Regarding the CU Election Prediction

August 23, 2012 | Filed under Categories | Posted by

Yesterday I posted on a election prediction study from the University of Colorado.  In the comments a few readers wondered about the track record of the study from previous presidential elections. This issue is addressed in a LA Times article about the study:

But Bickers said much of the polling thus far means relatively little, with much of the electorate still not focused on the race. The academics said their model focuses on the preeminent issue of the economy. Applied retrospectively, the model predicts the correct winner in every presidential contest going back to 1980, they said.

The model missed by an average of 20 electoral votes when applied to those prior elections, Bickers said. He said the formula employed in the analysis is unusual because it measures the states, rather than trying to predict a popular vote for the entire nation.

Of course past performance is no guarantee of future performance.  The number of presidential elections in history is so small that any analysis of them is statistically meaningless.  For example, from the UC news release on the study:

Their results show that “the apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.  The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

With unemployment rates 8-9%, one could argue this is a relevant point.  But on the other hand, this could be the first presidential election where the incumbent advantage doesn’t disappear under these circumstances–maybe because the media bias is so strong this election cycle.

My overall impression of the study hasn’t changed.  It’s an encouraging result but no reason to stop aggressively campaigning.

« « Occupy And The RNC In Tampa
New Ad Hits Debbie Wasserman Shultz In the Occup-eye » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 23, 2012.
Filed under Categories.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • JWH

    I’m a bit skeptical of the whole thing. This really feels like 2004 to me. A weak economy. A weak incumbent. A challenger that nobody really likes very much.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

      I like him.

      • jim_m

        agreed. I like him a hell of a lot more than obama. But then it is a lot easier to like a Presidential candidate that doesn’t hate me for my skin color and doesn’t hate America.

        • Honest Voter

          What makes you think Obama hates you? Reverand Wright? How many relatives or people you know have said hateful things about black people? Did that mean you hate them too? Wake up dude.

          • jim_m

            What have I said hateful about black people?

            And yes obama sat for 20 years drinking in the racist hate of Rev Wright. He dedicated his book to the rev and even borrowed the title from a sermon. When you have a man declaring that “A white man’s greed runs a world in need” you have a man with a lot of racism in his heart.

          • Honest Voter

            I wssn’t saying you said anything hateful. I’m sayign if you are a white person, behind closed doors, somone you know, family, friends, etc, has made several racist remarks and you didn’t say a word about it. Does that mean you agree with them? I hope not.

            Just because he sat through some sermons doesn’t mean he agrees.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Your comment above is racist.

          • jim_m

            Are you serious? He sat through 20 years of sermons! That’s over a thousand racist hate filled sermons (because Wright pretty much never misses a chance to say something hateful about whitey). I think that if obama ever found it offensive he would have left and you must either claim that he is a complete idiot, incapable of hearing what the preacher is saying, or that he agrees with it. Take your pick.. For my part i will give him credit for being both an idiot and a racist.

          • Honest Voter

            Jim, I’m not going to sit here and tell you how many times Reverand Wright said what, but you have to take a couple things into account.

            1. You completely ignored what I said about racist words, sentiment, and actions performed behind closed doors when white people are around no one but white people. But that’s fine, you don’t have to aknowledge that truth.

            2. Obama is half-white and his own mother, the one who raised him, was white. That would be some serious self-hate.

            3. Thousands of sermons huh? How many sermons of Rev. Wright’s have you even heard? Just curious? If you are anything like most people who pass judgement off of a small amount of data, You really have no idea what kind of idiot statements or sermons he’s given besides what you have gotten from the media.

            How about you just leave the race part out of it. The President loves our country, disagree with him if you want, but please don’t call him a racist and definitely not an idiot, he scored a 32 on the ACT and graduated from Harvard law, two things you probably haven’t done.

            And if you really want to talk about race, why is it that one of our smartest presidents ever is called an idiot for no reason, a muslim after seeing he has been at a christian church for 20 years, and had to finally provide his long form birth certificate to get rid of all the ‘birther’ nonsense? Let’s not forget asking for his college transcripts. When has that ever happened? And he just so happens to be our first half-black president. Coincedence? I really don’t think so.

            But hey, maybe racism doesn’t exist….wait a minute, just when you can use it right?

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    “He said the formula employed in the analysis is unusual because it measures the states, rather than trying to predict a popular vote for the entire nation.”

    The last time I checked, the President of the USA is elected by the Electoral College, not by a national popular vote. So, it wouldn’t make sense to try to predict a popular vote for the entire nation.

  • Paul Hooson

    Karl Rove views Romney as slightly ahead by more than three points because even if he runs even in the polls with the president, voters historically swing toward the challenger on election day, giving Romney an advantage if he he’s still running even in the polls by election day. But, probably the best polling analysis by far is by Scott Elliot over at Election Projection. He’s able to call both the electoral college as well as the popular vote percentages with amazing accuracy in every election.
    Another important factor is that the president appears to be running about 8 points behind his vote percentage in 2008, which more than wipes out any advantage he once had in many close states, giving Romney plenty of hope to pry away enough states to win the electoral college, if not the popular vote.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Zimms/100003653414389 Jack Zimms

    Polls and prediction “systems” should be taken with a great
    deal of salt. Even if I like them as is the case this time. It like all those stupid football folklore or
    whatever they come up to predict football games. They fail with a great deal of
    regularity.

    Many of the prediction “systems” are great at predicting
    past events and claiming to have predicted them but often don’t have as good of
    luck with future elections.

  • Pingback: Screw It: I’m Doing the Happy Dance | Daily Pundit