Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Think Hillary Clinton Is Likely To win? Think again. - NationalJounal [View all]
Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)
PREDICTIVE INTELLIGENCEThink Hillary Clinton is likely to win? Think again.
BY ALEX ROARTY - NationalJournal
2/14/15
<snip>
Ask around: Washington is pretty certain Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win the White House. Democrats have a natural turnout advantage in presidential years, seasoned political operatives reason. Five of the past six popular-vote tallies have gone to the Democratic candidate. And early polls that show Clinton sporting a big lead, especially among women, have strategists wondering how the Republican nominee could ever catch up.
But outside of the capital, from Georgia to New York to California, there's another set of political professionals watching this race: academics and model-makers. And based on the data they track, Democrats have little reason to be so bullish about Clinton's chances.
"Viewing her as a prohibitive favorite at this point is misplaced, definitely," says Alan Abramowitz.
Abramowitz isn't a Republican pollster or a professional Clinton-hater. He's a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. And he and his ilkthe wonky academics who research in anonymity while pundits predict races on TVoffer the most compelling case for reconsidering Clinton as the likely winner.
"I would feel comfortable saying that it's a 50-50 race right now," says Drew Linzer, a political scientist who is an independent analyst in Berkeley, California. "But I don't think anyone would be wise going far past 60-40 in either direction."
Veteran political operatives regard these predictions as nothing more than musings from the Ivory Tower. But political scientists who specialize in presidential-race forecasts aren't relying on their guts. They've built statistical models that draw on the history of modern presidential campaigns (since Harry Truman's reelection in 1948) to determine with startling accuracy the outcome of the next White House contest.
The best-known forecasting tool of the bunchand one that plainly spells out Clinton's looming troubleis Abramowitz's "Time for Change" model. He first built it before George H.W. Bush's 1988 election, and he has used it to predict the winner of the popular vote in the seven White House races since. (The model predicted that Al Gore would win the presidency in 2000, when he became the first person since Grover Cleveland to earn the majority of the popular vote nationally but lose the Electoral College.)
The model uses just three variables to determine the winner: the incumbent's approval rating, economic growth in the second quarter of the election year, and the number of terms the candidate's party has held the White House. Official forecasts aren't made until the summer before the presidential election. But reasonable estimates rooted in current political and economic conditions demonstrate Clinton's vulnerability.
Consider this scenario: President Obama retains equal levels of approval and disapproval, better than he has had most of his second term; and gross domestic product growth in the second quarter of 2016 holds at 2.4 percent, the same as last year's rate of growth. Under this scenario, the "Time for Change" model projects that Clinton will secure just 48.7 percent of the popular vote.
In other words, she loses...
<snip>
More: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/predictive-intelligence-20150213
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I wonder why the National Review is worried about Hillary. Oh, I got it, if Hillary is the DNC
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#3
This analysis has a MAJOR flaw in it - in that it's using President Obama's flawed approval ratings.
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#34
OK, the National Journal goes both ways also, just according to who is writing.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#80
Take "National Review" off title, HUGEly diff from wonderful National Journal.
RiverLover
Feb 2015
#5
Those are largely deterministic models that use a generic candidate for both parties./NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#9
One Democratic president in the White House is better than two Liberals in the bushes.
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#36
Yes, but one good progressive in the White House would be better yet. You seem to think ...
Scuba
Feb 2015
#40
It's not thinking on my part, Scuba. It's fact. A brief look into past elections is all the proof
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#47
Americans are not terrified of liberal ideas. Obama won twice running on them for god's sake.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#48
I don't get the pretense that the only or even the most dominant reason a candidate
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#55
I am suggesting he trimmed some of his positions and kept to himself what he really believed
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#90
OK. The sub-thread you joined was focused on the popularity of progressive positions, so ...
Scuba
Feb 2015
#94
So Impoverished with the Illusion of Social Justice or Impoverished with no Illusion of social
Katashi_itto
Feb 2015
#103
The National Review is William F. Buckley's love child with the Conservative movement.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2015
#12
Because... Like All Mags... Right Or Left... They Might Produce A Kernel Of Truth...
WillyT
Feb 2015
#14
Jeesh, Willy, you didn't post an article from National Review. National Review is TRASH.
RiverLover
Feb 2015
#16
They are based on generic candidates. The dumbing down of DU continues.
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#24
Well, even I would admit to continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils...
MrMickeysMom
Feb 2015
#60
If you accept the models at face value it is more likely than not we lose...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#33
According to Drew Linzer he said he wouldn't go much north of 60-40 odds
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#44
A fifty dollar donation to DU says those that are recommending the article neither read ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#38
Exactly. There's going to be a huge backlash from the Latino community after this Texas judge,
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#45
I forgot the exact line but it's the line that goes from downtown to Montebello.
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#52
I'm not being snarky but did you actually read the article and understand it?
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#42
This analysis is flawed. They're using flawed polling on President Obama's approval ratings
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#39
She was a terrible candidate in '08 and had to carpetbag her Senate seat.
Motown_Johnny
Feb 2015
#50
The models were based on a generic Republican running against a generic Democrat.
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#99
The level of political sophistication here is, often, not of a order higher than Free Republic,
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#83
The methods used are generic, not Clinton specific. It is a negative view of Democratic chances at
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2015
#77
And make no mistake, the VP candidate counts, especially if it's Julian Castro. Hispanics are
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#81
Very true, and often the small difference in the General Election is those Undecided Centrists who
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#89
I am so interested to see how Jeb Bush navigates the Republican primaries...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#91
They may give him a pass because of his wife. Not entirely, but the Bushes have a way with
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#93