Why Donald Trump is going to win
Sep. 19th, 2016 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
whocares1970I have come across an interesting article about the Lichtman and DeCell "13-Keys" theory for predicting outcomes of presidential elections. The theory caught my attention because of a reasonably looking formalization of the prediction process. Its proponents claim that it correctly predicted/reproduced outcomes of American presidential elections since 1860.
Briefly, they consider each election as a contest between an incumbent and a challenger. In cases like 2008 and 2016, the incumbent is actually a "third term" candidate, even though the candidate him/herself is a different person than the current POTUS.
Then they use 13 keys. If 5 or fewer of them are false, then the incumbent (or "third term") candidate wins. Otherwise, the victory goes to the challenger. Here are the keys:
1. The incumbent party holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
3. The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.
4. There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.
5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.
7. The administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
8. There has been no major social unrest during the term.
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.
11. There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term.
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.
13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses.
Right now, the keys 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, and 13 are false. One can also argue that 8, 10, and 11 are at least partially false as well, but even without those, 7 out of 13 are enough for Hillary Clinton to lose.
Just in case - in 2012, the false statements were 1, 10, perhaps 5, 9 (if you follow the real news). That was not enough to replace Obama with Romney.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 10:26 pm (UTC)да, мне тоже какая-то астрология почудилась. если венера уляжется в созвездие орла, то в штате флорида внезапно заголосуют кубинки столетнего возраста в домах престарелых, а в огайо явится с неба Сиюющий Дух и касич поддержит трампа на крыше строящегося здания онкологии кливленд клиники, и так далее.
я бы хотела чтобы трамп выиграл. я за него несмотря на его дурость.
но. вряд ли.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-19 10:57 pm (UTC)it's gonna be close...
no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-22 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-22 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-26 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 10:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 11:59 pm (UTC)Факторы очень распывчаты -- "The administration has effected major policy changes during the term." -- как это понимать?
Такого типа предсказания можно куда угодно подогнать.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 12:14 am (UTC)Что до расплывчатости факторов - это отражает фактическую сторону дела. Как сравнивать, например, законотворчество двух администраций в разные эпохи? То, что Вы цитируете, вполне подходит под общее определение.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 01:33 am (UTC)Поэтому грамотные люди вроде 538 предсказывают в гораздо более высокой грануляности -- по штатам, по округам и т.п. Тут данных гораздо больше и можно собиать статистику.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 03:26 am (UTC)A дaвaйте, нaсoчиняйте. С интересoм прoчту.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 03:00 pm (UTC)Знаете, у меня нет желания и возможности потратить полдня, чтобы "отвечать за базар". С другой стороны, то, что можно сделать за несколько часов относится к категории "легко" (IMHO).
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 03:26 am (UTC)Этo былo бы прoблемaтичнo, если бы речь шлa oб oднoм-двух вoпрoсaх. В случaе же кaк минимум шести, верoятнoсть, чтo эти шесть будут сaмыми невaжными или нaoбoрoт, сaмыми вaжными, низкa. Скoрее всегo, будет смесь с примернo средним весoм overall.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 04:02 pm (UTC)Вoбщем, я бы нa вaшем месте извинился.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 03:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-20 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-21 03:27 am (UTC)