Political Scientist project Donald Trump will get 362 Electoral Votes

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All Dems have to ask ourselves, when was the last time a reelected Prez has won when unemployment has been rising. Obama won in 2012, due to fact the unemployment was falling. This wont be the final outcome of a reelected Prez Trump due to Trump will lose reelection

[Lisa's voting Biden]

Helmut Norpoth is also the person who predicted Trump would win 52.5% of the popular vote in 2016 and had the largest statistical error out of ten major 2016 forecasts. He only reviewed historical election results to make his model.

In summary: he's a pretty bad political scientist.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315912215_A_Recap_of_the_2016_Election_Forecasts

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I bet this 'political scientist' is Rudy Giuliani. Only Rudy can be that stupid and even more of a clown than the orange clown himself.

[The Mikado]

Much more interesting is that the woman who almost perfectly predicted 2018 down to every last individual House seat has Biden winning at least 289 Electoral Votes:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

Bitecofer undoubedly knows more about the topic than the author of the original article, and her projection is much more plausible IMO, but her success in 2018 seems to have made her somewhat overconfident.  She projects way too much certainty in the outcome at this early point in the election.

Rachel Bitecofer is arrogant to the point of hackishness, yeah, if you actually read her commentary.

Her, you know, actual predictions are D friendly but overall fine, but her online persona is supremely overconfident and reminds me a bit of Sam Wang.

[The Mikado]

2012 — I remember seeing models, which were never wrong before, showing that Romney was guaranteed a win over Obama because of the economy (“no incumbent wins during a bad economy”). We know how what happened on Election Day 2012.

How could any model say that given 1936?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Even if he does win re-election there is zero chance of this. Even his biggest landslide possible wouldn't look like this. Is this guy a political science professor from Trump University?

[ElectionsGuy]

I was able to quickly copy and paste the article before it tried to get me to subscribe. His reasoning is based on primary results, that's it... Romney got 10M votes in the primary to Obama's 6M before losing to Obama in the general. If he's talking about winning by the biggest margin, that's always going to be the incumbent president. I can't believe this guy is a serious professor.

[The Mikado]

I was able to quickly copy and paste the article before it tried to get me to subscribe. His reasoning is based on primary results, that's it... Romney got 10M votes in the primary to Obama's 6M before losing to Obama in the general. If he's talking about winning by the biggest margin, that's always going to be the incumbent president. I can't believe this guy is a serious professor.

I think that his model is based on the "President who gets a serious primary challenge always loses" idea (it's equal parts that and "first term presidents rarely lose") and he did not factor in Trump actively GOTVing people to vote in the GOP primary, which is something Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama didn't do in any of their uncontested primaries.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2012 was totally different, Obama rescinded much of the 2001 tax cuts for millionaires and the unemployment rate was falling. In 2020, the 2017 reestablished the massive inequality we saw during the 2001 tax cuts and exacerbated the unemployment and it is rising. Reelection of a Prez always depend on a referendum and Trump didnt make America great again

[NHI]

Brad Parscale is a political scientist now?

Ha!

[Virginiá]

Much more interesting is that the woman who almost perfectly predicted 2018 down to every last individual House seat has Biden winning at least 289 Electoral Votes:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

Bitecofer undoubedly knows more about the topic than the author of the original article, and her projection is much more plausible IMO, but her success in 2018 seems to have made her somewhat overconfident.  She projects way too much certainty in the outcome at this early point in the election.

When she got into that tiff with the other Twitter data people, I think that was the basis of their criticism. She's too over-confident. I do like her theory, it's similar to my own views, but at the end of the day, we're still talking about the real world, with hundred(s) of millions of individual voters, and unpredictable actions/scandals/other things influencing the election in ways that are hard to nail down, so yea, it's risky to be that confident.

That being said, her theories on elections are much better than most IMO, which tend to just latch onto random events and assign a degree of influence to them that hardly ever makes sense.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden already is president, he has the 278 EC votes to win, the rest is poll watching in OH, IA, AZ, TX, FL, and NC, to determine control of Congress and most importantly, the Senate. KS can very well be a blue state

[Senator Spark]

Could potentially happen if turnout is low enough.

[ElectionsGuy]

Much more interesting is that the woman who almost perfectly predicted 2018 down to every last individual House seat has Biden winning at least 289 Electoral Votes:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

Bitecofer undoubedly knows more about the topic than the author of the original article, and her projection is much more plausible IMO, but her success in 2018 seems to have made her somewhat overconfident.  She projects way too much certainty in the outcome at this early point in the election.

Rachel Bitecofer is arrogant to the point of hackishness, yeah, if you actually read her commentary.

Her, you know, actual predictions are D friendly but overall fine, but her online persona is supremely overconfident and reminds me a bit of Sam Wang.

Can anybody link me to her 2018 forecasts. I can't find them.

[Non Swing Voter]

The model is based on Trump doing better in his primaries than Biden?  Really?  I definitely won't be sending my kids to the college he teaches at.

[annecortez]

thank you for this link! I've read it.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Much more interesting is that the woman who almost perfectly predicted 2018 down to every last individual House seat has Biden winning at least 289 Electoral Votes:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

Bitecofer undoubedly knows more about the topic than the author of the original article, and her projection is much more plausible IMO, but her success in 2018 seems to have made her somewhat overconfident.  She projects way too much certainty in the outcome at this early point in the election.

Rachel Bitecofer is arrogant to the point of hackishness, yeah, if you actually read her commentary.

Her, you know, actual predictions are D friendly but overall fine, but her online persona is supremely overconfident and reminds me a bit of Sam Wang.

Can anybody link me to her 2018 forecasts. I can't find them.

This was her final (I believe) list from October 2018: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O-ULmfqaK92j5yr46CYzXYUkqvcBbRAitoC7w_aSb5c/edit#gid=1186677413 (the Wason column is Bitecofer's).

[slothdem]

2012 — I remember seeing models, which were never wrong before, showing that Romney was guaranteed a win over Obama because of the economy (“no incumbent wins during a bad economy”). We know how what happened on Election Day 2012.

I agree that models based solely on economic factors are worthless, but this situation is very different from 2012. Obama inherited a bad economy that was improving. Trump inherited a good economy that is now bad.

Also, Bitecofer sucks. She actually had one of the worst records of every prognosticator. I'm pretty sure 538 was off by just two sets, and pretty much everyone had crystalized to "mid- to high-30s" at that point. She was in the mid-40s, and that was down from her earlier prediction of 60ish.

[pbrower2a]

More like Biden 362

More likely Biden 413 than Trump 280.

[ElectionsGuy]

Much more interesting is that the woman who almost perfectly predicted 2018 down to every last individual House seat has Biden winning at least 289 Electoral Votes:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

Bitecofer undoubedly knows more about the topic than the author of the original article, and her projection is much more plausible IMO, but her success in 2018 seems to have made her somewhat overconfident.  She projects way too much certainty in the outcome at this early point in the election.

Rachel Bitecofer is arrogant to the point of hackishness, yeah, if you actually read her commentary.

Her, you know, actual predictions are D friendly but overall fine, but her online persona is supremely overconfident and reminds me a bit of Sam Wang.

Can anybody link me to her 2018 forecasts. I can't find them.

This was her final (I believe) list from October 2018: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O-ULmfqaK92j5yr46CYzXYUkqvcBbRAitoC7w_aSb5c/edit#gid=1186677413 (the Wason column is Bitecofer's).

Okay. No Senate or Governor predictions?

[KaiserDave]

"Political Scientist" does cocaine news at 11

[GeorgiaModerate]

Much more interesting is that the woman who almost perfectly predicted 2018 down to every last individual House seat has Biden winning at least 289 Electoral Votes:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-post-primary-update/

Bitecofer undoubedly knows more about the topic than the author of the original article, and her projection is much more plausible IMO, but her success in 2018 seems to have made her somewhat overconfident.  She projects way too much certainty in the outcome at this early point in the election.

Rachel Bitecofer is arrogant to the point of hackishness, yeah, if you actually read her commentary.

Her, you know, actual predictions are D friendly but overall fine, but her online persona is supremely overconfident and reminds me a bit of Sam Wang.

Can anybody link me to her 2018 forecasts. I can't find them.

This was her final (I believe) list from October 2018: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O-ULmfqaK92j5yr46CYzXYUkqvcBbRAitoC7w_aSb5c/edit#gid=1186677413 (the Wason column is Bitecofer's).

Okay. No Senate or Governor predictions?

I looked further and found her final 2018 post (Nov. 2).  It talks about the Senate and governors as well as the House, but doesn't seem to have the actual predictions (or maybe I'm going blind...)

https://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/2018/11/02-battle-of-the-bases/

[OSR stands with Israel]

2012 — I remember seeing models, which were never wrong before, showing that Romney was guaranteed a win over Obama because of the economy (“no incumbent wins during a bad economy”). We know how what happened on Election Day 2012.

How could any model say that given 1936?

Bad comparison given unemployment fell by half from 1932 to 1936

[It’s so Joever]

Looks like Redeagle found a job.