6 ms·

Primary Model Predicts Trump Victory

26 points by cglace 10y ago

brianwawok 10y ago
Would love to see Nate Silver discuss this.
- bsandert 10y ago
  Not specifically about this prediction, but he touched on the uncertainty factor in the latest Model Talk podcast episode: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty-is-left-about-the-election/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty-is-...
norikki 10y ago
Wait wait wait... "for elections since 1952 only the New Hampshire Primary has been used to measure primary performance." How is that legit at all? I could probably pick another state and show no correlation, or even show that primary winners are general election losers. Especially if i can change which states are used half way through...
- thomas4g 10y ago
  I'm guessing it has something to do with it being the second primary (and thus heavily watched as well as very influential)
  - sp332 10y ago
    It's the first primary. It's in our state constitution.
    - thomas4g 10y ago
      Whoops, misread Google. :) I bet that's why then; it's "untarnished" by previous primaries.
      - duaneb 10y ago
        Well it's still influenced by the Iowa caucus, which they ignore.
- VLM 10y ago
  Its a swing state, chock full of independents, so you get the pulse of the average independent, assuming they're politically relevant this time around. Its mostly a white state with whatever implications you have for race in the election (hillary won in '08 for racial reasons but 99.9% of black people everywhere else voted for Obama with a predictable result ... and likewise this time around Hillary isn't going to get the black turnout that Obama got from that racial block of 99.9% D voters both in the primaries and in November). Its very small and proportionately politically active so the residents tend to get involved more than a large empty state so at least in theory it predicts how politically active people across the country will tend to vote. Wikipedia claims a win results in a historical average boost of 27% of total primary votes. Every other election comes after the news media pounds who is a winner and who is a loser into the brains of votes which surely has some predictive capability looking at an un-influenced voter. Barring special racial situations or whatever (see '08) it historically has strong predictive capabilities. Note that you can "win" the primaries like Bernie did and still have your nomination stolen from you. I'm sure the Bern victims will be just as motivated to vote for Hillary as they were to vote for Bernie, I mean the Bern victims sure are a big bunch of globalist corrupt banker supporters, LOL, so they'll fit in perfectly with Hillaries supporters. Data from NH does predict excitement and likelihood of voter turnout and so forth which has certain implications in November. All 30% and then some who voted Trump are almost certain to vote in November, the 30% Bern victims well maybe not so much. Good predictive capability often has nothing to do with how much the results or methods are liked.
teach 10y ago
"The Primary Model relies on presidential primaries as a predictor of the vote in the general election. For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996. In recent elections the forecast has been issued as early as January of the election year." If I'm reading it correctly this isn't a new prediction; this is a new article about the Primary Model's existing prediction dating from March 7 of this year.
Cshelton 10y ago
My theory, many people are actually voting for Trump, for whatever reason it may be, but they will not tell others. Polls, friends, community, etc. It seems many communities, including SV, have tried to ostracize those with opposing viewpoints. Trump's strength is built on that, whether an individual will be public about it or not. I read somewhere (sorry no source) that this election has seen the fewest bumped stickers/yard signs in recent history. Edit: Remember, this is HN, not Reddit, keep it civil. And also keep in mind, odds are pretty low you will change anybody's view at this point, especially over comments ;)
- crocowhile 10y ago
  Look into the "shy tory factor". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor People are more likely to lie about their voting intentions when the media create a climate of moral stigma around their candidate. I am sure this is going to happen in the uk too. The Democrats have run the wrong campaign.
  - Cshelton 10y ago
    Ahh, exactly. I think this kind of thing is quite dangerous. When people become afraid to say what they think and/or get berated when they do, it's a very dangerous climate. For any side. All of the sudden people start to believe something they actually don't believe in because of this stigma. The current state of the media is the worst. Do I know how to fix it....I wish. We live in a world of headlines...And it's too easy to put almost any information you want to appeal to your viewer base, despite how inaccurate it may be. Tough problem. I saw a great "life pro tip" recently: If the News it telling you how to feel, it's not news. Always remember that.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zitterbewegung 10y ago
  I've heard this from many sources but do you have anything to back up the assertion?
- 10y ago
vnglst 10y ago
Reading those predictions with a history of getting it right, always reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Professor Pigskin: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Pigskin http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Pigskin
mcphage 10y ago
So he took a whole bunch of data, and found coefficients which correctly determine 5 data points? Um, okay.
artursapek 10y ago
Trump supporters are right to be quiet about it, after all of the violence and vandalism that liberals have thrown at them in this election. I think this has been the most violent election in recent history. [1][2] Even yard signs, as you note, have been getting stolen so often that people are actually discussing fun ways of booby-trapping theirs. [3] [1] http://www.projectveritasaction.com/video/rigging-election-video-i-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-incite-violence-trump-rallies http://www.projectveritasaction.com/video/rigging-election-v... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/north-carolina-gop-building-is-firebombed.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/north-carolina-gop-buil... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/54y5px/man_electrocuted_attempting_to_steal_booby/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/54y5px/man_elec... EDIT: if you're going to downvote me, refute what I'm saying. I have seen no evidence that the right has done anything nearly as ugly as the left has in this election. It's downright disgusting.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  It's very easy to blame the other side for things when it fits a narrative, but your second example link is most notably missing a shred of evidence that "the left" (what does that even mean? Lumping in Communists and the Green Party, too?) is responsible. I agree with you that behaviors in this election have been concerning, but taking a victim stance and just blindly pointing at a side is probably most concerning of all because it isn't really refutable despite your edit.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    Oh come on. Did you see the graffiti addressing the "Nazi Republicans"? That was clearly a partisan act.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Based on what? That someone who doesn't like Republicans must be from the "other team" without any other possibility remotely existing? How about instead of asking us to refute you, please prove your accusation against "the left," specifically for the North Carolina example that you feel is clear. I'm eager to hear your evidence that an entire side of the political spectrum was responsible for the act. Oh, come on, indeed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
exelius 10y ago
I don't think any model has accounted for how personally distasteful Trump is. Regardless of his politics (which I find abhorrent as well, but that's another matter), there are a lot of Republicans who refuse to support him simply because he has shown himself to be unqualified to lead ANYTHING. Even if you're an ardent Trump supporter, you have to admit that Hillary showed how easily manipulated he is in the 3 debates. She just poked at his soft spots and tried to get a reaction, and it worked. None of this is about electing Hillary; it's entirely about keeping a petulant child out of the most powerful job in the country. Is she in bed with special interests? Definitely. Was she trying to avoid FOIA documentation requirements with a private e-mail server? Of course she was. Are the American people sick of elitist political dynasties like the Clintons and Bushes? Absolutely. These things are all true of most politicians. But in contrast to Trump, Hillary is an adult. I trust Hillary to be able to put aside her ego and do what's right for the country. I don't feel the same about Trump; and I don't want to get involved in World War 3 because some world leader made a comment about Trump's hair. The GOP should have won this election handily -- but they've painted themselves into an untenable platform that simultaneously is built on racism and diversity. No candidate could form a cohesive vision out of the nonsensical platform they put forward (limited government + legislating morality; business-friendly + anti-immigration; guns should be legal but not drugs; etc.) so they ended up with a nonsensical candidate and a disaster of a party. The party is so fractured over Trump that even if the GOP can retain a majority in the house and senate, the Democrats will likely be able to find enough Republicans to break ranks to get legislation passed. But this election isn't about politics. It's about whether we are angry enough at the whole system to burn it all down. This should serve as a wake-up call that over 40% of the country thinks things are so bad that they're willing to elect a would-be dictator.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  > a would-be dictator. Why that choice of word?
  - exelius 10y ago
    Because he has shown time and again that he thinks the rules do not -- and should not -- apply to him. A candidate running on a law-and-order platform who thinks he is above the law is essentially the textbook version of a dictator.
jhou2 10y ago
If Trump had been a normal candidate, he would have beat Clinton. No tawdry sex scandals, crazy public fights with Ms Universe, gold star parents, leading members of his own party. If he had raised money on the same scale as Romney or established a ground game and analytics like Clinton. Based solely on primary data, yes, he probably would win.
weallfalldown 10y ago
Andrew Tanenbaum (creator of MINIX) and historian Christopher Bates comment on this: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#item-11 http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#i...
teraflop 10y ago
My sanity check alarms started going off here: > For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996 ... Also note that for all elections from 1912 to 2012 the Primary Model picks the winner, albeit retroactively, every time except in 1960. It can't be true that this model correctly predicts both the election winner and the popular vote winner, since Bush won one and lost the other in 2000. I am extremely skeptical of this model, partly because I find the idea that voters pay attention to the primaries, but not to anything that happens later, very implausible. But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. There are tons of degrees of freedom, not just in the model weights but in the choice of which primaries to consider. The authors picked NH in previous elections, and this year fairly arbitrarily decided to include SC as well. It's no surprise that you can make good retroactive predictions when you have many effective model parameters to play with.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  > But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. Exactly. I was thinking about how easy it would be to create a model that accurately predicted the last 100 years' election results that would likely fall flat on its face in the next.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
Honestly, I want to see calamity. I want a tied electoral college. I want the election to be thrown into utter chaos. Why? Because it will actually throw a monkey wrench into what has been the worst election, with the worst candidates, in the history of this nation.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  A tied electoral college wouldn't "throw the election into utter chaos" at all. It just means that the President would be picked by the House of Representatives. This has actually happened twice before.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    Which would - barring a spectacular twist - mean a Trump presidency and disaster for millions.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      The decision would be made by the new House, whose composition is anyone's guess. Even assuming the balance doesn't change, the Republicans have a majority of only about 30 seats. Are you willing to bet that 30 representatives can't be flipped, given the...lukewarm support Trump has received from the Republican establishment? I wouldn't be. I mean, not even the Speaker of the House endorses Trump. In any case, the point is that an Electoral College tie wouldn't mean "chaos". There's a clear procedure for handling it. There are even further backup procedures in case the House is unable to reach a decision.
      - zimpenfish 10y ago
        Ryan hasn't as yet specifically unendorsed Trump. And 20-30 GOPs flipping to vote against the Republican nominee for President would count as a "spectacular twist', I think. > There's a clear procedure for handling it. Indeed there is!
  - 10y ago

26 points by cglace 10y ago

brianwawok 10y ago

Would love to see Nate Silver discuss this.

bsandert 10y ago
Not specifically about this prediction, but he touched on the uncertainty factor in the latest Model Talk podcast episode: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty-is-left-about-the-election/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty-is-...

norikki 10y ago

Wait wait wait... "for elections since 1952 only the New Hampshire Primary has been used to measure primary performance." How is that legit at all? I could probably pick another state and show no correlation, or even show that primary winners are general election losers. Especially if i can change which states are used half way through...

thomas4g 10y ago
I'm guessing it has something to do with it being the second primary (and thus heavily watched as well as very influential)
- sp332 10y ago
  It's the first primary. It's in our state constitution.
  - thomas4g 10y ago
    Whoops, misread Google. :) I bet that's why then; it's "untarnished" by previous primaries.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Well it's still influenced by the Iowa caucus, which they ignore.
VLM 10y ago
Its a swing state, chock full of independents, so you get the pulse of the average independent, assuming they're politically relevant this time around. Its mostly a white state with whatever implications you have for race in the election (hillary won in '08 for racial reasons but 99.9% of black people everywhere else voted for Obama with a predictable result ... and likewise this time around Hillary isn't going to get the black turnout that Obama got from that racial block of 99.9% D voters both in the primaries and in November). Its very small and proportionately politically active so the residents tend to get involved more than a large empty state so at least in theory it predicts how politically active people across the country will tend to vote. Wikipedia claims a win results in a historical average boost of 27% of total primary votes. Every other election comes after the news media pounds who is a winner and who is a loser into the brains of votes which surely has some predictive capability looking at an un-influenced voter. Barring special racial situations or whatever (see '08) it historically has strong predictive capabilities. Note that you can "win" the primaries like Bernie did and still have your nomination stolen from you. I'm sure the Bern victims will be just as motivated to vote for Hillary as they were to vote for Bernie, I mean the Bern victims sure are a big bunch of globalist corrupt banker supporters, LOL, so they'll fit in perfectly with Hillaries supporters. Data from NH does predict excitement and likelihood of voter turnout and so forth which has certain implications in November. All 30% and then some who voted Trump are almost certain to vote in November, the 30% Bern victims well maybe not so much. Good predictive capability often has nothing to do with how much the results or methods are liked.

teach 10y ago

"The Primary Model relies on presidential primaries as a predictor of the vote in the general election. For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996. In recent elections the forecast has been issued as early as January of the election year." If I'm reading it correctly this isn't a new prediction; this is a new article about the Primary Model's existing prediction dating from March 7 of this year.

Cshelton 10y ago

My theory, many people are actually voting for Trump, for whatever reason it may be, but they will not tell others. Polls, friends, community, etc. It seems many communities, including SV, have tried to ostracize those with opposing viewpoints. Trump's strength is built on that, whether an individual will be public about it or not. I read somewhere (sorry no source) that this election has seen the fewest bumped stickers/yard signs in recent history. Edit: Remember, this is HN, not Reddit, keep it civil. And also keep in mind, odds are pretty low you will change anybody's view at this point, especially over comments ;)

crocowhile 10y ago
Look into the "shy tory factor". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor People are more likely to lie about their voting intentions when the media create a climate of moral stigma around their candidate. I am sure this is going to happen in the uk too. The Democrats have run the wrong campaign.
- Cshelton 10y ago
  Ahh, exactly. I think this kind of thing is quite dangerous. When people become afraid to say what they think and/or get berated when they do, it's a very dangerous climate. For any side. All of the sudden people start to believe something they actually don't believe in because of this stigma. The current state of the media is the worst. Do I know how to fix it....I wish. We live in a world of headlines...And it's too easy to put almost any information you want to appeal to your viewer base, despite how inaccurate it may be. Tough problem. I saw a great "life pro tip" recently: If the News it telling you how to feel, it's not news. Always remember that.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zitterbewegung 10y ago
I've heard this from many sources but do you have anything to back up the assertion?
10y ago

vnglst 10y ago

Reading those predictions with a history of getting it right, always reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Professor Pigskin: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Pigskin http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Pigskin

mcphage 10y ago

So he took a whole bunch of data, and found coefficients which correctly determine 5 data points? Um, okay.

artursapek 10y ago

Trump supporters are right to be quiet about it, after all of the violence and vandalism that liberals have thrown at them in this election. I think this has been the most violent election in recent history. [1][2] Even yard signs, as you note, have been getting stolen so often that people are actually discussing fun ways of booby-trapping theirs. [3] [1] http://www.projectveritasaction.com/video/rigging-election-video-i-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-incite-violence-trump-rallies http://www.projectveritasaction.com/video/rigging-election-v... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/north-carolina-gop-building-is-firebombed.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/north-carolina-gop-buil... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/54y5px/man_electrocuted_attempting_to_steal_booby/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/54y5px/man_elec... EDIT: if you're going to downvote me, refute what I'm saying. I have seen no evidence that the right has done anything nearly as ugly as the left has in this election. It's downright disgusting.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
It's very easy to blame the other side for things when it fits a narrative, but your second example link is most notably missing a shred of evidence that "the left" (what does that even mean? Lumping in Communists and the Green Party, too?) is responsible. I agree with you that behaviors in this election have been concerning, but taking a victim stance and just blindly pointing at a side is probably most concerning of all because it isn't really refutable despite your edit.
- artursapek 10y ago
  Oh come on. Did you see the graffiti addressing the "Nazi Republicans"? That was clearly a partisan act.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Based on what? That someone who doesn't like Republicans must be from the "other team" without any other possibility remotely existing? How about instead of asking us to refute you, please prove your accusation against "the left," specifically for the North Carolina example that you feel is clear. I'm eager to hear your evidence that an entire side of the political spectrum was responsible for the act. Oh, come on, indeed.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

exelius 10y ago

I don't think any model has accounted for how personally distasteful Trump is. Regardless of his politics (which I find abhorrent as well, but that's another matter), there are a lot of Republicans who refuse to support him simply because he has shown himself to be unqualified to lead ANYTHING. Even if you're an ardent Trump supporter, you have to admit that Hillary showed how easily manipulated he is in the 3 debates. She just poked at his soft spots and tried to get a reaction, and it worked. None of this is about electing Hillary; it's entirely about keeping a petulant child out of the most powerful job in the country. Is she in bed with special interests? Definitely. Was she trying to avoid FOIA documentation requirements with a private e-mail server? Of course she was. Are the American people sick of elitist political dynasties like the Clintons and Bushes? Absolutely. These things are all true of most politicians. But in contrast to Trump, Hillary is an adult. I trust Hillary to be able to put aside her ego and do what's right for the country. I don't feel the same about Trump; and I don't want to get involved in World War 3 because some world leader made a comment about Trump's hair. The GOP should have won this election handily -- but they've painted themselves into an untenable platform that simultaneously is built on racism and diversity. No candidate could form a cohesive vision out of the nonsensical platform they put forward (limited government + legislating morality; business-friendly + anti-immigration; guns should be legal but not drugs; etc.) so they ended up with a nonsensical candidate and a disaster of a party. The party is so fractured over Trump that even if the GOP can retain a majority in the house and senate, the Democrats will likely be able to find enough Republicans to break ranks to get legislation passed. But this election isn't about politics. It's about whether we are angry enough at the whole system to burn it all down. This should serve as a wake-up call that over 40% of the country thinks things are so bad that they're willing to elect a would-be dictator.

leesalminen 10y ago
> a would-be dictator. Why that choice of word?
- exelius 10y ago
  Because he has shown time and again that he thinks the rules do not -- and should not -- apply to him. A candidate running on a law-and-order platform who thinks he is above the law is essentially the textbook version of a dictator.

jhou2 10y ago

If Trump had been a normal candidate, he would have beat Clinton. No tawdry sex scandals, crazy public fights with Ms Universe, gold star parents, leading members of his own party. If he had raised money on the same scale as Romney or established a ground game and analytics like Clinton. Based solely on primary data, yes, he probably would win.

weallfalldown 10y ago

Andrew Tanenbaum (creator of MINIX) and historian Christopher Bates comment on this: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#item-11 http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#i...

teraflop 10y ago

My sanity check alarms started going off here: > For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996 ... Also note that for all elections from 1912 to 2012 the Primary Model picks the winner, albeit retroactively, every time except in 1960. It can't be true that this model correctly predicts both the election winner and the popular vote winner, since Bush won one and lost the other in 2000. I am extremely skeptical of this model, partly because I find the idea that voters pay attention to the primaries, but not to anything that happens later, very implausible. But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. There are tons of degrees of freedom, not just in the model weights but in the choice of which primaries to consider. The authors picked NH in previous elections, and this year fairly arbitrarily decided to include SC as well. It's no surprise that you can make good retroactive predictions when you have many effective model parameters to play with.

nkozyra 10y ago
> But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. Exactly. I was thinking about how easy it would be to create a model that accurately predicted the last 100 years' election results that would likely fall flat on its face in the next.

Overtonwindow 10y ago

Honestly, I want to see calamity. I want a tied electoral college. I want the election to be thrown into utter chaos. Why? Because it will actually throw a monkey wrench into what has been the worst election, with the worst candidates, in the history of this nation.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
A tied electoral college wouldn't "throw the election into utter chaos" at all. It just means that the President would be picked by the House of Representatives. This has actually happened twice before.
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  Which would - barring a spectacular twist - mean a Trump presidency and disaster for millions.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    The decision would be made by the new House, whose composition is anyone's guess. Even assuming the balance doesn't change, the Republicans have a majority of only about 30 seats. Are you willing to bet that 30 representatives can't be flipped, given the...lukewarm support Trump has received from the Republican establishment? I wouldn't be. I mean, not even the Speaker of the House endorses Trump. In any case, the point is that an Electoral College tie wouldn't mean "chaos". There's a clear procedure for handling it. There are even further backup procedures in case the House is unable to reach a decision.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      Ryan hasn't as yet specifically unendorsed Trump. And 20-30 GOPs flipping to vote against the Republican nominee for President would count as a "spectacular twist', I think. > There's a clear procedure for handling it. Indeed there is!
- 10y ago