There is a thirty percent chance Ray Fair rises considerably in status

The weak Friday gdp report reminded me of this March column by Jeff Sommer (NYT):

Professor Fair has been tracking and predicting elections in real time since 1978 with a good deal of success, using an approach that continues to be provocative. He ruthlessly excludes nearly all the details that are the basic diet of conventional political analysts — items like the burning issues of the day, the identities, personalities and speeches of the candidates and the strength of their campaign organizations. In fact, his model pays no attention whatsoever to the day-to-day fireworks of the political campaigns.

Instead, he considers only economics, finding that economic factors usually correlate well with political outcomes…

In November 2014, he did his first projection for the 2016 election and found that the odds favored the Republican candidate — whoever that may be. The Republican side has been leading consistently ever since, and the margin has increased as he has fed in new data.

Here is Reihan Salam on Trump and pessimism.


Why not? It is the land of the Almighty Dollar, where greed is good. It is really sad.

About as sad as your pathetic attempt to top post on every blog entry.

I never try to top post, I only post when I have something to say.

Even if it's only a trite, meaningless cliche. Any post containing "almighty dollar" (or even greed really) is very unlikely to be an interesting or thoughtful comment.

I am sorry if truth hurts...

...yeah, obsessive/compulsive posters, but what about the topic here on Yale Professor Fair's election prediction?

Troubling that Prof Fair's prediction track record is vaguely characterized as having
" a good deal of success " or that his model works "reasonably well".

How often did he actually predict the winner ??
That's an extremely easy number to calculate and state. Its absence indicates it is unimpressive.

Most Presidential elections are close, within a couple of percentage points. Even a simple coin toss model would average "a good deal of success" over 35 years.

Hillary will win. Partly because the entire MSM will support her and work diligently to destroy her opponent. But mostly because the Democrats will steal the election. In five critical swing states the Democrat apparatchiks have been registering dead people to vote, registering illegal aliens and alzheimer's patients who will all magically show up on election day to vote for Hillary. Stealing a presidential election is easy. Only 5 states are in play and within those states only one or two urban areas decide the entire state. A few million dollars in each of those cities to round up the homeless and drunks on election day and pay them to go into each of the polling places they are driven to by the handlers and pay them off when they have voted 8-10 times each and Voilà a close election is 'won'.

Hahaha. If only Republicans put in their platform as much effort as they put in their excuses...

Despite eight years of lies and propaganda from the academy, the government and the mainstream media, it’s clear Obama and Hillary’s policies are destroying the economy and middle class. They can’t cover it up any longer.

That's why they need to have no voter ID and 150% of eligible voters voting Democrat.

Sure I even hear the deficit (that didn't matter under two Bushes and one Reagan) matters again. Also jobs, which Bush's government bled after breaking the country (not to count his first term "jobless recovery"), are important afain. I really can't go wrong.

So you are saying that your insistence that those things were important at the time was a lie? Or that Bush and Reagan were totally right? I can't tell.

Now, Republicans really care about jobs. I mean, Bush lost millions of American jobs and was supported by Republicans even when in "good times" there was no jobs, but now I am sure they are really serious... I am sure Republicans won't lie again about the deficit just because every Republican president sibce 1980 dit. I can't learn from my mistakes.

It will be a stolen election, which, if they had only nominated a true conservative, they would have won.


Talk about greed - we have the best electorate money can buy. Some people work for a living, others vote for a living.

Can you tell me how to get paid to vote? I'm obviously not connected to the right people to get offered money for my vote. I know I'm not in a big swing State, but NH is purple, and every vote counts when it comes to control of the Senate.

In the Philippines, you go to your barangay (neighborhood) captain, and they pay you 100 to 1000 pesos (about 2.20 to $22 a vote). It's pretty routine. But if you try and collect money from two opposing candidates, you'll be sought out after the election (the candidates compare bought voter lists) and negatively sanctioned by the thugs of the losing candidate.

If you're a New Hampshire dairy farmer, vote for the candidate who offers you the biggest subsidy. If you work for a tech company that develops alternative energy products, vote for the candidate who promises to subsidize your industry. If you're a doctor, nurse, or other medical professional, vote for the candidate who wants to maintain the medical industry at 18% of GDP. In other words, there are many ways to buy your vote.

Most anybody who doesn't pay federal income tax and certainly anybody by supported the welfare state. No one supported as such will ever vote against it.

The 47% (and 100% of dead people) that don't pay income taxes will vote for tax increases (This time Hillary isn't lying.) for the rest of us that pay taxes.

Wall Street money paid to Hillary $50,000,000; paid to Trump $19,000. Go tell the Bernie people. It was the same with Obama. The Democrats don't give a shit about the little people except when they need to gull them for votes.

Evidently the party of the little people is the Republican party. Oh, all those wonderful tax breaks for the little billionaries. The economy crashed, but so what?

Which tax breaks? You mean when the middle class income tax was cut to the lowest in the free world?

Yeah, the "middle class" tax breaks for middle class folks who make more than ten times the money the average American does...

Whenever a political scientist attempts to use macroeconomic data to predict Presidential elections, an angel loses its wings, pops a blood vessel and gets kicked in the crotch

At this point it seems more like 50% rather than just 30% likely.

Isn't the correlation based on the trend (rising or falling economy)? In any case, I understand and appreciate that the incumbent party is rewarded or punished according to the economic conditions at the time of the election, voters have short memories and (mostly) historical ignorance. Indeed, it took less than two years for voters to forget that the economy had collapsed toward the end of the eight-year Bush administration, amnesia due in no small part to repeated suggestions by Republicans that Obama was president at the time of the economic collapse and that Clinton was president at the time of the collapse of the twin towers.

I'm not sure if "amnesia" is quite the right word. It seems like some folks have had some basic facts suggested out of their entire memory in relation to these things over the years.

The Trump campaign is making the election about the thousands of Americans killed weekly by radical Islamic terrorists that Hillary Clinton unleashed and funded in the 80s.

Clinton and hundreds of others spoke about economic issues, calling for higher wages, more benefits, cheaper education and job training, more jobs fixing roads, bridges, water, sewer, levies, expanding Internet, rail, ports, wind and solar harvesting.

I admit Trump is promising more coal and oil drilling jobs, but where will he put all the coal and oil his price supports delivers to the Federal government. Unless he's planning to ban all oil imports. Since oil export restrictions have been removed by Congress, oil imports have increased by half a million barrels a day.

Amazing how cheerful and positive Obama gets when there is 1% growth, cops are getting shot, Europe is tearing itself apart.

No less cheerful than Bush when American economy was melting (or even early during his first term "jobless recovery") or when he was too busy to learn about that Al Qaeda business. Why not? Both are set for life.

Because no cop was ever shot before 2008. And we learned from the GOP Convention that only illegal immigrants cause accidents when driving drunk.

Europe is 'tearing itself apart' in what sense exactly?

In the same way that Obama destroyed America. Never really understood what that means either.

Well one country did just vote to leave over immigration policy

The Fair models are fitted on past data, so they look predictive, but they've performed poorly out of sample, i.e. historically they have not been very predictive.

Nate Silver has done a pretty deep dive on "fundamentals" models (including Fair) vs. other kinds of model, and in general they are not very predictive.

In 92, 96, and 04 the Fair models were way off. They did well in 2000, and just OK in 2008.

Here is the poll/s to watch, if you want to watch one. Whenever the gap (Right-Wrong) -15 or less, incumbents suffer (as identified by the party in the White House). In Obama's terms, the gap reached minima in the Summer of 2009 of zero, and about -10 near Obama's reelection in November of 2012. The gap has been growing since about January of last year, and is at -47 as I write. Hillary might win if that gap closes over the next couple of months to less than -25. However, if on election day the gap is still under -40, she is toast.

The economy is going to have to get out of the doldrums in this quarter (3Q GDP will be first reported near the end of October, and will have to show something over 3% to move the numbers), and there literally cannot be another terrorist attack of the scale of San Bernadino between now and the election in this country, or Nice in Europe- Clinton and Obama are allin on this now (as are Merkel and Hollande), after that convention last week.

People criticized Trump for being "dark" at the RNC, but that was the appropriate tone to take for the present- it aligns with the country's mood. The DNC's optimism won't play well with this mood, however. Clinton is tied fully to Obama, and can't run away from him. Had she never taken the Secretary of State position, she would be in a position to capitalize on a run away from Obama's terms, but that isn't possible now. If that gap is still -47 or less, she will lose in a landslide.

I used to think a terrorist attack would help Trump. But actually, the more people see of him, and given the fairly large number of mass shootings and people getting more normalized about it in a sense, I don't think there are very many people at all who would all of a sudden give Trump additional credit on voting day as a result of any further terrorist events.

It is impossible describe how wrong you are. The people are definitely not normalized to it. Much of the recent gap came as a result of Orlando and the police assassinations.

Is there any evidence for this polling thesis.

It;s funny that people read the right/wrong direction polling numbers as reflecting upon the executive branch. See, I would say wrong direction, based on legislative gridlock. Because right/wrong poll numbers do not attach to anything, they really don't tell you much, given that we have had shut downs, candidates who demean people, etc.

"Had she never taken the Secretary of State position, she would be in a position to capitalize on a run away from Obama’s terms, but that isn’t possible now."

McCain never served under Bush and challenged him in 2000, yet he could not run away from Bush either.

Had she never taken that position as Secretary of State she would be billions of dollars poorer.

"The economy is going to have to get out of the doldrums in this quarter"


QE4 (or is it 5?): The Helicopter Money Episode!

I take it 30% is low. But will a loss diminish it? I doubt it.

The problem with Salaam's thesis is that, in the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders also received about 43% of the popular vote (based on RCP's reporting, 12M for Sanders vs. 16M for Clinton []. That's not too different from Trump's minority support in the Republican primaries. So, it appears that both parties have comparable sized minorities that reject Reaganesque optimism (and Bill Clintonian triangulation on the Democratic side). If Hillary Clinton's support had been split among 4+ mainstream center-left candidates, then we might have seen an angry DNC to nominate Sanders, especially if the majority anti-Trump Republicans had managed to unite around a single mainstream candidate.

It's actually not that big a mystery why disgruntled working class whites that are predisposed to identity politics gravitate to the Republican Party while disgruntled working class whites that favor pro-union and collectivist ideology gravitate to the Democratic Party.

Comments for this post are closed