> These fundamentals usually consist of economic indicators and various measures of incumbency. I looked at a couple links, and couldn't quickly find the exact

> These fundamentals usually consist of economic indicators and various measures of incumbency. I looked at a couple links, and couldn't quickly find the exact "fundamentals" he refers to. For instance, do they include campaign financing (corrected by peculiar things lke Trump's free media coverage, and perhaps whatever unpaid labor of Sanders' supporters)? Given that politicians spend enormous time on financing, this is an obvious indicator. But it may be politically incorrect to use models that imply money drives the US. (Chomsky mentioned, "At the moment, the polls indicate an even race. Usually, US elections can be predicted pretty well by the level of funding, overwhelmingly from the very wealthy and corporations. In the early stages, Bush was far in the lead, not a surprise in the light of the enormous gifts his administration has lavished on a very small wealthy minority and on corporate power. However, that funding gap has reduced considerably in the past months, apparently reflecting concern among elite sectors over the extraordinary incompetence of the Bush planners and the harm they are doing to core elite interests." https://chomsky.info/20041011/ https://chomsky.info/20041011/)