Politico is out with a piece that questions the feeling among political junkies that Hillary Clinton WILL BE the next US President….
It points to several predictive methods that say….
Statistical models are based to different things….Past elections, incumbent’s approval ratings, economic growth…..Others use campaign strategy and tactics….And some just use daily polling period….
These model’s are just projections…..
Very few get it right this far out….
But the pieces seem to back up my feeling that the two people running WILL BE from the ‘mainstream’ of the party….I use the words establishment favored….
The bottom line of the piece is that Hillary Clinton may not in fact be the favorite even of we political junkies and the media seem to THINK she is….
The biggest assumption that all the models make is that Republicans and Democrats will nominate someone from the mainstream of their party—and that might amount to a fatal flaw in predicting 2016, when the GOP could pick a candidate, such as Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, who’s not favored by the establishment.
And other potential problems lurk: Models that suggest Clinton would earn 49 percent of the vote come with a margin of error that might make the difference; [Alan] Abramowitz worries that because there have been only six modern-day presidential elections in which no incumbent from either party is running, his model’s sample size might be too small; and in a race between Clinton and an equally talented, outsized personality, such as Jeb Bush, the qualities of the individual candidates might matter more.
But conceding that the models aren’t perfect isn’t the same as saying they’re not effective. When I talked with [Drew] Linzer, I argued that Clinton has an advantage. It comes down to women, I said, especially educated white women who, early polling shows, have a special affinity for the former senator and first lady. How can the GOP hope to persuade enough members of this group to break away to win swing states such as Colorado and Pennsylvania?
“It’s just way more complicated than that,” Linzer said. “For every argument that you can pick out of the cross-tabs, I can pick a counterargument. Off the top of my head: She’s not going to earn the same enthusiasm that Obama did among nonwhite voters.”
As he put it, our brains trick us into believing things that seem plausible but don’t hold up to scrutiny. It might seem plausible that Clinton is a favorite, but the historical record simply says otherwise.
“I’m sorry,” Linzer said, “to rain on your thought parade.”
Because, yes, to the scientists, it’s not our thoughts about this election that count. It’s the data.
Alan Abramowitz…a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta…
Drew Linzer….. a political scientist who is an independent analyst in Berkeley, California.