Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
Sorry I meant to pass on Stephen's link to another list. Harry - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections > > From another list. > Harry
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
>From another list. Harry >An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections > > Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested > againstevery Presidential election back to 1860, and which has > correctlypredicted every election since it was developed (that's > six out of six > predictions made in advance and born out): > > http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf > > or here it is made "tiny" (but note that this is a PDF file): > > http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e > > Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped > out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. > Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral > college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a > "correct" prediction if we just look at the popular vote. > > The "model" consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the > incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost > entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) > question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's > more, it > takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* > actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; > as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is > very surprising. > > Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the > PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, > plussome clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if > at least 7 > are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the > opposition will win: > > = > [begin quote] > > The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent > party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party > wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. > > KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent > party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it > did after the previous midterm elections. > > KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party > nomination. > > KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting > president. > > KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or > independent campaign. > > KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the > election campaign. > > KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the > term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. > > KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major > changes in national policy. > > KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the > term. > > KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major > scandal. > > KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration > suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. > > KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration > achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. > > KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is > charismatic or a national hero. > > KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not > charismatic or a national hero. > >
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
ohh, point, major changes. so three, becuase its an OR on the last two. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against > every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly > predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six > predictions made in advance and born out): > > http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf > > or here it is made "tiny" (but note that this is a PDF file): > > http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e > > Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped > out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. > Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral > college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a > "correct" prediction if we just look at the popular vote. > > The "model" consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the > incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost > entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) > question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it > takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* > actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; > as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is > very surprising. > > Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the > PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus > some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 > are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the > opposition will win: > > = > [begin quote] > > Well, let's play a game. Here are my answers. I get 2 assertions that are > true. Looks like the Republicans are going down big-time. > Ed > > > > The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent > party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party > wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. > > KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent > party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it > did after the previous midterm elections. > > No, the incumbent party lost seats. > > > KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party > nomination. > > No, there was a serious contest > > > KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting > president. > > No > > > KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or > independent campaign. > > Yes, there is no serious challenge. > > > KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the > election campaign. > > No, the economy is in recession > > > KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the > term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. > > No, the real growth is less. > > > KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major > changes in national policy. > > Yes, very major changes are effected. > > > KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the > term. > > No, there is unrest. > > > KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major > scandal. > > No, the incumbent has lots of scandal. > > > KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration > suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. > > No, there have been major failures. > > > KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration > achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. > > No, no major success has been achieved. > > > KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is > charismatic or a national hero. > > Mixed, a national hero, yes; charismatic, no > > > KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not > charismatic or a national hero. > > Mixed, charismatic, yes; a national hero, no > > > >
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made "tiny" (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a "correct" prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The "model" consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] Well, let's play a game. Here are my answers. I get 2 assertions that are true. Looks like the Republicans are going down big-time. Ed The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. No, the incumbent party lost seats. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. No, there was a serious contest KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. No KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. Yes, there is no serious challenge. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. No, the economy is in recession KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. No, the real growth is less. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Yes, very major changes are effected. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. No, there is unrest. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. No, the incumbent has lots of scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. No, there have been major failures. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. No, no major success has been achieved. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, a national hero, yes; charismatic, no KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, charismatic, yes; a national hero, no
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
we can check key 11, and MAYBE key four. wow. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against > every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly > predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six > predictions made in advance and born out): > > http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf > > or here it is made "tiny" (but note that this is a PDF file): > > http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e > > Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped > out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. > Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral > college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a > "correct" prediction if we just look at the popular vote. > > The "model" consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the > incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost > entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) > question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it > takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* > actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; > as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is > very surprising. > > Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the > PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus > some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 > are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the > opposition will win: > > = > [begin quote] > > The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent > party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party > wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. > > KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent > party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it > did after the previous midterm elections. > > KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party > nomination. > > KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting > president. > > KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or > independent campaign. > > KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the > election campaign. > > KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the > term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. > > KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major > changes in national policy. > > KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the > term. > > KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major > scandal. > > KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration > suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. > > KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration > achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. > > KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is > charismatic or a national hero. > > KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not > charismatic or a national hero. > >
[Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made "tiny" (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a "correct" prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The "model" consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
