For sake of intelligent discussion, instead of, “Oh, Beck is a crazy moron, yada yada”, Beck quoted a bunch of polls showing Trump does not have a chance of beating her.
What gives?
I understand statistics and this prof’s model is likely multi-variate, pretty complex and has a lot of variables which with sensitivity analysis, he changes, puts in best cast to worst case for each and pumps out a percentage...however, it is still crap in, crap out.
It would be nice to know what his assumptions are, however.
Any thoughts anyone?
Fine if Trump wins, but no one can say with certainty what’s inside until we elect him.
I’ve heard that before, too.
Why don’t you write to the guy and ask him!
Here is the abstract and link, where you’ll find a link to 16 pages of pdf. After you’ve studied them, please come back and let us know what you found out. Or, you can just say, “The hell with it. If I have to dig it out myself, it must be lie.”
American presidential elections run in cycles that have turning points after about two to three terms of a party’s control of the White House. This is not the pattern associated with realignment eras that are presumed to last 30 years or so. The cyclical dynamic is estimated with a second-order autoregressive model. More than three years before the day of the next presidential election is not too early for the cyclical model to offer its forecast. With parameter estimates and the requisite values for the predictors at hand, the cyclical forecast is able to make an unconditional forecast for the 2016 presidential election: 51.4% of the two-party popular vote for the Republican candidate. The 2016 contest shapes up as “Time for a Change†election. After two terms, consistent with the logic of the cyclical model, change looms larger than continuity.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2303042