Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Political scientist who got it right in 2016 says ...

Recommended Posts

Most political scientists did not get the winner of the 2016 election right. A few did, however.

This one ... drum roll ... says Trump has a 91% chance of winning in 2020.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-has-91-percent-chance-of-winning-reelection-political-science-professor/

Helmut Norpoth is a Stony Brook Professor. He uses a 'Primary Model', which has made correct predictions 5/6 times since 1996 (exception is 2000).

He's also predicting an EC victory for Trump of 362 EVs.

Norpoth says his model intentionally discounts public opinion surveys (polls), and instead gauging enthusiasm for a candidate in the primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put my money on Trump winning...but at nowhere close to those odds.  I'd put him at something like 55%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Interesting!

I've been pretty consistent about that here.  I believe, of course, that he "should" not win....but I've also completely lost faith in the American people between the 2016 election and willful ignorance about COVID-19.  

The people are bad at making decisions in their own interest, and Trump has never been held accountable for his actions in his entire life (which is how he became who he is).  The smart bet would be to assume that these two things continue to work together in tandem as they have so far -- even though I pray that I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Most political scientists did not get the winner of the 2016 election right. A few did, however.

This one ... drum roll ... says Trump has a 91% chance of winning in 2020.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-has-91-percent-chance-of-winning-reelection-political-science-professor/

Helmut Norpoth is a Stony Brook Professor. He uses a 'Primary Model', which has made correct predictions 5/6 times since 1996 (exception is 2000).

He's also predicting an EC victory for Trump of 362 EVs.

Norpoth says his model intentionally discounts public opinion surveys (polls), and instead gauging enthusiasm for a candidate in the primaries.

Yeah he’s going to be way off this year. This completely ignores the effects of negative partisanship which I think brings up some valid points, even though all systems have weaknesses. 

On a similar note, Allan Lichtman is the other guy with a system who is equally as accurate. He thinks Trump will lose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

On a similar note, Allan Lichtman is the other guy with a system who is equally as accurate. He thinks Trump will lose. 

I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen this year, based on variables like political scientists tend to use.

I don't mind being a contrarian, and so Norpoth's prediction actually makes me want to look at reasons that prediction might be wrong.

My 80% as of now is based on my read of Trump. Not primaries results, negative partisanship, polling, or what have you.

Norpoth's prediction model is similar to others in assuming a kind of Marxist view of history - election results are controlled by material conditions, instead of individuals taking actions that may or may not bring victory or defeat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Most political scientists did not get the winner of the 2016 election right. A few did, however.

This one ... drum roll ... says Trump has a 91% chance of winning in 2020.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-has-91-percent-chance-of-winning-reelection-political-science-professor/

Helmut Norpoth is a Stony Brook Professor. He uses a 'Primary Model', which has made correct predictions 5/6 times since 1996 (exception is 2000).

He's also predicting an EC victory for Trump of 362 EVs.

Norpoth says his model intentionally discounts public opinion surveys (polls), and instead gauging enthusiasm for a candidate in the primaries.

Sounds like a crackpot who made a lucky guess in 2016, and it went to his head.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Patine said:

Sounds like a crackpot who made a lucky guess in 2016, and it went to his head.

You mean a lucky guess 5/6 times since 1996 (with the exception being 2000, the famously contested election where many people think Al Gore actually won)? Who's also a political scientist at Stony Brook?

Not a crackpot - try again. This is a disappointing pattern with you - a quick move to ad hominem attacks, instead of engaging with argument, data, and so on. Sad! as Trump would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You mean a lucky guess 5/6 times since 1996 (with the exception being 2000, the famously contested election where many people think Al Gore actually won)? Who's also a political scientist at Stony Brook?

Not a crackpot - try again. This is a disappointing pattern with you - a quick move to ad hominem attacks, instead of engaging with argument, data, and so on. Sad! as Trump would say.

Like you just attacked Wikipedia as source because you disagreed with the portrayal of Molyneaux, but had nothing else backing you up on hand, in a post you made just a few minutes ago? You mean THAT kind of tactic?

And you seem particularly prickly about criticism of any sort of this political analyst, as though criticism by myself, or even softer criticism by @vcczar, is something more personal and close to home to you than many other such figures discussed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

Like you just attacked Wikipedia as source because you disagreed with the portrayal of Molyneaux

Fair enough - my recollections might be incorrect. So here's Molyneux himself recently.

https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-molyneux/

"Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral. [...] I believe in equality before the law and reject any and all laws based on race. No race should “rule” or dominate any other race."

"I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”"

and

"I am not an “ethno-nationalist” but an advocate for a stateless society. In a truly free society, people can live however they choose, as long as they do not initiate the use of force. The violence required to create an “ethno-state” would be a monstrous violation of the non-aggression principle, and should be utterly condemned."

Anything in Wikipedia that is politically contentious should be treated with skepticism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Anything in Wikipedia that is politically contentious should be treated with skepticism.

Honestly, is there any online site that shouldn't?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Right - caveat lector.

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with that exact term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Fair enough - my recollections might be incorrect. So here's Molyneux himself recently.

https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-molyneux/

"Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral. [...] I believe in equality before the law and reject any and all laws based on race. No race should “rule” or dominate any other race."

"I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”"

and

"I am not an “ethno-nationalist” but an advocate for a stateless society. In a truly free society, people can live however they choose, as long as they do not initiate the use of force. The violence required to create an “ethno-state” would be a monstrous violation of the non-aggression principle, and should be utterly condemned."

Anything in Wikipedia that is politically contentious should be treated with skepticism.

 

 

I almost wanted to throw up reading his wikipedia page, although I hope these quotes you post here show some sort of evolution in his thought process away from white nationalism, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

I hope these quotes you post here show some sort of evolution in his thought process

They're consistent with what I recall from 5 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...