought the fake election results on “The West Wing” were silly. I would be hard pressed to dream up a sillier result or more ludicrous tickets than this.

I doubt he’ll be nominated but I could see Sanders holding the rat base pretty well, I think we’ve fallen that far. Winning though? No, baring some *major* GOP foul up or a third party candidate taking votes.

[abigkahuna]

Sure, count us in...

[knarf]

Ask any American to name a politician

That's all ... just name one

THAT is our next president

Trump

[wiggen]

“What mattered, they found, was the direction of the economy. The decline in unemployment, and the growth in GDP, was just enough for Obama to make a credible case for his reelection. Everything else was just noise.”
Yet Obama dug in on the nonsense that he had defeated the terrorists which with Crowly’s help in the debate he was able t get away with. Oh and as to the economy people then never felt it was going in the right direction. How many states does Obama lose without his huge edge in the minority vote?

[wiggen]

She won’t attract the minority vote in anywhere near the numbers like Obama did. Not at all certain the woman vote will be any different for her than Obama. Non thinking women voted for him and will vote for her. Any woman disgusted by corruption won’t.

[octex]

Overall, that’s a really good posting!

[Lopeover]

Yes, Thank you.

[ichabod1]

The Freakonomics guys say from their research, the candidate that wins is the more likable, regardless of positions, policies, or money.

[Biggirl]

Both Bush and Rubio are done. What has happened both at Mizzou and in Paris last week handed the win for next year over to Mr. Trump.

[ichabod1]

Trump is not a conservative. He will be the crossover candidate. If he takes care of his health he should win handily. He’s already polling better with blacks than any Repub in the modern era. Black and Hispanic unemployed would like to find jobs someday, despite what we tend to believe. Handouts pay, but not very much.

[ichabod1]

Daily Mail banned in Thailand, oddly. I think they’ve posted articles critical of the ruling military junta.

[ichabod1]

I don’t know about that, but it is basically a teachers college.

[Liz]

BINGO: The Democrats will go all out with voter fraud, just like 2012.

That nails it-----voter fraud takes it----not issues.

The calculated Clintons are very cunning. They have this patented "Issues Act" they've perfected over the years: they careen back and forth on the subjects of the day, looking all the world like they're for this against that, etc. However, the only principle, or moral absolute that guides the Clintons is accumulating power, influence and money.

===============================================

BACKSTORY What defeated Hillary back in 2008 was Obama having Big Guns and a black face on his side. He was a Chicago community organizer of little note, a US senator for less than a year, with no legislative achievements to speak of. Now Hillary and Bill had pics of Obama dressed as a Muslim. Uncle Teddy went ballistic... ordered them not to use the Muslim pics.

Teddy and Caroline later endorsed the befuddled Obama---
showing what a great country we are by endorsing a black man.

O was packaged and sold like corn flakes. Anita Dunn, his PR person said they never answered media questions....only put out what THEY wanted people to know about him. To this day, he is still an unknown quantity.

[marktwain]

“O was packaged and sold like corn flakes. Anita Dunn, his PR person said they never answered media questions....only put out what THEY wanted people to know about him. To this day, he is still an unknown quantity.”

And the media went along with it because if they did not, they were *racist*.

Obama is the first Affirmative Action President.

[Diogenesis]

Author (Romney’s manager) says:
“They sifted through the quantitative voting and polling data and concluded that the supposedly game-changing events — like Romney’s “47 percent” comment, or Obama’s poor debate performance in Denver — had no effect on the outcome.”

ROTFLOL. Romney’s stupidity and failure to fight back
cost America everything. Romney and the author
expected a coronation of their statist ideas.

[Savage Beast]

Thank you.

[redfreedom]

“Only if self-proclaimed “true conservatives” stay home again.”

I’m curious, what is a “self-proclaimed” true conservative? You’re making it sound like in order to be and live conservative we need to go to school and get a degree or be appointed by someone.

I voted for Mitt in 2012. With hind sight being 20 20, it would have been little difference having that jerk as President.

If the GOPe is successful in getting Bush nominated, “true conservatives” will stay home because like Mitt, Bush is no more conservative than obama.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The Freakonomics guys say from their research, the candidate that wins is the more likable, regardless of positions, policies, or money.

Let’s say this is true, Who is more likable when it eventually boils down to any of these? :

Hillary vs Trump

Hillary vs Cruz

Hillary vs Rubio

Hillary vs Carson

[Jane Long]

He will. His timing is pretty good :)

[smoothsailing]

For conservatives, staying home and not voting is a selfish act and destructive to liberty. Better that progtards do it. It's infinitely more strengthening of liberty if Democrats stay home.

Familiarize yourself with the Buckley Rule. It's an important principle for the patriot to embrace.