ELECTIONATE AUGUST 24, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A widely publicized political science forecasting model by Ken Berry and Michael Bickers in Colorado projects that Romney should win big.
My take? Add it to the pile.
There are dozens of political science models. Some are good, some are bad. Some say Obama will win. Others say he will lose. Is there any reason to believe that this model is any better or worse than the others? At the very least, there’s not much reason to assume it’s any better than the competition. The press release reveals it’s predicted every election since 1980. If it hadn’t, that would be pretty embarrassing. In the eight presidential elections since 1980, six have been 7+ point blowouts in the two party vote. So all you need is a model that gets 2000 and 2004 right without missing the other six elections. Call it 2-0, in my book.
I can even prove that it’s not difficult: there are a million other political science models running around with a similar claim to accuracy over the last eight elections. And do those models point toward a clear Romney or Obama victory? In the aggregate, the political science models point toward a competitive race, but there are models showing a clear victory for either side. The Colorado model has a mirror-image counter by Drew Lizner of Emory University, who gives Obama a 99 percent chance of victory. The FiveThirtyEight model integrates economic variables and it finds Obama with a modest advantage, and so does a model built by John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, Seth Hill for the Washington Post. The famous Abramowitz “Time For a Change” model points toward an extraordinarily tight race. So, contrary to popular belief, the fundamentals do not clearly point to a victory for either side. And not only do the economic-based models show a tight race, Obama’s approval rating is at about 48 percent, which most agree is a product of fundamentals like economic performance.
Just for good measure, I have one specific issue with this particular model: it relies on different economic metrics for Democrats and Republicans. I won't dismiss the possibility that voters judge Democrats and Republicans by different economic standards, but it is highly suspect, at least in my judgment, to assume that the public responds differently to the parties based on so few elections. We only have a handful of post-war presidential elections and it's already tough to make highly confident models based on all the available data in the first place, let alone when you start treating half of the elections differently.
Do economic factors point toward a decisive Romney victory? Such a win is possible, but the fundamentals-based models point toward a close race. For every model showing Romney in the lead, there's a model going the other direction and there's no reason to presume that yesterday's model will prove any more accurate than its pro-Obama counterparts.
9 comments
The attention given to this model has been so depressing.
- Sophia
August 24, 2012 at 2:07pm
If it serves to warn against any dangerously lazy optimism, then that's ok by me. Plus it will be nice if the people touting this model end up with egg on their faces.
- ironyroad
August 24, 2012 at 2:16pm
Widely publicized? Where, in the Daily Caller, or Drudge? Romney's birther joke has been widely publicized. This new model hasn't been as widely publicized as people bitching at Niall Ferguson's misuse of CBO data or the New Black Panther Party.
- wildboy
August 24, 2012 at 4:17pm
It's been prominently posted on Huffpost/AOL for days now. A DEPRESSING SIGHT. But, my astrology has an opposing opinion. Whew:)
- Sophia
August 24, 2012 at 4:47pm
It seems to me that a model like this more useful at predicting the general contours of the election (it's hard for an encumbent when the economy sucks) than the specific outcome (who will win). To put it less charitably, the model tells us what we already knew (that the fundamentals are against the incumbent), but doesn't take into account the particulars of this election (that the challenger is particlarly weak).
- NateG
August 25, 2012 at 9:54am
"voters judge Democrats and Republicans by different economic standards," Republican actions are judged under a different standard because they govern differently from Democrats. Consider Cheney's financial arrangements with Halliburton and the invasion of Iraq; the Republicans injury to the economy from the debt ceiling and other fights; and Romney's top rate tax cuts and repeal of the estate tax. In those situations, evidence is missing which would dispute the suspect self interest of Republican political activities and the intentions are not sufficiently questioned. But a birth certificate, which has as its sole purpose to prove live birth, is insufficient to do so.
- Nusholtz
August 25, 2012 at 10:55am
This model doesn't mean much. I go by polls that show which way the public is trending on different issues. On economics, a recent CBS poll shows that the public has gotten wise to supply-side economics. By a margin of 56% to 37%, those polled favor spending on education and infrastructure, while proposing that rich people and businesses pay for it in the form of new taxes. Supply-side economics simply don't work. G.W. Bush proved that (he proved so many negatives!). Finally, it's general knowledge. But will this new knowledge gained by the public produce a win for Obama? Who knows? People often vote (and invest) against their own better judgement. At any rate, I know one thing for sure. Romney may win, but he won't win big. Berry and Bickers better tweak their model.
- magboy47.
August 25, 2012 at 5:04pm
It's Ken Bickers and Michael Berry.
- denicolo
August 25, 2012 at 5:46pm
The Right is trying everything including a "documentary," supposedly a Dire Prediction of America in 2016 should Obama win, which is pulling in big numbers at the box office. Let's see - what other political party had its own propaganda films.
- Sophia
August 26, 2012 at 3:26pm