Predicting the Presidential Election

[MachineGhost]

A simple linear regression equation beats all of the experts, pundits and talking blowhards.  Giddyup!

The equation to predict the Presidential election is:
VP = 48.39 + .672*G - .654*P + 0.990*Z

The equation to predict the House election is:
VC = 45.63 + .384*G - .373*P + 0.565*Z

Where:
VP = Democratic share of Presidential vote.
VC = Democratic share of House vote.
G = Annual growth rate of real per capita GDP for first three quarters of 2012.
P = Annual growth rate of GDP deflator in first 15 quarters of incumbent administration.
Z = Number of quarters in the first 15 quarters of incumbent administration in which the annual growth rate of real per capita GDP is greater than 3.2 percent.

Currently, the VP is 49.71% and VC is 46.38%.  Since the margin of error is 2.5%, it seems too close to call in the Presidential election but the Republicans may pick up a few seats in the House.  Unless the economy booms or tanks between now and then, there is no clear winner.  We seem destined for more gridlock.

Recent stock market performance allegedly has a higher ability to predict the election outcome, but I have not seen proof for that claim.

[notsheigetz]

If it was America of 20-25 years ago I think I would be confident in predicting that Obama would be easily defeated based solely on the economy.

But it isn't America of 20-25 years ago and I will be very interested to see what is the outcome. From the small cocoon I live in I get the sense that there have been profound changes but it's hard to gauge the magnitude. For most of my adult life we were engaged in a militant and expensive struggle against communism but it now seems to me that this was very much like the war on drugs. I think a very significant and growing portion of the American populace would sign on to the basic principles of communism as presented by Karl Marx if they were properly presented in a form that made them at least pseudo-compatible with traditional "American" values. I think this is essentially the core of Obama's beliefs but he walks a very thin line.

Not for one minute do I think the election of Republicans will be any better for "America", whatever that is nowadays. That is a different story altogether.

It's all a matter of time. Just hope the PP does well through it all which I think was HB's thinking too.

[Reub]

Personally, I believe that the differences between the candidates are vast. One pro socialist, the other pro capitalist. One pro Muslim Brotherhood, the other pro Israeli. One pro raising taxes and larger government, one for lowering taxes and smaller government. One for increasing dependency, one for reducing it.

These are not small differences.

[Pointedstick]

I would say they are both pro-socialist, but sometimes for different things. Clearly both Romney and Obama are in favor of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--all socialist programs--as evidenced by their ad wars each accusing the other of trying to defund or alter them. And I'm not sure their stances on the various middle east factions really matter much since nothing we do or say short of invading really has any effect anyway. As for taxes and government, both are for lowering taxes, but sometimes for different groups of people. For example, Obama and the Democrats have enthusiastically adopted a payroll tax cut but resist extending the Bush tax cuts for the top income bracket while the Republicans have done the opposite. Both talk of lowering taxes whenever they can. Both are clearly in favor of corporate dependency (TARP etc), and other than getting rid of the big socialist programs (not gunna happen) neither are going to reduce dependency on the federal government whether they want to or not.

[MediumTex]

I would say they are both pro-socialist, but sometimes for different things. Clearly both Romney and Obama are in favor of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--all socialist programs--as evidenced by their ad wars each accusing the other of trying to defund or alter them. And I'm not sure their stances on the various middle east factions really matter much since nothing we do or say short of invading really has any effect anyway. As for taxes and government, both are for lowering taxes, but sometimes for different groups of people. For example, Obama and the Democrats have enthusiastically adopted a payroll tax cut but resist extending the Bush tax cuts for the top income bracket while the Republicans have done the opposite. Both talk of lowering taxes whenever they can. Both are clearly in favor of corporate dependency (TARP etc), and other than getting rid of the big socialist programs (not gunna happen) neither are going to reduce dependency on the federal government whether they want to or not.

Bush gave us Medicare Part D and a 2001 tax cut with silly gimmicks and assumptions that have contributed to our current enormous deficits.

Obama gave us health care reform with a lifetime's worth of silly gimmicks and assumptions that will contribute to our current enormous deficits for many years.

The only differences I see among the last 5 Presidents are their stances on abortion and the preferred scale of U.S. military action.  The Democrats and Reagan liked quick strike style U.S. military actions with an emphasis on air strikes, while the Bushes went for the larger ground campaign type of military actions.

I totally understand how people personally dislike Obama, but if you put Bush and Obama behind a curtain on most policies they would be hard to tell apart.

This is going to sound crazy, but I really think that Romney might actually be more liberal than Obama if elected, sort of like the first Bush was a lot more liberal than Republicans were thinking when they voted for him in 1988.

On defense in particular I would say that Obama has been just as hawkish as his predecessor.

I think that one of the areas in which Obama has probably been the most disappointing has been his complete lack of interest in any kind of law enforcement against the Wall Street thugs who helped orchestrate the 2008 financial crisis.  I'm not a fan of witch hunts, but there was a lot of clearly illegal activity going on in a lot of firms leading up to the 2008 meltdown.  I would have expected dozens of high profile prosecutions at this point under a Democratic administration instead of the handful we have actually seen.

Even when it comes to healthcare reform, Obamacare is not really as populist as people might imagine.  It's basically a law requiring every person to buy a product in oligopolistic markets where the prices are fixed by bureaucrats who have in many cases been completely captured by the industries they are supposed to be regulating.  Does that really sound populist?  It sounds like an insurance company executive's wet dream to me--an example of the worst kind of crony capitalism; little competition, fixed prices, lots of bureaucratic barriers to entry, etc.

[Pointedstick]

Even when it comes to healthcare reform, Obamacare is not really as populist as people might imagine.  It's basically a law requiring every person to buy a product in oligopolistic markets where the prices are fixed by bureaucrats who have in many cases been completely captured by the industries they are supposed to be regulating.  Does that really sound populist?  It sounds like an insurance company executive's wet dream to me--an example of the worst kind of crony capitalism; little competition, fixed prices, lots of bureaucratic barriers to entry, etc.

I agree 100%. It continually amazes me that liberals defend this law. It's a massive piece of corporate welfare that showers one of America's most hated industries with money ripped straight from the hands of the middle-class. Mostly I hear them talking about pre-existing conditions and young adults being able to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until 26, but they miss the forest for the trees. If Republicans had rammed through a law that forced every American to buy a product we all understand is too expensive, the howling from the liberal media would have reached Alpha Centauri.

[MachineGhost]

Personally, I believe that the differences between the candidates is vast. One pro socialist, the other pro capitalist. One pro Muslim Brotherhood, the other pro Israeli. One pro raising taxes and larger government, one for lowering taxes and smaller government. One for increasing dependency, one for reducing it.

These are not small differences.

I think the sad reality of our system is it institutionally co-opts the extreme differences between parties and candidates.  Is that tyranny by moderation?  When it comes to freedom, compromise is always the root of all evil.

I agree with PointedSlick that what really matters in deciding which President to vote for is the appointed judges.  I'd like to see more conservative judges on the Supreme Court.  They tend to be a bit more pro-freedom than the Democrat judges who never see a government program or action they don't like to rubber stamp.  Gag me with a pitchfork!  Replace them all with AI I say!

I think the best way to visualize Democrats is they believe in the Declaration of Independence whereas the Republicans believe in the Constitution.  Both documents are worlds apart.

[MachineGhost]

I agree 100%. It continually amazes me that liberals defend this law. It's a massive piece of corporate welfare that showers one of America's most hated industries with money ripped straight from the hands of the middle-class. Mostly I hear them talking about pre-existing conditions and young adults being able to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until 26, but they miss the forest for the trees. If Republicans had rammed through a law that forced every American to buy a product we all understand is too expensive, the howling from the liberal media would have reached Alpha Centauri.

Either base as an inordinate ability to rationalize poor public policy choices if it comes from "their side".  Its sheer rote demagoguery.  I have to remind myself constantly than the base is born hardwired to be either Democratic or Republican in the brain.  There is no true independent thinking going on; the circuitry provides for many unconscious cognitive biases.  In a way, this empowers those small number of moderates or libertarians in the middle as they swing decide the elections.  But from their perspective, its still Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum.

[Benko]

How about gov't regulations?  Energy policy e.g. pipeline?

I think you are overstating things, or at least I hope Romney is not another Bush.

[Storm]

I think that one of the areas in which Obama has probably been the most disappointing has been his complete lack of interest in any kind of law enforcement against the Wall Street thugs who helped orchestrate the 2008 financial crisis.  I'm not a fan of witch hunts, but there was a lot of clearly illegal activity going on in a lot of firms leading up to the 2008 meltdown.  I would have expected dozens of high profile prosecutions at this point under a Democratic administration instead of the handful we have actually seen.

Romney could be making this a campaign issue.  I suspect this would resonate with many Tea Party types.  I wonder why he isn't talking about it.

[Cue extra long Homer Simpson laugh]

I agree, it's a huge opportunity for any candidate to claim they are going to finally crack down on the criminals, but Romney would never speak out against it.  He knows which side of the bread his butter is on...

[Reub]

Crack down on the criminals? You mean Barney Frank, Jon Corzine and the Solyndra crew?

[TBV]

This site attracts folks whose insights are immensely interesting and entertaining.  However, forums that specialize in politics don't interest me much at all because EVERYONE has already heard/read the bullet points that get exchanged.  I hope we don't go too far down that road.  But let me offer up the following...

Invariably, we're told that elections are important, especially whichever one is due next.  Candidate X will surely make a difference, as opposed to Candidate Y who is either a fraud or a hapless dupe of sinister and powerful interests.  Lets focus on the "issues", because heavens knows that's where one can see what a clear choice is now being set before the voters.  However, since no one can tolerate speed-talking cat fights between paid surrogates, we content ourselves getting exercised over nerdy high school photos, wardrobe choices, horse-race polling, bloopers and hype.  Of course, there are "debates", where wealthy journalists hog the spotlight while candidates stick to scripted answers to questions from lists of topics which their handlers approve in advance.  Never fear, because everyone has a "plan", a powerful and timely one at that.  But not so important as to have been introduced at any time previous in the candidate's (often) long and distinguished career.  And not so well thought out that the details can't wait until after inauguration day.  And not so timeless that it can't be ignored altogether once that day has come and gone.

If the fate of mankind hangs in the balance, and only the most heartless could fail to see the need to be free of our present situation, then why is it that after four long years, and no cosmic change in circumstances, we are ready for "four more years?"  And why the need for a second term to "finish what we started?"  Wasn't it important enough to attend to in the first four years?  Perhaps it was because of a gridlocked Congress, or the lack of a filibuster-proof Senate majority.  But didn't we elect Candidate [enter name here] because of his alleged skills at reaching across the aisle?  Even worse, what should we think if his party held bullet-proof majorities in both houses?  Well, then we need to acknowledge that there are titanic global forces against which mere mortals cannot hope to prevail.  You know, that vast expanse of humanity we should all become more familiar with, so long as it doesn't interfere with our disengagement plans, bringing our boys home for Christmas, so on and so forth.  Tricky thing that.  Somewhere between "finishing the job" and abandoning [fill in name of "lost" country] we're supposed to file an exit strategy while not forgetting to attend to domestic priorities or avoid entangling alliances [not to be confused with pursuing a unilateral foreign policy.]  Sort of like ending the scourge of [insert choice of "terrorism", "ethnic cleansing", or "oppression of women"] while taking care not to engage in nation building or imposing our value system on others.

Probably, we should conclude that a happy life depends on more than a passel of feckless politicos.  Once bitten, twice shy and all that.  But no sooner than you can say "Iowa caucuses", we're off to the races again.  What's to be made of all this?  For one, we should recognize that leaders who utter non-sequiturs are themselves not worth following.  For another, we shouldn't get caught up in catch phrases, especially ones of the mutually exclusive variety.  And finally, it's difficult to take the measure of a man (or woman) when you have no clear yardstick for their success or failure.

[MediumTex]

TBV,

Let me try to elevate the discussion a bit here.

Perhaps politics is actually a lot like the markets.  Even when we begin to understand that it's all based on a bunch of speculation, misrepresentation and pure wizardry, we are still tempted to try to beat it and somehow succeed where so many others fail (even those with vastly better information than the average retail investor).

Politics is probably also a bit like sports in that no matter how many seasons your favorite team struggles, you still root for them hoping that this will be the year.  I am doing that right now with the Dallas Cowboys, even though deep down I know the season is just going to be a series of frustrations and disappointments.  No matter how many election cycles we sit through and watch the politicians disappoint us, we are still drawn to a good story and the idea that the government really can make the world better and somehow short circuit the demons in human nature.  It never works, but the newspapers and news programs have to cover something.

Why do we do this?  I think part of it is that we are just drawn to entertaining spectacles, whether they are based on politics, the markets or sports.

[Greg]

TBV,

I really liked your analysis of Candidates and how you could look at this 20 years from now (or 5 election cycles), and it would still be the same thing. It seems kinda depressing but I agree with MediumTex, that we just like a good story. We just happen to be minor characters in the story that no one really ever cares about.

[MachineGhost]

The Obameter Scorecard

   Promise Kept 190 (37%)

   Compromise 71 (14%)

   Promise Broken 81 (16%)

   Stalled 50 (10%)

   In the Works 114 (22%)

   Not yet rated 2 (0%)

GOP Pledge-O-Meter Scorecard

    Promise Kept 11 (19%)

    Compromise 2 (4%)

    Promise Broken 11 (19%)

    Stalled 3 (5%)

    In the Works 11 (19%)

    Not yet rated 19 (33%)

[Pointedstick]

Where do those numbers come from?

[MachineGhost]

Where do those numbers come from?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... /obameter/

I just saw this and I can't stop laughing: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... irst-lady/

[cowboyhat]

Obama and Romney are cheap opportunists, both owned by the banking cartel. For the things that really matter in this world that politics can change it doesn't make a difference which one you vote for, which is strangely good news if you realize the futility of it all and have given up on 2012. Means you can relax and pick the one with better hair or whiter teeth.

If you are into the whiter teeth/better hair stuff then you should read Nate Sliver. He's the last word on who's going to win. Well written quantitative assessments. He figures Obama takes it 7 times out of 10.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[MachineGhost]

If you are into the whiter teeth/better hair stuff then you should read Nate Sliver. He's the last word on who's going to win. Well written quantitative assessments. He figures Obama takes it 7 times out of 10.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Do you know what his standard of error is for the Popular Vote prediction?

[cowboyhat]

No, I don't. It is not obvious from the material he has presented on his blog, but he might have discussed estimates of error in his model in a post I have not read.

If you look at the graph "Electoral Vote Distribution" down the right hand side of the page you can see the distribution of probabilities he has calculated for each of the possible electoral college outcomes. That may get somewhat at what you are interested in since it shows graphically the probability of each Electoral College outcome and you can see how right shifted the distribution is toward an Obama win. Obviously some of the outcomes are much more likely than others due to the winner take all nature of the Electoral College voting and the fact that only a subset of states are actually contested.

The Electoral College effect is one of the more depressing aspects of the US election process to me, since it disenfranchises most of the electorate. That and the fact that most of the candidates are puppets and the most important thing about what they have to say is how to package it to sell more soap.

[MachineGhost]

The Electoral College effect is one of the more depressing aspects of the US election process to me, since it disenfranchises most of the electorate. That and the fact that most of the candidates are puppets and the most important thing about what they have to say is how to package it to sell more soap.

There sure are pros and cons to the Electoral College (EC), but I do think it made sense as a compromise back in the day to assure the rural areas would get representation.  If we changed it now to a popular majority vote, the Republicans would become disenfranchised and that wouldn't be good at all.

I think rather than scrapping the EC outright, we ought to scrap the winner takes all system so we get better representation of minority parties ala Parliamentary-style.  But thats a tough row to sell.  A number of states have already entered into a mutual compact to give the popular vote majority to each state's electoral votes in the winner take all system.  It's slowly gaining more and more states until such a time it reaches a super-majority and then it'll probably be headed for the Supreme Court.  I feel the compact is as grave a mistake as junking the EC or handing the Senate elections over to the people from the states.

Its my impression most people do not understand what "democracy" really means.  It does not mean vote by majority rule or the ability to vote per se or in large numbers.  It's about the individual, their own unique viewpoints and the debate and reaching of a consensus optimum along with other similarly empowered individuals.  Because of the Romeian (sp?) concept of indirect representation, we don't have that in our political system and signing up even more voters is not going to make the system any more democratic.  There needs to be certain reforms and the EC is hardly the biggest problem.

[MediumTex]

The Electoral College effect is one of the more depressing aspects of the US election process to me, since it disenfranchises most of the electorate. That and the fact that most of the candidates are puppets and the most important thing about what they have to say is how to package it to sell more soap.

There sure are pros and cons to the Electoral College (EC), but I do think it made sense as a compromise back in the day to assure the rural areas would get representation.  If we changed it now to a popular majority vote, the Republicans would become disenfranchised and that wouldn't be good at all.

I think rather than scrapping the EC outright, we ought to scrap the winner takes all system so we get better representation of minority parties ala Parliamentary-style.  But thats a tough row to sell.  A number of states have already entered into a mutual contract to give the popular vote majority of each state's electoral votes to the winner take all system.  It's slowly gaining more and more states until such a time it reaches a super-majority and then it'll probably be headed for the Supreme Court.  I feel the compact is as grave a mistake as junking the EC or handing the Senate elections over to the people from the states.

Its my impression most people do not understand what "democracy" really means.  It does not mean vote by majority rule or the ability to vote per se or in large numbers.  It's about the individual, their own unique viewpoints and the debate and reaching of a consensus optimum along with other similarly empowered individuals.  Because of the Romeian (sp?) concept of indirect representation, we don't have that in our political system and signing up even more voters is not going to make the system any more democratic.  There needs to be certain reforms and the EC is hardly the biggest problem.

It seems like our Presidential elections are basically held in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In Texas, it has been decades since there was anything like a competitive Presidential race.  Living in a big Texas city, though, it's nice to not have to deal with the traffic and pageantry that a Presidential visit involves.  Bush and Cheney used to come through a lot, but we don't see Obama much.

[MachineGhost]

Now that Governor Johnson is the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, he has a similar problem but a different foe. The Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't want to extend him an invitation. In an open letter to the organization, he's trying to persuade them to change their minds. The third of voters who are loyal to neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party deserve to have at least some representation during the televised presidential debates, he argues.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... es/261362/

[MachineGhost]

The presidential debates -- the single most important electoral events -- should provide voters with opportunities to see the popular candidates discussing important issues in an unscripted manner. Unfortunately, the presidential debates often fail to do so, because the major party candidates exert excessive control over them.

Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan institution, the CPD has often run the debates in the interests of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.

Since 1988, negotiators for the Republican and Democratic nominees have secretly drafted debate contracts that dictate how the presidential debates will be structured. The CPD, which is co-chaired by leading figures in the Republican and Democratic parties, has implemented those contracts.

CPD control of the presidential debates has harmed our democracy. Fewer debates are held than necessary to educate voters. Candidates that voters want to see are often excluded. Restrictive formats allow participants to recite memorized soundbites and avoid actual debate. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud."

Open Debates informs the public, the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the CPD. Open Debates does not advocate the general inclusion of any candidate; it merely advocates that the debates reflect the wishes of the American people.

http://www.opendebates.org/

[MachineGhost]

Two University of Colorado professors, one from Boulder and one from Denver, have put together an Electoral College forecast model to predict who will win the 2012 presidential election and the result is bad news for Barack Obama. The model points to a Mitt Romney victory in 2012.

http://tinyurl.com/dyuhbmb