Is Biden really leading?

[Nak Khid]

If true this is a big wake up call do those who think Biden is doing well. He is s Storybook professor not their employee or someone who is promoting conservative agendas.  If what he is saying is reality it's better to understand that rather than take it for granted Biden is going to win and then you get a shock if he loses. 
This model says primaries and incumbent advantage are the accurate predictors of elections not polls 
Disregard that the interview is on a right wing channel, they simply like what he's saying. His statistical model is based on primary result and seems to be a lot more accurate than polls in predicting elections

 

____________________________

Helmut Norpoth (born 1943) is an American political scientist and professor of political science at Stony Brook University. Norpoth is best known for developing the Primary Model, which has correctly predicted five of the six previous US elections.[1] The Primary Model correctly predicted Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 election.

Helmut Norpoth is co-author of  The American Voter Revisited, 
University of Michigan Press (May 22, 2008)
covering the images of presidential candidates, party identification, and why Americans turn out to vote.  He has also written a book about public reactions to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, especially her economic and foreign policies.  Norpoth has designed models to forecast elections in the U.S., Britain, and Germany. His Primary Model correctly predicted Obama's re-election as early as February of 2012 and correctly predicted that Donald Trump would be the next President of the United States. 

EDUCATION

PhD and MA, The University of Michigan

BA, The Free University of Berlin

BOOKS

 The American Voter Revisited, 
University of Michigan Press (May 22, 2008)

Unsurpassed: The Popular Appeal of Franklin Roosevelt
by Helmut Norpoth | Aug 27, 2018

Politics and Government in Europe Today
by Colin Campbell, Helmut Norpoth, et al. | Nov 1, 1994

Analysis of Variance (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences)
by Gudmund R. Iversen and Helmut P. Norpoth | Jul 1, 1987

 

http://primarymodel.com

The PRIMARY MODEL gives President Donald Trump a 91% chance of winning the 2020 presidential election, with Democrat Joe Biden having just a 9% chance. Trump would get 362 electoral votes, Biden 176.  This forecast is unconditional and final; hence not subject to any updating. It was first posted March 2, 2020, on Twitter.  

In 2016, when polls, pundits and forecasters were all predicting a certain victory for Hillary Clinton, the PRIMARY MODEL was practically alone in predicting Donald Trump’s victory. It did so as early as March 7 that year, putting his chance of winning at 87%.  http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full.

It is a statistical model that relies on presidential primaries and, in addition, on an election cycle as predictors of the vote in the general election. This year the model has been calibrated to predict the Electoral College vote.  

For the record, the PRIMARY MODEL picks the winner of 25 out of 27 elections since 1912, when presidential primaries were introduced. The misses are 1960, one of the closest presidential elections, and 2000, when the late count in Florida handed Bush the victory; still Al Gore wound up winning the popular vote.  

Winning the early primaries is a major key for electoral victory in November.  On the Democratic side, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders split the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina while Trump handily won the Republican Primary in New Hampshire (the GOP primary in South Carolina was cancelled this year). 

What favors Trump in 2020 as well is the cycle of presidential elections operating for nearly 200 years, as illustrated by the snapshot since 1960.  After one term in the White House the incumbent party is favored to win re-election unlike the situation when it has held office for two or more terms. 

As for Trump, trailing Democratic contenders is nothing new for him. He was behind Hillary Clinton in polls at just about every moment in 2016 and wound up winning the election. This was by no means the rare exception that proves the rule.  The terrain of presidential contests is littered with nominees who saw a poll lead in the spring turn to dust in the fall. The list is long and discouraging for early frontrunners. Beginning with Dewey (1948) it spans Nixon (1960), Carter (1980), Dukakis (1988), Bush (1992), and Kerry (2004), to cite just the most spectacular cases. Warning: Polls in the spring are barely better than a coin flip to predict the winner in November.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Norpoth's model has accurately predicted the winner of every national election since 1912, The Statesman reports, except the election of 1960. One of the closest elections in U.S. history, John F. Kennedy bested Richard Nixon by 0.17 percent or 112,827 votes.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Bodigger]

@Nak Khid  Very interesting how early polling means so very little.  I read about this a while back. 

At this time, I think the best thing Biden can do for his campaign is have Bernie as a running mate, stay in the basement, and not debate Trump.  I wonder if having Bernie as a running mate would alter the model since he had so many primary votes.  I don't think this will happen but if Biden's campaign was onto this model, maybe they would consider it. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

At this time, I think the best thing Biden can do for his campaign is have Bernie as a running mate, stay in the basement, and not debate Trump.  I wonder if having Bernie as a running mate would alter the model since he had so many primary votes.  I don't think this will happen but if Biden's campaign was onto this model, maybe they would consider it. 

There is no way Biden would chose Bernie as a running mate. Biden is a centrist and Bernie is a progressive. In Europe, they would be in two different political parties.

Biden is in favor of private insurance, supports fracking, opposes decriminalized immigration and wants to increase police funding. These are all centrist positions and Biden has worked his entire career with republicans to pass their legislation. The left has no excitement for Biden. He is much closer to being a moderate republican than a progressive. This is why Trump and FoxNews cannot label him as an extremist. Their efforts to portray Biden as a progressive puppet is laughable. It would be like saying Biden is a closet vegan under the control of PETA. 

[Nak Khid]

Joe Biden "Corn Pop" Story FULL Segment

This is worrisome ,very weird Biden gaffs from Sep 17
I wish a Democrat had been elected didn't have these bouts of dementia 

 

 

 

 

[-no-person-]

I dream of this. United states has been so damaged by Trump. Will the world end when he gets elected? Dictatorship maybe?

[TrustTheProcess]

2 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

If true this is a big wake up call do those who think Biden is doing well 
This model says primaries and incumbent advantage are the accurate predictors of elections not polls 

 

http://primarymodel.com

The PRIMARY MODEL gives President Donald Trump a 91% chance of winning the 2020 presidential election, with Democrat Joe Biden having just a 9% chance. Trump would get 362 electoral votes, Biden 176.  This forecast is unconditional and final; hence not subject to any updating. It was first posted March 2, 2020, on Twitter.  

In 2016, when polls, pundits and forecasters were all predicting a certain victory for Hillary Clinton, the PRIMARY MODEL was practically alone in predicting Donald Trump’s victory. It did so as early as March 7 that year, putting his chance of winning at 87%.  http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full.

It is a statistical model that relies on presidential primaries and, in addition, on an election cycle as predictors of the vote in the general election. This year the model has been calibrated to predict the Electoral College vote.  

For the record, the PRIMARY MODEL picks the winner of 25 out of 27 elections since 1912, when presidential primaries were introduced. The misses are 1960, one of the closest presidential elections, and 2000, when the late count in Florida handed Bush the victory; still Al Gore wound up winning the popular vote.  

Winning the early primaries is a major key for electoral victory in November.  On the Democratic side, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders split the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina while Trump handily won the Republican Primary in New Hampshire (the GOP primary in South Carolina was cancelled this year). 

What favors Trump in 2020 as well is the cycle of presidential elections operating for nearly 200 years, as illustrated by the snapshot since 1960.  After one term in the White House the incumbent party is favored to win re-election unlike the situation when it has held office for two or more terms. 

As for Trump, trailing Democratic contenders is nothing new for him. He was behind Hillary Clinton in polls at just about every moment in 2016 and wound up winning the election. This was by no means the rare exception that proves the rule.  The terrain of presidential contests is littered with nominees who saw a poll lead in the spring turn to dust in the fall. The list is long and discouraging for early frontrunners. Beginning with Dewey (1948) it spans Nixon (1960), Carter (1980), Dukakis (1988), Bush (1992), and Kerry (2004), to cite just the most spectacular cases. Warning: Polls in the spring are barely better than a coin flip to predict the winner in November.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Norpoth's model has accurately predicted the winner of every national election since 1912, The Statesman reports, except the election of 1960.One of the closest elections in U.S. history, John F. Kennedy bested Richard Nixon by 0.17 percent or 112,827 votes.

 

 

lol, oan is not the most credible news source homie

[Forestluv]

Biden is no Hilary. He is not a boogeyman. Biden is a centrist that has worked with Republicans his whole life. Biden has invited the recent Republican Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, to be a keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention. Biden hasn’t even asked Bernie to speak at the convention. This has infuriated many progressive and democratic unions. Yet that’s who Joe is. He is friends with, and works with, Republicans. He is closer to being a republican than a progressive. 

Notice how Republican leaders demonized Hilary, yet not a single Republican will speak ill of Biden. They respect and like Biden, as explained by conservative Republican Lyndsey Graham. An ad created by Republicans, for Republicans. 

“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, you need to do some self evaluation. He is as good a man as God has ever created. He is the nicest person I’ve ever met in politics”. — Conservative Republican Lyndsey Graham. 

 

[Preety_India]

 

I like how kulinski says "we live in a bad movie,"  one day it will be a reality. 

 

[ItsNick]

Just came across this video. It's terrifying to think that Trump likely will not accept losing

[Nak Khid]

28 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In an interview yesterday, Trump refused to say he would accept an election result that he lost. He wants to be an authoritarian.

Go back to my post pleas I added biographical on Helmut Norpoth as well as this: 

 

Quote

"If true this is a big wake up call do those who think Biden is doing well. Helmut Norpoth is a Storybook professor not their employee or someone who is promoting conservative agendas.  If what he is saying is reality it's better to understand that rather than take it for granted Biden is going to win and then you get a shock if he loses. 
This model says primaries and incumbent advantage are the accurate predictors of elections not polls 
Disregard that the interview is on a right wing channel, they simply like what he's saying. His statistical model is based on primary result and seems to be a lot more accurate than polls in predicting elections.   "

If you go to his website you can see more about the modelling.   

This model, which he introduced in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome of all but two presidential elections in the last 108 years: “This model gets it right for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced.”

The exceptions include John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960 (very close) and George W. Bush’s election in 2000, when Bush won a majority of the electoral college despite losing the popular vote.

http://primarymodel.com

If what he is saying is true should we ignore it just because we don't like it?   

--or prepare for it ?       Polls are notoriously wrong on outcomes  and pundits are opinions.  This method or may not be accurate but it is based on statistical data and mathematical calculations and this professor has been doing it a long time.   Conservative agenda? I do not see evidence of that in his background and people can also review his methodology in detail 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Polls are notoriously wrong on outcomes 

No they aren’t. There is a reason why politicians follow polls so closely and invest so much money into them.

[Nak Khid]

11 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

No they aren’t. There is a reason why politicians follow polls so closely and invest so much money into them.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

Pew Research Center, 2016

Why 2016 election polls missed their mark

The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.

How could the polls have been so wrong about the state of the election?

There is a great deal of speculation but no clear answers as to the cause of the disconnect, but there is one point of agreement: Across the board, polls underestimated Trump’s level of support. With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote. State-level polling was more variable, but there were few instances where polls overstated Trump’s support.

 

[Forestluv]

@Nak Khid You said polls are notoriously wrong on outcomes. That is incorrect. If you said there was a rare case in which a subset of polls were off in one specific election, then that would be fair. 

Over history, polls have provided very valuable information. They are not “notoriously wrong on outcomes”. If they were, politicians would not invest so heavily in polls and base their elections around them.

The fact that Pew Research actually wrote a long essay explaining how it’s possible that a some polls were off In 2016, is indicative that polls are generally accurate. They didn’t write an article explaining why weather patterns failed to predict the election.

[Nak Khid]

37 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@Nak Khid You said polls are notoriously wrong on outcomes. That is incorrect. If you said there was a rare case in which a subset of polls were off in one specific election, then that would be fair. 

Over history, polls have provided very valuable information. They are not “notoriously wrong on outcomes”. If they were, politicians would not invest so heavily in polls and base their elections around them.

The fact that Pew Research actually wrote a long essay explaining how it’s possible that a some polls were off In 2016, is indicative that polls are generally accurate. They didn’t write an article explaining why weather patterns failed to predict the election.

Please show me a credible article that cites polls have a good rates of predicting outcomes on elections

These polls change from week to week.   This other system based on primary results is not fleeting like that. It is based on actual voting and and statistics on incumbency 

Week after week we hear Biden has an edge.   I'm saying, not to support Trump, I'm saying be careful because complacency or taking things for granted may lead to a shock on election day.   This is a different methodology.  I would like to see someone who has a credible detail critique challenging the claims made about accuracy in predicted the winner of every national election since 1912, except for too very close elections.  
and this new prediction is not a close prediction it's a 91% estimate. We have to be careful of only listening to what we want to hear. Biden said to black talk show host Charlemagne " 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black"
That is taking things for granted and when that is done things may not turn out as expected 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

48 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

I'm saying be careful because complacency or taking things for granted may lead to a shock on election day. 
We have to be careful of only listening to what we want to hear. Biden said to black talk show host Charlemagne " 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black"
That is taking things for granted and when that is done things may not turn out as expected 

I agree on these points ? 

[Nak Khid]

14 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I agree on these points ? 

Compared to the other democratic candidates joe Biden worries me because of those dementia like bouts he has.
And he takes for granted people will votes for him if he lays low.  But eventually he may be forced to debate Trump and I don't know how that is going to go. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/opinion/biden-trump-debate.html

 NYTimes 

Biden Should Not Debate Trump Unless …

Here are two conditions the Democrat should set.

By Thomas L. Friedman

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Compared to the other democratic candidates joe Biden worries me because of those dementia like bouts he has.
And he takes for granted people will votes for him if he lays low.  But eventually he may be forced to debate Trump and I don't know how that is going to go. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/opinion/biden-trump-debate.html

 NYTimes 

Biden Should Not Debate Trump Unless …

Here are two conditions the Democrat should set.

By Thomas L. Friedman

I have the same concerns. Yet Biden did ok with a 2hr debate with Bernie. And the expectations game is key. By repeatedly suggesting Biden is senile, it sets the bar low. All Biden has to do is not look like he has dementia and it’s a win. I’d like to see Warren was debating Trump. . . Biden was my 4th choice of the candidates, but oh well.

[Nak Khid]

7 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I have the same concerns. Yet Biden did ok with a 2hr debate with Bernie. And the expectations game is key. By repeatedly suggesting Biden is senile, it sets the bar low. All Biden has to do is not look like he has dementia and it’s a win. I’d like to see Warren was debating Trump. . . Biden was my 4th choice of the candidates, but oh well.

Some of his recent speeches looked good, maybe he is on some improved medication 

[Forestluv]

24 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Some of his recent speeches looked good, maybe he is on some improved medication 

He can give a good speech off a teleprompter.

I hope he can keep it together for four months. 

[Bodigger]

20 hours ago, Forestluv said:

That Navy veteran, group of Moms, Portland civilian and woman walking down the street in Miami did nothing to provoke. These are the early stages of fascism. 

Federal agents protecting Federal property is not fascism in any stage.  Unhinged Liberalism is however, and you are feeding the Kraken.  

The Overton window is shifting.....I am not convinced it is for the good.  Nations are capable of sliding downward on the spiral and in my opinion, it is the side you are taking which will accomplish this.  

Love is the Way.....not force.