[MHT]

Did they predict 2008 in May? They could see around the corner to the economic collapse in September?

[Ticonderoga34]

Moody’s is basing their forecast on the economy, Obama’s popularity polls and gas prices.

Personally, I think already weak economy is going into the tank. Look at retail sales. Obama’s personal popularity doesn’t translate into votes for other Democrats. See the elections of 2010 and 2014 as examples.

Plus Moody’s is thinking that current situation now will be the same in November. That’s probably their out. “Well, if the general election was held in May then Hillary would have beat Trump but we had no of knowing that country would be in such bad shape in November and blah, blah, blah.”

[thoughtomator]

Garbage in, garbage out.

The manipulation of official economic statistics has reached epic levels under Obama. They actually claimed today that we’re near full employment.

The first fatal problem with this particular model is that lower gas prices historically is not due to wholesale demand destruction from a collapsing economy.

[x]

Hmmm ... they say the results could change if the economy changes, but when they give their past results they don't talk about multiple applications of the model in each election cycle. Here's what they predicted last year for this years election:

Did they apply the model at different points during previous election cycles and get different results? That might make one more skeptical about their record of success in the past and about their current prediction.

Still, if they give Trump Florida, Ohio, and Colorado (all states he might not win) and that's still not enough to win the election, you might wonder how Republicans can win this year.

It's more likely the GOP would lose Ohio, Florida, Colorado, or Nevada, than that the Democrats would lose Iowa or New Hampshire or another blue state.

Unless you want to turn the model on its head and argue that the model's awarding the most hotly contested of the traditional swing states to the GOP indicates just how bad things are for the Democrats?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Wait a minute...you mean a Wall Street analytics firm is saying that the politician that is bought and owned by Wall Street is going to win the election?

No...I can’t imagine them saying that.

[Sybeck1]

Need to ask Helmut Norpoth

[McBuff]

[The Continental Op]

The press has been pushing this since August 2015. Trump is not the usual candidate. Here are two other economic models predicting Trump wins for those who follow this sort of thing:

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/GOP-Republicans-President-White-House/2016/04/04/id/722182/

[Rebelbase]

If the Bitch wins they get a payoff.

[VRWC For Truth]

Good drugs??? Bwahahahahahahshhaha !

[Reverend Wright]

...Moody’s... (Warren Buffet speaks)

[A message]

The Moody's analyst told NPR that a decline in gas prices points to a win for the incumbent Democratic Party.

Apparently this idiot has not bought gas recently in Southern California.

[Jan_Sobieski]

9/10 illegal alien voters surveyed said they are voting for Hillary Clinton, “Ad mani time ad day pay me to vote!”

[NewHampshireDuo]

It’s not a normal election cycle.

[Redmen4ever]

With regard to Moody’s Analytics, I’m happy to hear they have a model. First time I’ve heard of it, and I’ve been in the business for decades. I suspect that they back-forecasted the past, as they calibrated the parameters of the model; rather than first developed a model and then used it, election after election, to forecast the unknown future.

Ray C. Fair of Yale has a peer-review economics-based model and he’s forecasting a big, 10-point victory for the Republicans.

https://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2016/index2.htm

Fair first published his model in 1978, based on data through 1876; and, he has updated it, in a transparent way, each election since.

If you’re wondering, Fair forecast a close win for Mitt in 2012, and instead Obama had a close win. This is what he said afterwords:

“It looks like the two-party vote share for Obama will be about 51.3 percent. The last prediction of the vote equation below (dated October 26, 2012) was 49.0 percent, which is an error of 2.3 percentage points. The standard error of the equation is 2.5, and so the actual error is about equal to the standard error. An error this small means that when I reestimate the vote equation with the 2012 election added, the coefficient estimates are not likely to change much. There is nothing in the 2012 results that cast doubt on the specification of the equation.”

Those of you who tracked the election know that Mitt was ahead ever so slightly going into the 3rd debate. Then, Mitt fell into the prevent defense and lost that debate. And, then there was Superstorm Sandy and a big hug from the Governor of New Jersey.

While Fair says, correctly, his model wasn’t off by much, it’s a lot easier to accept a forecast that is slightly off when your candidate is the winner, than when your candidate is a loser.

[TomGuy]

Nearly 1/4 of the Sanders supporters say they will not vote for her.

That could be a sizeable chunk in pivotal states.

[Nifster]

Could be. But just like Nate Silver they can’t model for intensity or the Trump factor

Do not get complacent

[Nifster]

Sure thing coal country cares about the DiC and the Beast

[headstamp 2]

Virtually every meaningful precedent is being broken this election cycle.

[AFreeBird]

Moody's picks "Glue Factory", to win the Belmont!

Get your votes bets in early, and often.