Professor: Trump Has 97-99% Chance of Becoming President (if he’s the RNC nominee)

Stony Brook University Professor Helmut Norpoth has created a statistical algorithm that uses a candidate’s performance in party primaries and patterns in the electoral cycle to forecast the winner of the presidential election.

Should Trump follow through on his huge momentum and become the Republican nominee, he has a 97% chance of beating Hillary Clinton and a 99% chance of beating Bernie Sanders in the general election, according to Norpoth, who presented his findings at the SUNY Global Center in Manhattan earlier this week.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth told The Statesman, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”
Political Science Professor: Trump Has 97-99% Chance of Becoming President

The professor went on to say:

“The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It’s almost ‘Take it to the bank,’” said the professor.

Should we attempt to take it to the bank? Trump's odds of becoming the next president pay out at about 2-1 depending on where you bet:

www.oddschecker.com...

Here's a wildcard that I haven't seen discussed here:

Hillary Clinton Too Sick To Assume Office


www.youtube.com...

Could it be some kind of divine intervention? Has there ever been a presidential candidate who was coughing so frequently that they couldn't get through their speeches? What if that happens during some presidential debates? IMHO, that alone could swing a few percentage points Trump's way.

a reply to: Profusion

Wouldn't you rather trust a university with a 100% prediction record. Western Illinois University has never been wrong and they called Sanders months ago.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

a reply to: Profusion

I'll take Trump over Clinton any day.

a reply to: Profusion

God help us all.

a reply to: Profusion

I can't wait to see how crazy ATS will become if trump really does get elected

I followed the link to the article, and a link within the article, but I can't find any paper that describes how the professor's statistical model actually works. The commenters to those articles also question where his evidence is.

I have my doubts about its validity.

-dex

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Profusion

Wouldn't you rather trust a university with a 100% prediction record. Western Illinois University has never been wrong and they called Sanders months ago.

The only problem is, that doesn't check out with what's happening in reality. Sanders is down to a 15% chance of winning the DNC's nomination according to PredicIt:

www.predictit.org...

Nearly the same odds at the sports betting websites:

www.oddschecker.com...

Before I start believing in Sanders to win, I would need to see more signs of life from the betting markets. They are almost never wrong in things like this.

I realize that Sanders has momentum but it looks like the rigging is all in Clinton's favor and that's probably impossible to overcome in a tight race:

Election rigging has gone too far with Hillary Clinton

originally posted by: DexterRiley
I followed the link to the article, and a link within the article, but I can't find any paper that describes how the professor's statistical model actually works. The commenters to those articles also question where his evidence is.

I have my doubts about its validity.

-dex

If you're really interested in this issue, you could email him:

www.stonybrook.edu...

I did a Google search for his name, "Helmut Norpoth." News of his Trump prediction is being reported all over the world. I was surprised to see that. It looks like he's famous and he's well known for having done these predictions for many years.

I'm sure he's swamped with emails at the moment but if you do email him and he sends you his model, please post it here.

Incidentally, when I saw all the news reports of his forecast on Google, the first thing that came to mind was "predictive programming"...

a reply to: Profusion

and every head to head poll also says that Trump will lose by a large margin.........

And before you Trump supporters get upset about that, remember Trumps whole campaign talks about "polls"

originally posted by: Profusion
Professor: Trump Has 97-99% Chance of Becoming President (if he’s the RNC nominee)

I love to hear this stuff, because it's so sweet to sit in the deafening silence that follows their inevitable discrediting downfallery!
Remember this cookie's name, this will be the last you ever hear of it!

a reply to: Profusion

I'm sure he's swamped with emails at the moment but if you do email him and he sends you his model, please post it here.

Thanks to your link to Stony Brook University I was able to find a link to his 2012 Statistical Model as well other related material.

A cursory view of the write-up leads me to believe that Dr. Norpoth is no quack. He also has references to at least 7 different publications that have directly covered this prediction. This certainly lends an air of authenticity to his work.

Incidentally, when I saw all the news reports of his forecast on Google, the first thing that came to mind was "predictive programming"...

It actually does meet some of the necessary parameters for a predictive programming effort:
1. It is an outrageous prediction that subconsciously suggests to people that this is a foregone conclusion.

2. By demonstrating such a broad difference in support for each candidate, it would suggest to those who want to be on the winning team to establish loyalty to the predicted winner. There are people who will vote for whom they believe will be the winner, rather than his or her policies.

3. It introduces a more concrete possibility of losing into the mind of the predicted loser's supporters. Though it may also make them work harder to get their candidate elected.

4. Not to mention that polls can take on lives of their own and influence one another. Might as well get into the game early.


-dex

Stuff like this is propaganda to try and create the reality they "predict".

If people get it bouncing around in their head Trump will win, there's a greater chance more people will vote differently and be resigned to that fact.

It's a psychological warfare tactic. Trying to make something a reality by repeatedly stating it already is set in stone.

Don't buy into it -- the electoral college is locked for the Democrats. I think the Dems have 240 something out of 270 votes right out of the gate. There's no way the Republicans can get 270 electoral votes to secure the White House. Sorry, it ain't happening.

Remember folks, you don't get into the WH by winning the popular vote. It's all about those 270 electoral votes, and the Dems have them.

Right now the *real race* is between Clinton and Sanders. Whoever gets the nomination will be the next POTUS. Period.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Profusion

I'm sure he's swamped with emails at the moment but if you do email him and he sends you his model, please post it here.

Thanks to your link to Stony Brook University I was able to find a link to his 2012 Statistical Model as well other related material.

A cursory view of the write-up leads me to believe that Dr. Norpoth is no quack. He also has references to at least 7 different publications that have directly covered this prediction. This certainly lends an air of authenticity to his work.

Incidentally, when I saw all the news reports of his forecast on Google, the first thing that came to mind was "predictive programming"...

It actually does meet some of the necessary parameters for a predictive programming effort:
1. It is an outrageous prediction that subconsciously suggests to people that this is a foregone conclusion.

2. By demonstrating such a broad difference in support for each candidate, it would suggest to those who want to be on the winning team to establish loyalty to the predicted winner. There are people who will vote for whom they believe will be the winner, rather than his or her policies.

3. It introduces a more concrete possibility of losing into the mind of the predicted loser's supporters. Though it may also make them work harder to get their candidate elected.

4. Not to mention that polls can take on lives of their own and influence one another. Might as well get into the game early.

-dex

Another obvious part of the predictive programming aspect... This news was released and decimated worldwide just days before Super Tuesday. I was wondering why this professor didn't wait until after a few more primaries to make this call, usually more sample data leads to a stronger prediction.

However, if the point was not to make a more accurate prediction but to affect the election, this all makes perfect sense and the timing was perfect IMHO.

ETA: Could a nice big check from Trump have made this all possible?

Maybe he uh, made a mistake and his calculations were 'inaccurate', a nice big check can cause such things.

Well, we know Trump has studied Hitler's speeches and had a book of them on his nightstand...it's not surprising to see The Big Lie propaganda tactic straight out of WWII Germany being employed in favor of Trump.

Pretty transparent to me.

I'm voting Trump and I don't even particularly like him. We'll probably never have another candidate that's so attention grabbing in our lifetime that he's impossible to ignore, the establishment can't kill him off. Factor that with the reality that the DNC has fixed the race for Hillary and I'll gladly, though nervously roll the dice with Trump and see. I don't think he even really runs his current companies, just oversees so I assume he'll surround himself with qualified people. His ego can't survive being a disaster as president and he can't just disappear after. My hope is he'll at least have a chance of putting together a high level cabinet since he owes nobody a position and wants to look good. Hillary I know what I'm getting and I'm done with that. I'd rather try and catch lighting in a bottle. If Trumps another failure the lighting is going to eventually burn my house down either way, only difference will be if it's a slow burn(Hillary) or all at once(Trump).

First of all, let us note that this story is being carried almost universally by sources like Alex Jones, The Daily Caller, and The Blaze.

Second, the only "model" that "accurately predicts" reality itself ... is reality ... which is sadly still only experienced one day at a time. (Note: this is a truism.)

Third, Black Swan Events.

Fourth, the basis of the "model" is to be found here:

This forecast was made using the electoral cycle model, which studies a pattern of voting in the presidential election that makes it less likely for an incumbent party to hold the presidency after two terms in office. The model does not assume who would be the party nominees or the conditions of the country at the time.

Emphasis mine. I sourced this from The Statesman which is the student newspaper at Stony Brook University (and the verbatim source for much of the "reporting" noted above.)

Fifth, the "model" restricts itself to the events post 1912 nominally because that's when "Primaries" became common, but also, I would wager, because the "trading off" of the control of the Presidency has been governed by other factors. (e.g. the Twenty Second Amendment after 1947)

Sixth, the "sample" is actually rather small. Since 1912 there have been only been 25 Presidential elections, and only 16 since the Twenty Second Amendment in 1947 was ratified.


More on the method here: The Primary Model

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Profusion

Wouldn't you rather trust a university with a 100% prediction record. Western Illinois University has never been wrong and they called Sanders months ago.

They must have forgotten super delegates.

In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%.

Wiki

The "Democratic Primaries and Caucuses" are not popular elections, they are party functions.

Not unlike the lopsided Republican policy in many states of "Winner Take All" which equally silences some populist voices.

There are no political parties in the Constitution, and while the People have the right to associate freely, the policies of either party should not rise to the force of actual law.

Isnt he the same guy that predicted Romney would be the president to?