Oxford Economics was founded in 1981.
Posted on 05/21/2020 4:39:12 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
New York (CNN Business)The economy has gone from President Donald Trump's greatest political asset to perhaps his biggest weakness.
Unemployment is spiking at an unprecedented rate. Consumer spending is vanishing. And GDP is collapsing. History shows that dreadful economic trends like these spell doom for sitting presidents seeking reelection.
The coronavirus recession will cause Trump to suffer a "historic defeat" in November, a national election model released Wednesday by Oxford Economics predicted.
The model, which uses unemployment, disposable income and inflation to forecast election results, predicts that Trump will lose in a landslide, capturing just 35% of the popular vote. That's a sharp reversal from the model's pre-crisis prediction that Trump would win about 55% of the vote. And it would be the worst performance for an incumbent in a century.
"It would take nothing short of an economic miracle for pocketbooks to favor Trump," Oxford Economics wrote in the report, adding that the economy will be a "nearly insurmountable obstacle for Trump come November."
The model has correctly predicted the popular vote in every election since 1948 other than 1968 and 1976 (although two candidates lost the popular vote but won the presidency in that span, including George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016).
(Excerpt) Read more at ntknetwork.com ...
(although two candidates lost the popular vote but won the presidency in that span, including George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016).
Bill Clinton won the popular vote?
Due to the Virus model showing 2.2 million dead,
Probably projecting these deaths into new dem voters.
CNN = used toilet paper
It used to be “polls.” Now it’s “models.”
The markets are artifically being propped up by all this coronavirus spending CONgress is shoving through the system.
The left likes to advertise themselves as intellectuals, as the smartest people in the room. (I know, I know... Well, it does have comedic value...) They've even hurled "anti-science" insults at conservatives - particularly when we question their climate "models."
This latest round of "modeling" - of rigging something up in a computer and trying to pass it off as "SCIENCE!" seems to be a new tactic. Put together any propaganda you want, then claim there's a computer model that shows this is what is going to happen - rally the troops! Because we all know, if it is in a computer it's got to be right. {snort} Don't question your betters, this is science, the computer told me so...
Yes. Both times.
46%
He did. Popular vote plurality.
He got the most votes. That's called 'winning'.
Disgruntled and misguided conservatives voted for Perot and handed Clinton the victory
The campaign directed at Biden hasn't begun yet. When the nominations are formally determined, all Trump will need to do is point across the stage at the senile buffoon who drooling in his oatmeal and babbling incoherently and ask the country "is that what you want"? And then look at his VP pick who will be an AA pick. All he will need to do is point at someone like Stacey Abrams and stress that this woman will be a heartbeat away. That should be enough to get Trump over the top though people who think he will win by a landslide are delusional. Trump is awful at messaging despite accomplishing good things. To most of America, perception is reality. Oh he will win, but it will be by a razor thin margin because that's how America thinks (feels) these days.
The bigger concern should be the Senate. We know the Dems are going to cheat by such things as mail in voting (ripe for fraud), ballot harvesting, and out and out fraud in big cities. If the Dems take the Senate and retain the house, then look for impeachment part deux and none of initiatives being passed. I hope has his veto pen sharpened
It's true that without Perot then Bush likely cruises to victory in 1992. In 1996 it's not so certain.
What ever happened to Al Gore’s models? The ObamaCare models? The Election models of 2016? Are the Victoria’s Secret Models even working?
Such a model would be equally stupid.
And what, CNN, would a Democrat do to better the economy? Tax the rich? Make people “pay their fair share”? Extra tax burdens on large and small businesses? Basic minimum (government) income? $20/hour minimum wage?
The model would be right if it were not so hopelessly and idiotically out of context.
People don’t BLINDLY blame presidents for things outside of their control. They also will remember that Trump fixed things faster and more comprehensively than ever before.
Nevermind the blithering idiot he’s running against who has never fixed a thing in the 50 years he’s been suckling at the teat.
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.