
Primary Model Predicts Trump Victory - cglace
http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/
======
teraflop
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
> 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.

------
Cshelton
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
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
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.

------
exelius
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
> a would-be dictator.

Why that choice of word?

~~~
exelius
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.

~~~
VLM
"he has shown time and again"

It should be very easy to list examples, then. I found the most stunning thing
about the debate topics was everything Trump was being accused of was at most
shady but legal, and everything Hillary was being accused of would send anyone
but a Clinton to prison.

The IRS is happy with his taxes therefore he must be a crook. His lawyers
followed every bankruptcy law and the judge agreed he did nothing wrong
therefore he must be a crook. The amount of money he paid in taxes is legal
but Hillary thinks any tax rate below 100% is morally wrong therefore he's a
crook. He should have known that in a decade he'd be running for president and
made sure that a subcontractor of a subcontractor of a general contractor
bought USA steel instead of perfectly legal Chinese steel therefore he's a
crook. A billionaire supposedly molests a dozen women for as long as Bill
Clinton has been in the news for doing worse, but they all forgot about the
tremendous billionaire payday for decades until three weeks before the
election, all at the same time, huh, what are the odds of that, I'm sure it
must all be true? Oh and he might have used a naughty (but legal!) word a
couple times in his life.

Luckily we have an incredibly sanctimonious holier than thou candidate who
despises half the country she supposedly wants to lead, is above campaign
finance law, above confidential documents law, is a child rapist enabler both
in home life and professionally as an attorney, her death count in the middle
east must be a million or so, but "Hillary" so that makes it acceptable and
magically somehow she's not above the law nor a dictator nor a madwoman
because she's a globalist elite pawn. Clearly she is on the opposite of a law
and order platform, we agree there. If she were a law and order candidate, to
be self consistent she'd have to put herself and her husband in prison...

So where's this "time and again"? An unpaid parking ticket, perhaps? An
overdue library book? Anything at all?

~~~
exelius
> thou candidate who despises half the country she supposedly wants to lead,

Show me a candidate on either side who hasn't made these kinds of statements.
This is more a symptom of our partisan divide than any one candidate.

> is above campaign finance law

You can't run for president without bending the campaign finance rules. Again,
not ideal, but if we want to fix campaign finance let's fix it legislatively.
Neither side wants to deal with it, so it never happened.

> above confidential documents law,

Again, she did no worse than any of the previous GOP administrations. Not
saying we shouldn't hold her to a higher standard, but nothing she did here is
truly shocking.

> is a child rapist enabler both in home life and professionally as an
> attorney

Ok, WHOA. I don't think either of these happened. You can't count professional
work as a defense attorney because the lawyer is there to ensure that her
client receives a fair trial. It's in everyone's best interests for her to
mount a competent defense because it should clarify reasonable doubt. Just
because she may have defended a child rapist doesn't mean she supports him --
she was an agent of the court playing a role in a system that ensures everyone
has the right to a fair trial.

Bill may be a horndog, but that's beside the point. It's not his wife's fault;
nor is it any of your business how they handle their marital problems. And I
don't recall any allegations of him ever assaulting anyone underage...

> her death count in the middle east must be a million or so

Ok, just stop. Even if you were to blame Hillary for every combat-related
death in the middle east and north Africa during and after her tenure as
Secretary of State, they don't even add up to more than 500,000. Exclude Syria
(you can only criticize Hillary for inaction here - and what exactly do we
have to gain getting involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Russia?) and Libya (not gonna touch it with all the hate from the Benghazi
witch hunt where no wrongdoing was found after a few rounds of congressional
investigations, but needless to say you're giving Hillary way too much credit
if you blame the entire situation in Libya on her) you don't even get to
10,000. Yes, the refugee crisis is real, but there's not much we can do about
it from the US. The EU has to figure that one out on their own, unfortunately.

Honestly, the world is in an unprecedented period of peace right now. Major
global conflicts are relatively low-burn affairs where the death count is
measured in thousands per year rather than millions. Our goal should be to
keep it that way, not go and start the next big war or escalate a smaller one.

~~~
jazzyk
>And I don't recall any allegations of him ever assaulting anyone underage...

Please google "Lolita Express" (one link here [1]). His friend, Jeff Epstein,
who organized these trips is a _convicted_ pedophile.

In 2014, another young woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Epstein used her as
a sex slave for his powerful friends—and that she’d been at parties on his
private island with former President Clinton.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-
clinton...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-
ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/)

~~~
dragonwriter
Epstein, Trump's-formerly-acknowledged longtime friend who he now denies
knowing, is also the alleged facilitator in the case in which Trump is accused
of repeatedly and forcible raping a young teen.

So, I'm not sure reports that Bill Clinton may have been present at an Epstein
party is exactly a damning indictment of how Hillary Clinton is somehow
getting away with things worse than what Trump is accused of.

~~~
exelius
It's all unsubstantiated, honestly. I don't believe any of the rumors on
either side, because both sides have a huge incentive to lie and insinuate bad
things about the other. It's dirty politics 101, and the Clintons invented it
(say what you want about them; but they are masters of dirty politics -- which
you have to be to become president).

I judge them based on what they've said; and Hillary has offered up some good
ideas and a whole lot of rhetoric while Trump has spouted inconsistent
positions, many of which are frightening to me. Furthermore, when you do even
a cursory bit of research on their statements, it becomes clear that Trump
either doesn't know the truth or simply doesn't care. Add to that the ease
with which Clinton manipulated him in the debates (she goaded him into a fight
which plays well to his 30% base, but makes him look very unpresidential to
the rest of the voter base). If Clinton could manipulate him so skillfully,
how would he react to provocation elsewhere on the international stage?

Regardless of Trump's politics (which I happen to disagree with), he as a
person has shown that he is unfit to hold public office at any level. He seems
to have little regard for ethics and fair play -- his idea of "fair" is when
everything goes in his favor, and everyone is conspiring against him when it
doesn't. He is little more than a con-man reality TV star, while Clinton has
lived a life of public service.

------
teach
"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.

------
jhou2
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.

------
norikki
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
I'm guessing it has something to do with it being the second primary (and thus
heavily watched as well as very influential)

~~~
sp332
It's the first primary. It's in our state constitution.

~~~
thomas4g
Whoops, misread Google. :) I bet that's why then; it's "untarnished" by
previous primaries.

~~~
duaneb
Well it's still influenced by the Iowa caucus, which they ignore.

------
mcphage
So he took a whole bunch of data, and found coefficients which correctly
determine 5 data points?

Um, okay.

------
weallfalldown
Andrew Tanenbaum (creator of MINIX) and historian Christopher Bates comment on
this:

[http://www.electoral-
vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#i...](http://www.electoral-
vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#item-11)

------
brianwawok
Would love to see Nate Silver discuss this.

~~~
bsandert
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-...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty-is-left-
about-the-election/)

------
vnglst
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)

------
Overtonwindow
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
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
Which would - barring a spectacular twist - mean a Trump presidency and
disaster for millions.

~~~
Turing_Machine
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
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!

