Historically accurate election model says Trump would win by a large margin.

[538Electoral]

Moody's model correctly predicted every election since 1980 aside from 2016. The model says that assuming the economy stays good and turnout is close to the historical average, Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 along with Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia which would mean a 333-205 victory for Trump.

[Dr. Arch]

lol

[GeorgiaModerate]

Published Nov. 1, 2016:

Low gas prices and President Barack Obama’s high approval ratings are key factors that favor Democrat Hillary Clinton winning the White House in next week’s election, according to a model from Moody’s Analytics that has accurately predicted the last nine U.S. presidential contests.

Clinton is forecast to pick up 332 Electoral College votes against 206 for Republican Donald Trump, Moody’s Analytics predicted on Tuesday in the final update of its model before Election Day on Nov. 8.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-research-moody-s-idUSKBN12W56J

[Orser67]

If Trump were a normal president, he'd be a solid favorite to win re-election. Fortunately for 2020 Democrats, he's the type of president who goes through seven Communications Directors in three years and sends Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to look into right-wing conspiracy theories.

[ProudModerate2]

Their "model" was wrong in 2016, and will most certainly be wrong again (definitely no landslide).

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Republicans: We cannot trust any of these models that say Trump will loose because the models were wrong in 2016

Also Republicans: Trump's going to win because this model that was wrong in 2016 says so

[SN2903]

Could happen

[pbrower2a]

Two economic realities can derail an electoral bid for the incumbent's party: either stagflation (Ford and Carter losing successive elections) or an economic downturn. At this point, stagflation is more of a menace to a re-election of Donald Trump than is an economic downturn. (You heard me first; time is running out for two successive quarters of bad economic news from an economic meltdown involving Trump).

Considering the narrowness of the Trump win in 2016, he has little room for any declines. He really needs to be gaining ground politically in states that he barely lost in case random chance flips Pennsylvania, Michigan, and one of Arizona, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Approval ratings mean something. Trump has gained only one constituency (super-rich people who distrusted him unless he cut their taxes or smashed unions)... and he has failed to deliver on some promises. Demographic tendencies (younger potential voters are much more D-leaning than older voters dying off) alone suggest that Trump will lose. Figure that a large number of new voters in midterm elections came to the polls in 2018, which bodes ill for Republicans in 2020. (Contrast the 2010 "Tea Party" election, which resulted from Democratic-leaning voters not coming out to vote. Such voters came back to vote in 2012, but not in 2014 and 2016.

Millennial voters are about 65-35 D and others are about 55-45 R, so figure that the average stay of someone in the electorate is 60 years at most, such implies about a 1.6% turnover of voters from old voters dying off and new ones coming in... that effect alone gives Democrats a likely increase of 1.6% in four years... this time. A 1.6% even shift in the vote alone flips Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida alone.  Oh, so it won't be Florida? Then it might be Arizona and North Carolina instead. 

What looked possible and even likely in 2017, an election in 2020 with a map similar to that of 2016 that was the only way in which Trump could win, seems to be fading away.

[Crumpets]

Grande if pravda.

[Sir Mohamed]

If you only take the economy into account and Trump was a normal, charismatic prez, he'd be very favored for reelection. But his admin is scandal plagued like very few, if any, proceeding American presidency. He has already alienated many parts of the country through divisiveness and hateful rhetoric, and there is little evidence that changes no matter what he does. In 2016, Trump only won by less than 80,000 votes in 3 states and demographic trends aren't in the GOP's favor either. I'm not saying he can't win the EC again if Dems run a horrible campaign and turnout is depressed, but I don't share the headline here.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you had say someone like Marco Rubio President then yes they very well would be on track to win easily(and maybe even surpass that Pocketbook model which gives 351 EV to Trump).


Trump is not a normal President though which is why normal models wont be as accurate

[Hammy]

Moody's model correctly predicted every election since 1980 aside from 2016. The model says that assuming the economy stays good and turnout is close to the historical average, Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 along with Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia which would mean a 333-205 victory for Trump.

It seems the model does not work when Trump is involved as all convention is thrown out the window with him.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-03/trump-on-course-to-win-2020-re-election-if-economic-models-right

"Trump’s Re-Election Likely If Economy Stays on Course"

[Cinemark]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-03/trump-on-course-to-win-2020-re-election-if-economic-models-right

"Trump’s Re-Election Likely If Economy Stays on Course"

Another model that doesn't take into account a presidents personal popularity or behavior.

I mean, I assume. I'm paywalled and cant read the article.

 

[W]

Moody's model correctly predicted every election since 1980 aside from 2016. The model says that assuming the economy stays good and turnout is close to the historical average, Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 along with Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia which would mean a 333-205 victory for Trump.

Lol @ "and turnout is close to the historical average". That was where they claimed there was a catch that lead to their 2016 prediction being off. Turnout is gonna be key here, plus given the err uniqueness of this president I'd say maybe if this was some generic GOP candidate.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Moody's model correctly predicted every election since 1980 aside from 2016. The model says that assuming the economy stays good and turnout is close to the historical average, Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 along with Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia which would mean a 333-205 victory for Trump.

Lol @ "and turnout is close to the historical average". That was where they claimed there was a catch that lead to their 2016 prediction being off. Turnout is gonna be key here, plus given the err uniqueness of this president I'd say maybe if this was some generic GOP candidate.

Considering that polls consistently show enthusiasm at record levels for an election that's still a  year away, turnout is likely to be off the charts.

[MT Treasurer]

Moody's model is of course total nonsense and has been wrong before, but the fact that they have VA going Republican (especially when ME stays Democratic) should be enough to disqualify them even if they had a perfect track record.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This seems relevant to the discussion of economic models and the election:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1191377148688420864

[Progressive Pessimist]

Even if he does win again, he won't flip more than one state (New Hampshire), and could even win with less states (one or two of Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin).