(757) 594-8997
rachel.bitecofer@cnu.edu
Posted on 07/18/2019 5:00:18 PM PDT by nwrep
Rachel Bitecofer, the assistant director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Virginia’s Christopher Newport University, created a unique prediction model that almost perfectly foretold in July 2018 the results of the 2018 midterm election. (The model concluded the Democrats would pick up 42 House seats; the Dems gained 40 seats.)
Bitecofer’s model has concluded that it matters not who the Democratic presidential nominee is -- “unless it ends up being a disruptor like Bernie Sanders.” Whoever wins the Democratic nomination -- other than possibly Bernie, that is -- will defeat Trump in the general election.
The only unexpected factors that might make Bitecofer revisit her Trump-loses prediction: the launch of a well-funded independent campaign by someone like Howard Schultz, the sudden onset of an economic recession, a war with Iran or a large-scale terrorist attack. “Otherwise,” she says, “the country’s hyper-partisan and polarized environment has largely set the conditions of the 2020 election in stone.”
“The complacent electorate of 2016, who were convinced Trump would never be president,” she writes, “has been replaced with the terrified electorate of 2020, who are convinced he’s the Terminator and can’t be stopped. Under my model, that distinction is not only important, it is everything.”
Easy Tex you aint been here long enough to say what and when stuff gets posted
In 2018, GOP retained the Senate, and the House shift was subpar.
That's the difficulty. Who is a "disruptor"? Harris? Warren? Booker?
Last time, Trump was a "disruptor," but ended up winning, when almost everyone assumed he would lose big league.
It is true that most people vote negatively nowadays and are less likely to be positively swayed by a candidate. But if the candidate they would otherwise favor appears to be weak or unpalatable, they may stay home.
Also, there's a rhythm to elections. It's easier to win reelection than to get elected in the first place. After eight years, though, everybody is tired of the ruling party.
Will Trump really have burned through his support in four years? Or might he increase it?
Yep... But how many people put their trust in million-man-math?
Without Perot there would have been no hitlary in the WH...
That makes no sense as Trump is doing what Ross incoherently only babbled about before outsourcing most of his businesses’ jobs.
I won’t compare the two because it’s an insult.
"In a head-to-head contest, voters prefer Clinton, 48-38 percent. But among all five candidates who will be on the Nov. 8 ballot, the tally is Clinton 39, Trump 33 and Johnson 15. Green Party nominee Jill Stein and independent Evan McMullin each take 3 percent. The margin of error is +/-3.9 percent.
The survey also probed likely voters on character issues. A majority (54 percent) said Clinton cannot be trusted with classified information. And a majority (53 percent) said Trump is a racist. “That more than half think that Donald Trump is a racist is astounding,” said Dr. Rachel Bitecofer, Assistant Director of the Wason Center.
I’ll make a bet that when her model foretold a 40 seat pickup it was a whole lot closer to the election than 17 months.
So what was their 2016 predictions?
I would take this seriously simply because of the emerging millennial vote. These people have been so corrupted by left-wing media that they consider AOC & her ilk heroines in some imaginary battle.
People wonder how the Germans, an intelligent people, could have voted in someone like Hitler. The Nazi party, like the leftist radicals, were a product of the cultural miasma.
We are living in very scary times.
Absolutely true. This week has been interesting. Notice since Sunday, the media has talked trump. No democrats who are running. That is good for trump regardless of subject. The democrats can’t get media coverage at all.
The Biden/Sanders ticket.
Red meat for the rabid leftists in the Northwet on down to CA and leftist bastions like Chicago, Atlanta, NY, and New England.
I could predict the sky will be purple starting in 2020 and be just as wrong as this writer.
So many states giving drivers licenses to illegals. That is not good!!!! That’s what is needed to vote.
People argue about that even now.
What's "proven mathematically" may not always reflect what happens in history.
Perot got many people doubting Bush to the point where Bush became their third choice.
So the idea is that a majority of Perot's voters would have gone to Clinton.
People who would never have voted for a Democrat in a two candidate race voted for Perot and ranked Clinton higher than Bush.
But without Perot chipping away at Bush, many of those voters might not have lost faith in Bush and might have voted for him.
Bush was such a weak candidate, though, that you might be right, but the math doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
I think Trump’s re-election is no sure thing. I don’t dismiss this forecast but it doesn’t worry me either. Voting wins elections, not predictions.
I did a quick web search on this prof and I could not find any info on how long she’s been using this forecasting model. If you’re telling me she correctly predicted ONE election, and not a presidential at that, then I’m not very impressed.
Trump win, Trump only has to get a handle on the immigration crisis, other than merely and constantly telling the truth about it.
Kamala enforced the new green deal which now means making the economy communistic. That is a big problem for her. I wish trump said that last night.
Where are her 2018 Senate predictions? Her 2016 Presidential polling was atrocious.
Would her model have been accurate if there were less resignations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.