3 Mathematical Models Predict the Next President

[rn79870]

Since the polls are all in a dead heat, (bye bye bounce) but the polls really don’t tell the story of what will happen on the 4th. Of November. There is another technology available, a technology that is precise and certain. The Mathematical Model.

Wiki explains what a mathematical model is.

A mathematical model uses mathematical language to describe a system. Mathematical models are used not only in the natural sciences and engineering disciplines (such as physics, biology, earth science, meteorology, and electrical engineering) but also in the social sciences (such as economics, sociology and political science); physicists, engineers, computer scientists, and economists use mathematical models most extensively.

The nice thing about mathematical models is that they are truly impartial, and provide unbelievably accurate results. Results in the neighborhood of 100% accurate. It's hard to be more accurate than that.

Before you dismiss mathematical models as inaccurate or unpopular, remember, your credit score is such a model. Yes, they are amazingly, undeniably accurate.

There are 3 major models at work predicting the outcome of the 2008 election. Not surprising is the fact that they all agree. You would expect agreement from mathematical models, and that unamious agreement credits their individual accuracy.

Model #1 The Abramowitz modelEmory political science professor Alan Abramowitz has a mathematical election model that works. Abramowitz's system has correctly predicted the popular vote winner within two percentage points for every presidential election since 1988. This year, it's predicting an Obama win: 54.3 percent, versus McCain's 45.7 percent.

"the combination of an unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House, a weak economy, and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain."

Model #2 The Iowa Electronic Market model.If you're skeptical of models, check out the Iowa Electronic Market's trading index for the presidential election. For decades, it's been a much better predictor of presidential wins than Gallup polls. As of today, the market's predicting a 54 percent win for the Democrats, versus 45 percent for the Republicans.

Model #3 The Fair Model.Fair has noted that “the 2008 election looks very close.” A somewhat pessimistic economic forecast like the current forecast from the US model on this website leads to a modest Democratic victory.(Note, that “pessimistic economy forecast” stated above was before the economic tragedies of 9/15 & 9/16. We know that changed considerably)

All three models predict a win for the blue team. A trifecta of win. Can one model be wrong? Unlikely. Can all three be wrong? Not until 1 + 1 = 9.

This pretty much puts the lipstick on the election doesn't it?

[audtatious]

The multiple climate models have been a failure of those ringing the bell of doom for the environment, so why do you think these would be any different?

Lucky for you, ACORN is working overtime trying to ensure a win for ya

[smockers83]

The nice thing about mathematical models is that they are truly impartial, and provide unbelievably accurate results. Results in the neighborhood of 100% accurate. It's hard to be more accurate than that.

Before you dismiss mathematical models as inaccurate or unpopular, remember, your credit score is such a model. Yes, they are amazingly, undeniably accurate.

Haha, whether that's a joke or not, that's funny. The thing about making mathematical models is that they are built in an attempt to fit previous data. So to say that they can be impartial is kind of BS because one can build a model to fit data as he sees fit and we've witnessed right here in these forums how data can be construed to fit an idea. This is not meant to discredit the 3 models, its hard to say anything about their models when one cannot see it, really knows what goes into it to make it work, etc. Having done economic modeling, you can easily change things to get models to do what you want and many of them prove to be inaccurate and not a very good predictor when putting them up against the real data. Many models are inaccurate but can provide a somewhat good prediction--there are differences between mathematical models and mathematical formulas. Formulas give you the 100% accurate results such as circumference, areas, and derivatives. Models are forecasters of the future such as the weather, economy, sports betting in Vegas--if a model can predict within 2 or 3%, its not 100% accurate.

Your credit score consists of 3 scores from 3 different agencies. The creditors use the average of the three to determine your worthiness. The 3 different agencies use different models, report different things, therefore you get different scores. One is not more accurate than the other, its just how the model is set up.

I saw the title and I thought of this: This sounds like BCS (Bowl Championship Series) type BS to me. Shall be interesting to see if the models are right again and how close they are to being correct.

[mtcookson]

Lucky for you, ACORN is working overtime trying to ensure a win for ya

I'm actually working on getting an army of squirrels together... hopefully they will help.

I don't particularly follow polls and "accurate" predictions all that much. I'd rather just wait and see the true outcome... especially when these "accurate" predictions are compared to "accurate" credit. I think the current credit setup is such a complete joke. It is in no way close to 100% accurate at all. I'm sure with some people its quite accurate but with others its completely worthless. Basically, a student loan screwed up my fiance's credit score so, even though she makes over two times more than me, she absolutely can not get a loan while I can go and get loans all day long. Its an inaccurate, complete joke... and if the credit setup is the same as these "accurate" models I'll have to disagree with the outcomes listed above. But, like I said, I could really care less. The only numbers that concern me are what the numbers are truly going to be the day of which we'll find out the day of.

[Encryptshun]

Before you dismiss mathematical models as inaccurate or unpopular, remember, your credit score is such a model. Yes, they are amazingly, undeniably accurate.

That's the best joke I've heard all week, Bob. SOLID!

[smockers83]

mt, I know it sucks and seems unfair to your fiance, but credit scores don't take into account your income. Your credit score is just that, based on your credit. One misstep and it could possibly send you in the tank and the ones that can hurt the most are missed payments, how much of your credit limits you are using, and how long you've had credit open in your name. Since banks are in the business of lending, they don't care how much you make, they want to know your history of credit. You could make Warren Buffet or Bill Gates type money but have low morals and not pay your loans back. If the two of them did that, they wouldn't be able to get a loan either because who would want to give out a loan to someone who might not pay it back?

[rn79870]

Let's dismiss the undisputed accuracy of the three models because most of you simply don't want to hear it. That doesn't change the fact that the three models have unprecedented accuracy. ALL three models predict a major democratic victory in November. Whether you buy it or not, the facts remain, ALL the models predict a big victory for Obama.

Now, if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd be worried, very worried. But it isn't, and I'm not.

[96Qowner]

This kinda reminds me of Intrade. And apparently, things can change rapidly.

[rn79870]

Cute little site where members buy and sell shares in candidates and the candidates get rated accordingly. (even though your cite ranks Obama ahead of McCain) Sort of like a big Monopoly game. But, it doesn't offer a mathematical model like the other 3 that predict strong Democratic victories.

It does show that the Republican bounce went bye bye though...

[smockers83]

I said I wasn't discrediting the models because I can't see the models, what goes into them, and how they work. Without that, its hard to do so. And apparently they have been accurate, so if that's the case, that's the case, big deal.

What I was discrediting is the claim that mathematical models are 100% accurate. To say that a model is 100% accurate before the real data is even in in light of what the model predicts, in this case a victory for Obama and given an Obama supporter, is just a taunt to those on the right and others supporting McCain, a trolling post if you will to stir the pot. That claim is also just flat out wrong. Am I actually scared of who's going to be the next president? No, I just wish it was over already because I'm honestly getting sick of it. Each one has their own take on the country, but I think either one, given the two choices, would do just fine. Just waiting for the debates to make my final decision.

If I were on the Campaign Rules committee or whatever its called, I would make the rule that candidates cannot talk about the other candidates in any way that is demeaning until the debates. The goal would be to prevent the negative campaigns and baseless attacks and get the candidates to focus more on what their goals are and how they want to go about them. That leaves the door open to pounce on during the debates when everything is compiled. It would also help, I think, to prevent all the unnecessary partisanship going on.

[rn79870]

I can't help it if the three models predict a resounding win for Obama. I'm sure that if they showed a win for McCain someone would have posted about that.

[audtatious]

It does show that the Republican bounce went bye bye though...

Which was higher than the one you were posting all over the place after the DNC

There is one thing that mathematics can't calculate, that's the vote that is actually given during the election. Bush v Gore, everyone said Gore had it (he didn't no matter how many people want to call "cheat"). Bush v Kerry was the same thing.

[mtcookson]

mt, I know it sucks and seems unfair to your fiance, but credit scores don't take into account your income. Your credit score is just that, based on your credit. One misstep and it could possibly send you in the tank and the ones that can hurt the most are missed payments, how much of your credit limits you are using, and how long you've had credit open in your name. Since banks are in the business of lending, they don't care how much you make, they want to know your history of credit. You could make Warren Buffet or Bill Gates type money but have low morals and not pay your loans back. If the two of them did that, they wouldn't be able to get a loan either because who would want to give out a loan to someone who might not pay it back?

I know that... its just that the whole system is a joke to me. I've actually been told for one loan I got that they actually did not care how much money I made because my score is so high... when the loan I got was heavily pushing what I could pay with my pay check alone. I got the loan because my fiance had her paycheck to back it up but I just couldn't believe they would do it that way... and they did all because of a credit number. Like I said, I feel it is a complete joke.

[AZhitman]

Great article from Slate puts this ALL in perspective...

The Phony Science of Predicting Elections

"The principal art these forecasters have honed is the art of spin. And the only startlingly good record they've compiled is a record of dazzling the media.

Here's how they do it."

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.slate.com/id/83375/

In Bob's defense, it's not hard to fool people with statistics when they're not used to debunking falsehoods...

A couple more critical factors to point out:

From the Abramowitz Model:

Based on the assumption that a presidential election is fundamentally a referendum on the performance of the incumbent

Assumptions. That word alone casts doubt.

Doesn't take into account the possibility of a same-party candidate running on a "change" platform.

Why? Because that hasn't HAPPENED in recent history.

And this gem:

Abramowitz’s forecast has correctly predicted the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

So have I. Without polls. Or math.

Here's some info sure to toss some sand in the ol' vajayjay:

"The International Institute of Forecasters (IIF) will make a $1,000 award to the author(s) of the model that best predicts the outcome of the 2008 American presidential election."

http://www.forecastingprincipl....html

Looks like the GOP takes the Electoral vote in that model.

[HashiriyaS14]

This kinda reminds me of Intrade. And apparently, things can change rapidly.

I actually bought options on McCain on Intrade pre-convention, back when it was like 70/30 in favor of Obama. I figured Mac had nowhere to go but up, even though I didn't think he'd ultimately take the election. Apparently I was a smart guy, lol.

Anyway, I feel it necessary to note that Obama is once again ahead of Mcain on Intrade today, just now actually, for the first time in a week or more. It'll go back and forth some, but it's some evidence (along with narrowing popular polls) that the convention bounce is subsiding a bit.

I don't for one instant presume to think that Obama will see double-digit leads again, I think it'll be about even-steven until November.

EDIT: I might try and see if I can't exploit a butterfly-spread trading strategy on Colorado versus the results of the general election. I think that whoever takes Colorado will win the White House, and if I can figure out an intelligent hedge position on Intrade that will allow for some arbitrage betwixt the two, I might just throw some more cash down on it.

Elections for fun AND profit!

[96Qowner]

I actually bought options on McCain on Intrade pre-convention, back when it was like 70/30 in favor of Obama. I figured Mac had nowhere to go but up, even though I didn't think he'd ultimately take the election. Apparently I was a smart guy, lol.

EDIT: I might try and see if I can't exploit a butterfly-spread trading strategy on Colorado versus the results of the general election. I think that whoever takes Colorado will win the White House, and if I can figure out an intelligent hedge position on Intrade that will allow for some arbitrage betwixt the two, I might just throw some more cash down on it.

Elections for fun AND profit!

Smart man!

[rn79870]

Great article from Slate puts this ALL in perspective...

The Phony Science of Predicting Elections

"The principal art these forecasters have honed is the art of spin. And the only startlingly good record they've compiled is a record of dazzling the media.

Here's how they do it."

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.slate.com/id/83375/

Sure, we'll take two unknown individuals, with unknown credentials, and stack them up against 3 mathematical models with proven records of accuracy. Might as well quote Dr. Laura here, her opinion is as valid as the one you've found.

In Bob's defense, it's not hard to fool people with statistics when they're not used to debunking falsehoods...

Are you denying the three models clearly and decisively forecast a Democratic win?

A couple more critical factors to point out:

From the Abramowitz Model:

Based on the assumption that a presidential election is fundamentally a referendum on the performance of the incumbent

Never mind that the Abramowitz Model, which rates the election as either positive (following the party inpower) or negative (forecasting a change to the other power) finds a -81 value. ( Incidentally, that's a record negative). That's kind of like having one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel and being an old man all at the same time.

Assumptions. That word alone casts doubt.

Yeah, assumptions like the population is not happy with Bush. That's a real stretch for an assumption right there. Or assumptions like the population is not happy with the economy, or the war? Pretty far stretches there for those assumptions.

Doesn't take into account the possibility of a same-party candidate running on a "change" platform.

Please, the Americah people are not stupid. They know what change entails. They know what McShame, McSame, whatever, means.

Why? Because that hasn't HAPPENED in recent history.

Yep, McCain represents change. We all know that.

And this gem:

Abramowitz’s forecast has correctly predicted the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

Well that one got me there. This model have been correct every time. And it forecasts a Democratic win this time. Along with the other two models. I'd say you lose on that point.

So have I. Without polls. Or math.

Actually, if anything, you've unseccessfully attacked one of three models. You haven't touched the Iowa model or the Fair model.

Here's some info sure to toss some sand in the ol' vajayjay:

Translated, I'm gonna pull more data out some Inter-dimensional Yak's Anus and see if it will stick.

"The International Institute of Forecasters (IIF) will make a $1,000 award to the author(s) of the model that best predicts the outcome of the 2008 American presidential election."

http://www.forecastingprincipl....html

Nope, you're confusing their POLL with the 3 mathematical models I've posted. Big difference. Besides, they lack the track record the three I've quoted have. A track record of successfully forecasting elections.

Looks like the GOP takes the Electoral vote in that model.

[/quote]But, even if that was a model (which it isn't), the elections are not today. they are 45 days away. And again, my three have a unbelievable record of accuracy that's decades old. Your site's (version 1.0 software) quote doesn't hack it as an authority.

Sorry, you've addressed one of the three models without discrediting it. You still have to discredit the 1st. then the other two, and of course, that can't be done.

Still looks like there are 3 valid, very accurate, proven models predicting a Democratic win.

[AZhitman]

Still looks like there are 3 valid, very accurate, proven models predicting a Democratic win.

In that case, I'll expect you to be at the lake on election day.

Why not? Got it all wrapped up anyway.

[audtatious]

Mathematical probability means that you cannot be right 100% of the time

You keep bringing Bush up. Bush isn't running. You keep bringing up McSame when he has historically NOT been the same as Bush.

You want to talk about mathematics? How can Obama pledge to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when 45% of Americans do not pay taxes? Answer that one.

[rn79870]

Mathematical probability means that you cannot be right 100% of the time

So, the three models that have unprecedented accuracy ratings are not right this time? Possible, but as you've hinted at, not probable.

You keep bringing Bush up. Bush isn't running. You keep bringing up McSame when he has historically NOT been the same as Bush.

I guess if you consider the 10% of the time that McCain differed from Bush acceptable, then you're right. However, I see the 90% of the time he didn't differ as the reason he's being called McSame.

You want to talk about mathematics? How can Obama pledge to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when 45% of Americans do not pay taxes? Answer that one.

I wasn't talking about mathematics. I was taking about the three Mathematical models that put Obama in the Whitehouse on January 20th.

[96Qowner]

You want to talk about mathematics? How can Obama pledge to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when 45% of Americans do not pay taxes? Answer that one.

Ah, but our esteemed American journalists almost always fail to quote Obama correctly. The phrase is "working Americans", meaning payroll taxes. Only those who earn more than $250,000 will see an increase in their income tax rates. Of course, Obama also intends to restore capital gains taxes to a 28% rate from the current 15%, so that's an 87% increase for any family who holds mutual funds, and that's about half of all US families.

[audtatious]

So, the three models that have unprecedented accuracy ratings are not right this time? Possible, but as you've hinted at, not probable.

Every dog has its day.

I guess if you consider the 10% of the time that McCain differed from Bush acceptable, then you're right. However, I see the 90% of the time he didn't differ as the reason he's being called McSame.

Then you can call all Republicans McSame and I can call all Democrats Obamalites since he stands for the same thing as they always do, just dusted off and polished up just a bit. Sorry, but the crap he is promising is the same old turd.

I wasn't talking about mathematics. I was taking about the three Mathematical models that put Obama in the Whitehouse on January 20th.

Ignore the question and swing back to what helps you sleep well at night. Atta-boy

[audtatious]

Ah, but our esteemed American journalists almost always fail to quote Obama correctly. The phrase is "working Americans", meaning payroll taxes. Only those who earn more than $250,000 will see an increase in their income tax rates. Of course, Obama also intends to restore capital gains taxes to a 28% rate from the current 15%, so that's an 87% increase for any family who holds mutual funds, and that's about half of all US families.

He said 200-250k if you wanna pick fleas off a dog

[AZhitman]

Of course, Obama also intends to restore capital gains taxes to a 28% rate from the current 15%, so that's an 87% increase for any family who holds mutual funds, and that's about half of all US families.

That ALONE needs to be more widely known.

Definitely a vote-changer, if I wasn't already opposed to his socialist government-as-nursemaid worldview.

[smockers83]

Obama's tax policy is something that really concerns me in considering him for my vote. That is a startling fact and a fact that could dampen my business dealing with mutual funds. Do I think McCain's tax policy is superior? No, they both suck, but McCain's is better so I guess I do think its superior, but it sucks. If they could make a hybrid of the two, then we could start talking. Another thing about taxes, we should not let Congress and the WH dictate tax policy. We should let an independent institution help determine tax policy in order to efficiently tax the US economy, providing the best benefit to the economy and government, while exposing areas of ridiculous spending. An institution like the Fed or something, something that is independent yet tied into the government.

[AZhitman]

Let's make it very, very simple.

One candidate wants to take more of my money, and bug the piss out of me with needless regulations, increased oversight, monitoring and requirements on my business.

The other just wants to take more of my money.

I'll vote for the latter.

[mtcookson]

Of course, Obama also intends to restore capital gains taxes to a 28% rate from the current 15%, so that's an 87% increase for any family who holds mutual funds, and that's about half of all US families.

Here's an interesting link about the capital gains on the House's website: http://www.house.gov/jec/fisca...n.htm

I haven't gone over it all yet but happened to notice mention of higher revenues when the taxes were lower and lower revenues when the taxes were higher... who would have guessed.

[SmithSR]

Obama also intends to restore capital gains taxes to a 28% rate from the current 15%, so that's an 87% increase for any family who holds mutual funds, and that's about half of all US families.

We have a winner. And a game breaker.

(his comment clarifies my thoughts on the subject)

[Marenta]

All three models predict a win for the blue team. A trifecta of win. Can one model be wrong? Unlikely. Can all three be wrong? Not until 1 + 1 = 9.

Ever use DiffyQ? You can make anything equal anything using DiffyQ. And, that's math!

[rn79870]

No, that's what many of the right renegades here do, those who can't accept the facts that the models, even the polls, are predicting a victory for the left. (still doing happy dance over this one)

Still others are busy clearing their thoughts about the "fundamentally strong" economy, (or is it the fundamentally strong workers?) or maybe Spain being moved to Latin America by whales with lipstick. Glad it's getting "clearer" to them.