3 forecast modelers predict Trump will win in 2020

[RandySF]

Steven Rattner, "car czar" and counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration, cites three different modelers in his N.Y. Times commentary, "Trump’s Formidable 2020 Tailwind."

The big picture: Trump wins all three modelers. Economists predict that the tailwind is large.

Ray Fair, a professor at Yale, "found that the growth rates of gross domestic product and inflation have been the two most important economic predictors — but he also found that incumbency was also an important determinant of presidential election outcomes."

"Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, has looked at 12 models, and Mr. Trump wins in all of them."

"Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics has reached the same conclusion in his examination of the Electoral College."


https://www.axios.com/trump-2020-presidential-election-forecast-models-b9a95aca-7f25-4c6a-af91-720b7828afa5.html

[spanone]

1. Predictions were completely wrong in 2016...GOTV

[unblock]

3. Seems when predictions are wrong, it's nearly always in republicans' favor

Wonder why that is.

[uponit7771]

6. Russians helped with that,

[StevieM]

66. Comey was more damaging than the Russians.

His actions were totally illegitimate.

[enid602]

2. Expansion

We’re already in the 11th year of economic expansion. All previous recoveries lasted no more than seven years each. A recession has been postponed by government spending and enormous deficits. Deficit this year is thought to be $1.5 Trillion. How can trump possibly finance 18 more months of expansion? 18 month’s is a lifetime.

[unblock]

4. True, but there's room for some rate cuts to delay things

[enid602]

9. Debt

We have a $23 Trillion debt financed by T-bills with various maturity dates, on average about 60 day. When you’re refinancing that much debt every couple of months, you want to be cautious about interest rates.

[unblock]

20. Donald fraud doesn't care about the damage he does

[A HERETIC I AM]

67. 60 days??

Where did you get that figure?

I think you may be off by quite a bit

https://www.quandl.com/data/USTREASURY/AVMAT-Average-Maturity-of-Total-Outstanding-Treasury-Marketable-Securities

[uponit7771]

5. Didn't Nixon have a decent economy too?!

[enough]

10. And he won his second term election by a landslide. NT

[uponit7771]

38. That was pre-Nixon impeachment. Wasn't economy pretty decent after re-election & before impeachment?

[Celerity]

40. nope, it started to go to shit in 1973 (Oil Crisis, Nixon Shock etc, and stagflation ensued)

1973–75 recession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9375_recession

The 1973–75 recession or 1970s recession was a period of economic stagnation in much of the Western world during the 1970s, putting an end to the overall Post–World War II economic expansion. It differed from many previous recessions by being a stagflation, where high unemployment and high inflation existed simultaneously.

Among the causes were the 1973 oil crisis and the fall of the Bretton Woods system after the Nixon Shock. The emergence of newly industrialized countries increased competition in the metal industry, triggering a steel crisis, where industrial core areas in North America and Europe were forced to re-structure.[citation needed] The 1973–74 stock market crash made the recession evident.

The recession in the United States lasted from November 1973 (the Richard Nixon presidency) to March 1975 (the Gerald Ford presidency), and its effects on the US were felt through the Jimmy Carter presidency until the mid-term of Ronald Reagan's first term as president, characterized by low economic growth. Although the economy was expanding from 1975 to the first recession of the early 1980s, which began in January 1980, inflation remained extremely high until the early 1980s.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 2.3 million jobs were lost during the recession; at the time, this was a post-war record.

snip

[uponit7771]

42. Yes it was, Nixon and Red Don have close avg UE rates (link) and Red Don's JA averages are horrible

... where Nixon's JA rating were topping his by double digits.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12135557

Red Don has NEVER been a popular president, the plurality of Americans didn't want him and the Russians literally helped him get elected the first time.

Without Russian help Red Don is toast, he hasn't expanded his base past what it is now and that didn't get him elected last time seeing he did worse than rMoney ... it was 3rd party candidates and democrats under performing in turn out.

Without the Russians, Red Don is toast.

[Celerity]

53. they do not have that close of UE rates, especially in the last 19 months of Nixon versus the last

last 19 months of Rump (I picked 19 months as that is how many data months we have to go until next November, although we will not have the last 2 until post election).

It certainly is more than a .2 difference as you claimed. Nixon's last 19 month average was 5.02% and rising, Trump's was 3.91% and trending down. That is a 1.11% difference, or 5.55 times greater than a .2 difference. Granted, it is not a HUGE difference, but we have to go back to 1969 to find lower numbers than we have at present. I do not think it is probable at all that we break the all-time post-WWII record low (May and June 1953) of 2.5%.

I have no clue if the UE will hold so low for Rump over the 16 months or so, but if it does, and IF the DJIA and NASDAQ hold, and if inflation is under control, plus we have 3 to 4% GDP annualised growth, it is a bad thing for us. Rump will do everything in his power to try and cook the books and artificially inflate and lower (depending on the metric).

here is the U-3 (Seasonal adjusted, same as what you link claims to use) directly from the BLS
fpr Nixon's entire presidency

you links statement



All unemployment data are drawn from the official figures put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Specifically, they are from “U-3 Total unemploued, as percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)” The Bureau of Labor Statistics offers a detailed explanation of how it measures unemployment here

and here is the U-3 data directly from the BLS for Nixon's entire presidency (I already showed the U-3 SA UE for Rump in my previous post. I also included the year before and after.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

[dhol82]

47. I remember those 16.5% interest rates for CD's those days

That was wonderful.
Also remember the 16.5% mortgage rates. Not as nice.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

24. I remember rampant inflation in the 70s

[democratisphere]

7. This is wall street political propaganda.

Come and talk to the 80% living paycheck to paycheck and hoping like hell the car doesn't break down requiring major repairs. I believe the vast majority of people want drumpf gone for thousands of lying reasons.

[ProudLib72]

18. Well, I'm convinced my vote won't count, so why bother...

I think there is a reason for them publishing such drivel.

[walkingman]

8. All I can say is if Trump wins who could possibly be proud to call themselves American?

[OliverQ]

16. I'm not proud to call myself American now. In fact, I desperately want to leave

the country, but don't have any means to do so.

[walkingman]

17. I would move to Canada if I weren't so old. Texas has become a shithole.

Last edited Mon May 27, 2019, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

edited to say Texas instead of America - there are still good places in America.

[dhol82]

49. I looked into moving to Canada.

They didn’t want me - too old.
Pathetic.

[pecosbob]

60. I bailed on Texas after forty years...been in Nevada for almost twenty years now

Was sad to leave, but it just got too crazy. We have a Dem female majority state legislature and only one GOPer holding a federal office here in Nevada. Ninety-nine other problems we do have here just like anywhere else in the world, but crazy a**holes running things isn't one of them.

[LenaBaby61]

27. "IF Trump wins who could possibly be proud to call themselves American?"

This won't even BE America IF that fat, racist, dictator wanna be, ruskie asset is given another presidency.

It'll be the USSA, and we'll all be living in a worse Banana Republic than we're increasingly living in at the present after 3 years of his illegal presidency.

[edhopper]

11. Garbage in

garbage out.

[RainCaster]

12. That 'tailwind' is nothing but gas

Pure BS from traditional red prognosticators.

[standingtall]

13. According to wikipedia

Luskin was a frequent guest on Larry Kudlow's CNBC television show, Kudlow & Company. This tells me everything I need to know about these modelers.

[Baitball Blogger]

57. Thank you, exactly.

We will have to take them by huge numbers, the way we did when we voted Obama into office. And there are way too many people who are economically hurting that aren't feeling the good times that show up on their paper.

[DFW]

14. And this is exactly why......

No one should be confident of ANY outcome at this point. It's all so much hot air. Eighteen months is a glacial age in presidential politics.

This is also why I shun the so-called "primaries" board. To even be allowed to post there, you have to declare a preference (or none) more than half a year before there will even BE a primary. Gimme a break. The water that will flow under the proverbial bridge until then could fill the Indian Ocean.

So these people predict Trump will win. I predict he won't. At this point, I wouldn't even put money on his being the Republican nominee. Gimme half an hour, I'll make up some mumbo-jumbo to justify my claim, too.

[dsc]

31. actually you have to declare yourself undecided

not that you have no preference at all. I don't know for whom I will vote in March but I do know that I have some candidates that I prefer to others.

[Clarity2]

15. F* those models

We’ve never had a russian asset in the white house.

[stillcool]

19. I wonder how they figure out...

which states will have a good voter purge, or the best voter suppression techniques. Not to mention the Russian Unit that does the hacking and stealing,..and the other unit that helps the media. Lot to take into account.

[unblock]

21. We do have our work cut out for us

It's hard to argue with the models and what they are based on. Take a step back, and be objective.

If this were an ordinary presidency, he'd be an easy favorite for re-election, with incumbency, no recession, decent growth, no big foreign policy debacle, hypothetically no scandal, etc.

What gives us a chance is exactly that he *is* a scandal machine and may yet screw himself by plunging us into recession (unforced error due to tariffs), and/or generate a foreign policy disaster, or invite a third party or republican challenger.

But *on paper* his chance look good and we have to take that seriously.

Oh, and yeah. The Russians will help him again....

[peggysue2]

22. Nate Silver replies:

Link to tweet

[former9thward]

30. Except Silver does not give any evidence for his opinion.

[peggysue2]

55. Try this

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/models-based-on-fundamentals-have-failed-at-predicting-presidential-elections/

The models are a mixed bag. At best.

[Cha]

46. I'm glad I scrolled down

further, Peggysue.

I was just doing it feeling dazed and depressed, and then I saw your Nate Tweet..

Thank You!

[Celerity]

59. IF we win WI, MI, and PA this map right below is literally the only way Rump can win outright

He has to sweep all other remotely close states and win NE-2nd (Omaha area) and ME-2nd (northern Maine). The two states that will be the hardest for him to win will be NV and NH. He HAS to win both. Also, he could lose EITHER (not both) of NE-2nd or ME-2nd. NE-2nd would be the most likely for Rump to lose. If that happens, and thsi map stays the same in every other regard, it's a tie 269-269, but he will still win as the Repugs have more State delegations 26 (even now, post 2018) than we do, 22, with MI and PA tied, in the US House (each delegation gets 1 vote, 26 need to win). If Trump did hit 26, it is even worse (fairness wise) than the EC, because the ten biggest states have more than half the country's population, yet on get 20% of the votes (10 votes for over 180 million people) whilst the other 40 states, with far less people get 80% of the votes.



FL (of course it is FL ) is by far the best chance to flip, we would just need to gain ONE seat, but then another nightmare would ensue (assuming we lose no states and the R's do NOT win control of either PA or MI). At that point no POTUS could hit 26 votes. So the Senate (who votes for VP) would pick the POTUS until the house can get someone to 26 votes. If we do not take back the Senate, that would mean President Pence. IF the Senate is tied 50-50, then the Speaker of the House (probably Pelosi, but she might allow a wild card to take over in order to be POTUS) would be POTUS. Would be so apropos if the new speaker, in this almost impossible scenario, were Hillary, lol. Good outcome, BUT the country will riot (not matter who ended up POTUS, either an R or a D.)

There is one final (only other remotely possible way really) way, from that map, btw, to get to 269-269. It is actaully far more probable than us losing both NV and NH.

We win NV and NH (fairly likely), win PA (kind of sure we will), win MI (surest of all the 3 we lost in the MW in 2016), BUT we lose WI (I, unfortunately can see this happening IF Milwaukee doesn't turn out huge, (it's what fucked us in 2016, same for Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh) and also lose the other states listed above, but we win NE-2 OR ME-2 (as stated, NE-2 is the best shot).

EC would look like this



I really, TBF, (IF that is the exact map for the rest), do not like our chances in NE-2, so Rump could end up flat out winning by 270-268.

WI is so fucking key in 2020. Let us all hope Trump keeps up this crazy trade war and the farmers get so so so fucked they even give up their racism. (What a horrible thing to hope for, wow, but IF it gets the rotter out of office, fuck it).

[lunasun]

63. Chicago FiB here + I would not count on Wisconsin going blue . Milwaukee and MadIson had

voter ID issues in 18 and the rest of the state is pretty much all f’d R imo

Currently 34 states have voter ID laws in place, with Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Wisconsin being some of the strictest, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Many keep thinking Oh those people did not vote there but many could not

[Celerity]

64. If Wisconsin stays red we have to absolutely pull PA and MI

Hold Nevada and New Hampshire, then flip any ONE of a long list

IA (doubtful if WI stays red)
OH (TOUGH PULL)
MO (2nd HARDEST of these I fear)
IN hardest
AZ not easy
GA Abrams as VP? Still hard if its so.close where WI is red

Then the 2 most likely to flip

NC Abrams may help there

OR

..... everybody's favourite, sigh, FLORIDA

OR

FLIP none of the 8 and flip BOTH NE-2 AND ME-2 (HARD)

Last one we win 270-268 but ME-2 is crazy hard and unpredictable and if WI and the rest of the MW is red save for IL, MN, and MI, Nebraska will be a slog, even Omaha area

Way too early to tell but Rump's path reallys opens up into nervous time if WI goes red again. If he takes MI, PA and WI, well, even flipping Florida we lose unless we flip another on top of that.

Let's hope he somehow does some crazy enough shit even the Rethugs say, youuuurrrr OUT. Do not see that at all, unfortunately.

[Totally Tunsie]

23. Living in and near the bluest of the blue states, I'm often stunned

at the pockets of hidden tRump support I stumble across. I'm talking about rabid support, the kind that makes one wonder who their friends or neighbors really are.

My first online awakening was about a year ago on a public FB page for a neighboring town in which I once lived. The names of people I know jumped off the page, and their commentaries and vitriol were frightening. It turns out, I didn't "know" these people at all! They seem so normal (or what passes for same) until thoughts they never utter in public flow from their online postings, even those that are not anonymous.

After searching around a bit, I've found this instance is not isolated. That scares me tremendously when thinking about 2020. We cannot afford to be complacent. We can't afford over-confidence. We need to get out the Democratic votes by whatever means necessary.

When you read reports such as the OP mentioned, realize that they may well be possible. Take nothing or no-one for granted.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. These models are flawed - just look at Trump's approval for proof of this.

With any normal president, absolutely, they would be very difficult to beat in 2020 with an economy that we're seeing right now. If it was Jeb Bush or another Republican president sitting in the Oval, their approval would probably be very close to what Obama was experiencing at the end of his presidency.

But Trump's approval is far below what one would expect for a candidate in his position. And that's where you've got to look. How many presidents, with approval in the low-40s, actually go on to win reelection?

Here's the approval of the last six presidents on election day:

Obama: 50.1% (RCP average) - won 51.1% of the popular vote
Bush: 49.5% (RCP average) - won 50.7% of the popular vote
Clinton: 58% (Gallup) - won 49.2% of the popular vote
H.W. Bush: 34% (Gallup) - won 37% of the popular vote
Reagan: 58% (Gallup) - won 58.8% of the popular vote
Carter: 37% (Gallup) - won 41% of the popular vote

H.W. Bush and Carter lost reelection. They were also the only two candidates with more disapproving of their presidency than approving. Bush had the lowest approval for a winner - but still had a smaller amount of disapproval overall (47%). Clinton and Reagan tied for the highest approval but Clinton actually underperformed his approval significantly - though, that was a three-way race and he won the electoral college by a sizable margin.

Obama saw an increase of +1 from his approval to overall popular vote percentage.
Bush saw an increase of +1.2 from his approval to overall popular vote percentage.
H.W. Bush saw an increase of +3 from his approval to overall popular vote percentage (still lost, tho).
Reagan saw an increase of +.8 from his approval to overall popular vote percentage.
Carter saw an increase of +4 from his approval to overall popular vote percentage.
Clinton saw a decrease of -8.8 from his approval to overall popular vote percentage.

I should point out that some of these polls were taken a week or so before the actual election, whereas Obama and Bush were their average polling number on the day of the election according to RCP.

Just focusing on those two, you can see both actually saw a similar increase in overall popular vote total compared to their approval. This is likely due to a good amount of those who were undecided on whether they approved of Bush/Obama ultimately voting for each on election day. Regardless, the improvement isn't significant - but let's assume Trump sees a +1 increase over his approval rating on election day, 2020.

Looking at his numbers right now, he's currently at 42.8% approval in his average. This is significantly lower than either Bush or Obama on election day and a number like this would spell a good amount of trouble for Trump - as his disapproval 53.4%.

In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college with 46.1% of the vote. That's probably what his campaign will be gunning for again in 2020 as anything less than that and it likely means he loses Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin - three states he won by only a few thousand votes combined.

IF the trend of the last two incumbent presidents continues and Trump sees a +1 improvement over his approval, and his approval remains just as low in 2020 as it is today, that would put him at 43.8 - rounded to 44%, or, two points off his 2016 total.

That two-points is not a lot but within the margins of his win last go around? It's devastating. If Trump wins only 44% of the popular vote in 2020, he'll lose.

[pnwmom]

29. Thanks for taking the time to put those numbers together. nt

[former9thward]

32. Obama had 50% on election day but not in mid 2011 which is where we are at in the cycle.

He had around 42% which is about where Trump is today.

[John Fante]

37. Obama's hit 42% only briefly. Trump has been stuck there

for almost his entire presidency and has never sniffed 50%.

But yeah, they're totes similar. Trump has this on lock!

[Drunken Irishman]

39. Again, flawed comparisons.

1) The unemployment rate at this point in 2011 was 9.0 - significantly higher than where it is currently. This was a major factor in his lower approval.

Even still...

2) Obama's RCP average on 5/27/11, this far out from the 2012 election as we are currently for the 2020 election, was 52.1% - and a disapproval of 42.9%. His approval would decline throughout the summer of 2011, but it was not static like Trump's has been over the course of the last couple years. That is a huge difference: Obama had a ceiling and a floor far higher/lower than Trump currently.

Beyond that, Obama's approval improved as the economy improved. This, again, is a huge difference: Trump's numbers are not improving with the economy. They remain consistent. What this means is that while Americans might be okay with the economy, and giv Trump credit for it, other factors are sagging his numbers - factors that trump the economy. Which also means that the economy is probably what's inflating Trump's numbers, so, if it slows, he's cooked.

[rockfordfile]

69. Not the same. President Obama is a true President. Most Americans already see Trump for what he is

You can not compare the two.

[former9thward]

71. It is those blinders which lead to our defeat in 2016.

"I don't know anyone who voted for Trump, everyone I know voted for Clinton".

[uponit7771]

41. +1, Also ... Nixon's avg UE rate was only .2 higher than Red Don's avg (link). Not that the UE rate

... is one of the heavier weighted factors but just to make a point that it's not just the economy.

https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-unemployment-rates-president

[Celerity]

44. that link has data only up until the end of 2016, how does it have a UE number for Trump?

That data in your link uses the U-3 headline number from the BLS.

The seasonally adjusted U-3 rate for April 2019 is only 3.6%.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm



2008-present U-3 (Seasonal-Adjusted) rates





Your link says this about Nixon

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES UNDER PRESIDENT NIXON
The first year of Nixon’s presidency saw relatively low unemployment (around 3.5 percent), but by 1970, in the midst of a mild recession, they were climbing back up to similar levels to much of Kennedy’s era (around 5.5+ percent).

[uponit7771]

45. Red Don's numbers are even worse then seeing Nixon's was at one time in the high 60s ...

... and Nixon didn't have FAUX News floating him 10 - 20 points.

Either way, Nixon's avg economic number for the middle class up to that time were pretty good and he was still impeached.

I don't know if Nixon would've had a 49 state win if he was facing being a criminal right before election.

Those republican investigations into Clinton did a job, maybe tops 2% but that's all they needed from them and the Russians did the rest.

[John Fante]

43. Excellent post. Trump matched McCain and

Last edited Mon May 27, 2019, 08:52 PM - Edit history (3)

actually underperformed Romney (who got 47% of the vote) but few remember this because Obama beat those men handily.

So while Trump could win again with 46%, it's not a winning number in most cases. He would need massive amounts of help to eek out the victory. That's exactly what he got in 2016 in the form of Comey, wikileaks, third party overperformance, and voter apathy on our side.

Bad news: our nominee won't be under FBI investigation in 2020, and when you consider that 2018 Democrats (60.7 million) nearly matches Trump's 2016 vote total in a midterm, apathy won't be an issue either. The odds that third party candidates will capture 6% of the vote is slim as well. So that's two, maybe three, factors that boosted Trump in 2016 that he won't be able to rely on next year.

[saidsimplesimon]

26. Yes, I am aware and willing to swim

against the tide. The Arc bends slowly. Historians are poised to deliver. (wishful thinking perchance?)

[pnwmom]

28. And yet, despite the great economy ever (hah!) 55% say they plan to vote against Trump.

Why should we believe any economic numbers coming from this lying administration? How many of the homeless people in our cities are included in those numbers?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441103-poll-55-say-they-wouldnt-vote-for-trump-in-2020

[former9thward]

33. Probaby the same number of homeless that were included

in all other administrations by the career people who give us the numbers. The same career people who have given us the numbers in all administrations.

[pnwmom]

34. Every day we see the people at the top distorting the work of the career people. I don't trust

the reports coming out from the leaders, and I don't know why anyone should.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/jobs-report-growth-unemployment/

[former9thward]

35. There are thousands of people involved in these numbers.

People at all levels of government in many different departments and agencies. Are you suggesting not even one of them would call the New York Times to expose the fraudulent numbers?

[pnwmom]

48. That is a laughable question considering what we are seeing in the Justice Department

and in other departments every day.

[former9thward]

56. A non answer.

But believe in a conspiracy of thousands if it helps.

[pnwmom]

58. And you believe that a whistleblower is going to risk prison to tell the truth about statistics.

Last edited Tue May 28, 2019, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Trump's even gotten scientists in his administration to deny scientific knowledge about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html?action=click&contentCollection=Arts&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&moduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia

[former9thward]

70. People leak stories to the Times and Washington Post all the time.

Everyday those papers print stories (which are posted here) citing "sources in the administration" about this or that. No one is risking anything.

[struggle4progress]

50. Don't pretend to know the future: it always somehow depends on what we do

[Blue Owl]

51. ITMF

n/t

[roamer65]

52. If Dump steals the election again, it is secession time.

There will be no future in staying.

[SWBTATTReg]

54. I tend to believe the election results from Nov. 2018...which two years had gone by after...

rump was elected and people voted since they now knew of rump and his antics. I believe that the Nov. 2016 results will carry over into 2020.

[pecosbob]

61. Most of the elections held since 2018 have shown dramatic increase in Dem turnout

[UniteFightBack]

62. There is no disputing rump's 'tailwind is large'. nt

[JI7]

65. Republicans mostly win by playing Dirty. things like Voter Suppression and calling on Foreign

Dictators to attack Democrats.

[Recursion]

68. The economy in 2016 predicted a D hold, too

As much as it pains activists to admit it, the economy has been pretty damn good for several years. That's not really what's driving voters.