James Pethokoukis
Economic forecasting model: Obama will lose in near-landslide
Political scientist Douglas Hibbs looks at two factors when forecasting presidential elections: a) per capita real disposable personal income over the incumbent president’s term, and b) cumulative U.S. military fatalities in overseas conflicts.
And he’s predicting a near-landslide win for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, with Obama losing by about as big a margin this time around as he won back in 2008. Under Hibbs Bread and Peace model, Romney wins 52.5% to Obama’s 47.5%.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I have a dartboard that predicted the very same thing.
HawaiiLwyr on August 2, 2012 at 1:03 PM
I’m curious as to how this will work out in individual states, especially in ones with Senate elections down-ticket.
teke184 on August 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM
From your lips to the Lord’s ears.
Tacitus on August 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM
That sure would be nice.
changer1701 on August 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM
FIFY.
nobar on August 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Not that I think the model doesn’t apply here; but it didn’t correctly predict in two of the past four elections. Doesn’t seem like it fits real well with modern campaigning.
Also, how does it predict elections without incumbents? Was Gore considered the incumbent?
Anyway, neat idea; hopefully this tracks with reality.
John_Locke on August 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM
cue Stevie Nicks….
ted c on August 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM
I don’t think economic models will work as they have in this election as they have in previous elections because too many people are invested in Obama. They wouldn’t care if we had -5% GDP and 13% unemployment, he has their vote for other reasons.
The coalition he is building (gays, welfare recipients, women, public employees, utopians, OWS, etc.) doesn’t care about macroeconomic issues.
mankai on August 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Okay… in whose lexicon is a 5 point difference a “near-landslide”?
JohnGalt23 on August 2, 2012 at 1:11 PM
Maybe its just me, but winning by 5.5 points is not a landslide. Its just above the margin of error.
Show me 70-30. Thats a landslide.
BobMbx on August 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Well then, we are all going to have to work harder to make sure Obama loses in a MASSIVE LANDSLIDE!
We need to send a very clear message to make sure America never sends a Socialist to the White House again.
wren on August 2, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Given recent previous elections, it’s a landslide.
John_Locke on August 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM
I’m hoping white guilt is causing the polls to overstate Obama’s competitiveness. It’s one thing to give an answer to a pollster on a phone, which is when people may not want to be perceived as racist. It’s quite another to answer the same question in the privacy of your own voting booth.
The Rogue Tomato on August 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM
I don’t know about 70-30, but I think we’ll see something close to that in November when 0bama gets shown the door.
Seriously, I don’t see how he can win, not matter how much voter fraud he and his supporters can pull off, given his dismal record of the past 4 years.
UltimateBob on August 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM
People claim that Obama’s election proved we were post-racial. Quite the opposite. Kicking his sorry a$$ out in the street will really prove that.
SKYFOX on August 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM
This is racist…in other words there is no real retort.
MoreLiberty on August 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM
I guess since 53-47% was touted as a landslide last time around, 52.5% – 47.5% is a near landslide.
princetrumpet on August 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM
Actually I think the lines at Chic-Fil-A yesterday were a better indicator if what will come in November.
NeoKong on August 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM
This is the only indicator you need.
John the Libertarian on August 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM
Don’t underestimate people’s stupidity.
I think it will be close but I’m pretty confident that Romney will win.
John_Locke on August 2, 2012 at 1:21 PM
Does anybody really want to hear about the “Romney Revolution” 20 years from now?
I can deal with a victory, not a landslide.
Axeman on August 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Five points is a “landslide”?
MadisonConservative on August 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM
My prediction, fwiw: Romney by at least 4 points. Anything more will surprise me.
greggriffith on August 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM
There won’t be anything near about it.
tom daschle concerned on August 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM
I doubt it. First, Obama will still get 90% or more of the black vote. He’ll also get the votes of a majority of other minorities. And Obama will get 99% of the dead and fictitious persons vote.
After that, there’s just the stupid vote. Unfortunately, this is a huge demographic. Just watch the video interviews of voters from the 2008 election. Most of these people got all the answers about Sarah Palin and Congress wrong, and a lot of these people didn’t even know who Joe Biden was. So the stupid demographic doesn’t know the issues. All they hear from the MSM is that everything is the fault of George W. Bush, and Obama saved us from an even bigger depression.
The Rogue Tomato on August 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM
For what it’s worth, my model that assumes a uniform swing in all states resulting in a Romney victory of 5% (a 12.3% swing from 2008) yields an electoral count of Romney 316, Obama 222. Romney would carry the McCain states plus NC, IN, NE-2, FL, OH, VA, CO, IA, NH, MN, PA, and ME-2.
My model that assumes variable swings in different states based on party ID shifts from 2008 through 2011 that also results in a 5% Romney margin yields basically the same scenario, but with WI (10 EV) also being added to the Romney column (326-212).
NV, NM, NJ, OR, MI, WA and CT remain Obama states in both scenarios.
steebo77 on August 2, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Let’s not start chucking each other’s rocks yet, gentlemen.
lorien1973 on August 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Landslides in presidential elections are never that lopsided in the popular vote, though they can be in the electoral vote.
The biggest popular vote wipeout in history was LBJ over Goldwater by something like 61-38, but that was “only” an EV result of 486-52.
Nixon in ’72 and Reagan in ’84 both got less than LBJ’s 61% but each nearly swept the EV total at 520-17 for Nixon over McGovern and 525-13 for Reagan over Mondale.
teke184 on August 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM
There won’t be any election results for months. King Obama will challenge the results for every state that has voter i.d. laws.
JPeterman on August 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM
I agree, but I remember that quote differently.
Nick_Angel on August 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Yep, this is a good indicator and Hibbs model has been pretty accurate. You’ll probably see liberals hanging on to Nate Silvers criticisms of Hibbs, Nate Silver is not a political scientist. Silvers model is a modified Kremlin Kitchen Sink approach that ultimately relies on the polls to do the predicting.
msmveritas on August 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Ha! I was humming that when I read your post.
magicbeans on August 2, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Here’s the joke of using electoral votes as an indicator of “landslideness”
If I win 50% plus 1 vote in every state, I win by 50 votes. And I collect all 435 electoral votes.
In the next election, I win 100% of the vote in all 50 states. I collect all 435 electoral votes.
In the common usage of ‘landslide’, both elections were landslide victories.
BobMbx on August 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Check this chart out. h/t Political Math
Show it to your Obama Cultist friends! Good times.
visions on August 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM
“Economic forecasting models” don’t take into account that the Boy King is black. As shown in 2008, that has much more influence on his electability than anything sane.
KS Rex on August 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM
yeah, i don’t thin modeling is going to work this time. this is political philosophy 101…two countries, two visions. Makers, takers, or call it want ever you want
This country has weathered many storms…and hopefully will weather the incoming storms ok….so that in 50 years we will right ourselves and throw off the yoke of yesterday’s history
r keller on August 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Interesting model, but lots of wild cards. It’s somewhat refreshing that Hibbs is honest enough to report a result that he apparently doesn’t care for.
The MSM love affair with The Won is the biggest worry for me. Even though they supported Gore, it was nothing like the swooning over Obama, and they were a major driver of the “charming” Bill Clinton and “foreboding” Bob Dole images.
peski on August 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Yeah, but the model assumes that a sitting president would not actually lie in his rhetoric and ads.
MaggiePoo on August 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Lizzie Warren to Obama:
“What’s this ‘near’ Paleface”
ToddPA on August 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Lizzie Warren to Obama:
“What’s this ‘near’ Paleface”
ToddPA on August 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM
update: she was appealing to his White half, geez!
ToddPA on August 2, 2012 at 2:28 PM