Posted on 11/10/2016 11:44:38 AM PST by Strac6
Once-obscure political science professor Helmut Norpoth is now basking in the sweet glow of success — and newfound fame — after confidently predicting way back in February that Donald Trump was virtually guaranteed to win the 2016 presidential election.
Norpoth, a faculty member at Stony Brook University, announced his prognostication that Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton some 262 days ago. He asserted a confidence level of 97 percent in what he calls the Primary Model, he said.
On Tuesday, the professor’s prophecy was proven right. Voter intent doesn’t matter, he said. Instead, the things that really matter are excitement among primary voters and certain cyclical patterns.
“Nearly all of us say, oh yes, I’ll vote, and then many will not follow through,” Norpoth told the website.
“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth initially said in February, according to The Statesman, the campus newspaper at Stony Brook, a public bastion on New York’s Long Island.
“When I started out with this kind of display a few months ago, I thought it was sort of a joke,” the professor told an alumni audience. “Well, I’ll tell you right now, it ain’t a joke anymore.”
“Take it to the bank,” he added.
Norpoth specifically predicted that Trump had a 97 percent chance of beating Democrat Hillary Clinton and a 99 percent chance of beating Bernie Sanders, a socialist running as a Democrat.
In the many months since Norpoth first trumpeted his forecast, he has made countless media appearances.
The professor did turn out to be considerably wrong about the voting percentages. He said Trump receive 54.7 percent of the popular vote to Clinton’s 45.3 percent.
Norpoth, a 1974 University of Michigan Ph.D. recipient who specializes in electoral behavior alignment, said his data pointed to a 61-percent chance that the Republican nominee — Trump or not — would win the 2016 presidential election.
Norpoth’s general election formula measures candidates’ performances in primaries and caucuses to gauge party unity and excitement. It also focuses on patterns in electoral cycles. One major assumption is that the party which just held the presidency for two consecutive terms is less likely to win a third term.
The model has been correct for every election since 1912 except for the 1960 election — which pitted John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon.
He has said he has used the model in recent times to predict Bill Clinton’s victories as well as George W. Bush’s wins and Barack Obama’s wins.
In total, Norpoth observed, the forecasting formula he has created has been correct 96.1 percent of the time since 1912.
He is wrong about one thing.
I have always voted. I have never said/thought i was going to vote, and didnt do it.
I dont think nearly everyone says this, he is wrong about that.
Give me Dr Norpoth over Nate Silver any day
Havent people said nixon may have actually won in 1960?
I’d guess that if you took fraud out of the picture, the good professors projected percentages would be darned close.
He probably wasn’t wrong about the voting percentages, given the level of voter fraud perpetrated by the Dims.
The size and enthusiasm of Trump’s rallies said it all, to me, and the fact that they never petered out like Cankles’ did.
Vote fraud in the vote-rich, Dem-controlled big cities could account for the near tie in popular vote.
Dark helmut rules the universe.
Don't put words into his mouth - his words were "nearly all of us" and it may be an over-generalization but not by much.
His reasoning stood up. That is, the party primaries predict the actual election in terms of turnout.
The Dems has several million fewer votes 2016 compared to 2008, 2012. The Dem primary turnout predicted this. The Republican had about the same number of votes in 2016, so any gloating is at our peril.
Well, it may have been right that time, too, save for some shenanigans.
My brother in law wrote a small book last December saying why Trump would be elected.
His reasoning back then was exactly how it happened!
Nixon absolutely did win in 1960.
In early December 1960, FBI Special Agents brought VP Nixon proof that Mayor Daley had stuffed the Chicago ballot boxes with enough bogus votes to steal the Illinois victory, and the UAW had done the same with the Michigan vote, which gave the election to Kennedy. Hoover hated Bobby Kennedy and wanted to go public with the data and indictments.
Nixon said no, the nation thought it has elected the Bold and Beautiful Kennedy. Such disclosure would make Nixon president of an ungovernable country... and the Electoral Collage might still have gone for JFK.
I know this because, after retiring from the Bureau, two of the SAs involved became lecturers at my law school.
It could be a circumstance thing.
When I was living on a shoe string as a contractor in Maryland (but still a legal resident of Illinois) in November 2012, I wanted to vote (Mitt) but ended up not bothering to get the absentee ballot.
Since I first became eligible to vote I've never missed an election held in November of an even year.I've either gone to a polling place or have cast an absentee ballot.My attitude is that if I fail to vote I relinquish my right to criticize office holders.
You are right. See # 15
Nearly all of us, means nearly ALL of us.
That is a gross over estimate. That is the phrase people use when rationalizing something, hey we all do it. Mthey dont mean literally everyone, but when pressed, say ok, almost or nearly everyone.
Reminds me of Rather's "Fake but true" spin.
If it makes you feel better - you're right and I'm wrong ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.