The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (80 comments)

  1. The model’s been wrong in 2 out of 4 past elections. Wouldn’t that indicate that it doesn’t do well with modern campaigns?

    Also, how does it predict when there aren’t incumbents?

    It’s an interesting model, and given the current circumstances (a terrible economy) I think it would be very well suited for predicting this election.

  2. We can only hope Jim, we can only hope!

  3. Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    “…with Obama losing by about as big a margin in 2012 as he won back in 2008.”

    If this comes to pass, it would be a fitting end to his dishonorable time in office.

  4. Bill Carson

    As much as I’d like to believe this could be true, I put no value on it, especially tying the election to cumulative military fatalities. That makes no sense at all. Nevertheless, we should all make sure we vote for Romney in November, unless we want to continue this path toward European socialism which ain’t worked out none too good there.

    1. It’s working great in Germany.

      1. Thomas Sullivan

        Where else is the socialist system working?

      2. Just wait for the euro to collapse, Rico, and THEN see how great Germany is doing…

      3. Do you know any germans and have you lived like them? This is a common beliefe but Germans are Germans and Americans are Americans. Culture matters. I was just there. Even the socialists there – the takers that live off of the productive sector – think the healthcare system is broken and could and should be better. Just like all others they have created a well functioning welfare state THAT WILL WORK FOR ONE GENERATION! And then what? Do you not recognize that our attempst at this – social securoty and medicare and medicaid are not only broke but immoral? The welfare state steals from the producers and promotes a life of ease which saps ambition from all. Even the Saxon cultures cannot keep it going. It will fail. The only question is what comes after.

  5. i dont want to get too hopeful, but i will postpone taking the gaspipe until after the election.

  6. Babar Jincks

    The economy is not that bad. 92% employment is pretty darn good despite the previous administration’s complete wrecking of it. And the pointless wars are being wrapped up. I would be very surprised if President Obama doesn’t win handily.

    1. No one going to win handily.

    2. MarkinGermany

      Are you HONESTLY saying that you believe we have 92% REAL employment…or just that you are too stupid to look at the U6 unemployment numbers at about 16%? Just out of curiosity, are you drinking the grape flavored kool-aid? That stuff can be deadly! And it was the LIBTARDS in the House and Senate in 2007 that wrecked the economy, not Bush! Just because you lie, it doesn’t make it so!

    3. Yes, Babar, the economy is bad. I’m glad you, personally, are doing okay, but if you’re one of the extra 4% that is unemployed (we’re talking MILLIONS, here), you might re-think your incredibly naive position. And it’s not just enemployment — it’s housing starts, new construction, manufacturing, medical costs, etc that are being HAMMERED by Obama’s european socialist policies.
      Fnially, the previous admiinstration’s economy was coasting along fine at 5% unenmployment until the Dems took control of Congress.

    4. Thomas Sullivan

      The 2010 elections surprised many people too, but they immediately forgot the results, and are now poised to receive the same message. It too will be ignored or forgotten.

    5. must live in D.C. and work for the gummint. Out here in Realityville, it sucks. Obama is history, old chum, washed out by the same roiling tide that washed him in.

    6. Babar,

      Please tell me what kind of ganja you’re smoking, because it must be some gooooooooooo s***.

      Here’s a practical exercise: check out some YouTube videos of Obama whining about Bush’s handling of the economy back in those bad of old days of, oh say, 2004-2007 when unemployment was a hideous 5%. If you pretend you’re a normal person and look at the vids objectively…you’ll think Obama has gone totally starkers.

      Come on, Babar, and take a look. I double dare ya.

    7. Bobloblaw

      GHW Bush, Carter and Ford lost with 93% employment

      1. TheWholeEnchilada

        Carter would have lost with 100% employment.

        There is nothing on this planet that can save an incumbent when double-digit inflation is the norm.

        Ford’s campaign suffered because SNL made him look like a bumbling oaf. Sometimes bad publicity is worse than no publicity at all and Ford proved the exception. Anyway, he wasn’t really an incumbent.

    8. There’s actually a statistic that shows what you want, and it’s not 92%.

      This is the labor force participation rate, and it’s not 92% by a long shot. It’s more like 50% – meaning of all adults, about one of two actually have a job.

      A very, very, very bad statistic for the country.

  7. It is incorrect to say “the betting markets forecast an Obama win.” At present the volume on these markets like InTrade is so low as to be useless as a predictive tool.

    The entire concept of this sector is high volumes of contracts. See what they are predicting in October when the volumes are 100x current ones.

  8. This model assumes that people are just as likely to blame Obama for a body bag in 2012 as they were to blame Bush in 2008, which make no sense, since Bush started the wars and Obama was opposed to them.

    It assumes the same for the economy. But, in 2008, the electorate blamed Bush almost exclusively for the economy. In 2012, polls show that blame is split, with Bush *still* getting the bulk of the blame. That proportion has been shrinking, but it doesn’t look like it will past the 50% mark by November. Even if it does, it doesn’t hold the same 100% rate that it did for Bush in 2008.

    1. Smartuckus

      Excuse me, but Obama was not opposed to the wars – he was in favor of the Afghani war. And let’s face it, the only reason he was opposed to the Iraq war is because it was politically expedient to be. Had he wetted his finger, held it up to measure the political winds and found them blowing in favor of the Iraq war, he would have supported it too.

      And let’s also get real about who started the wars; it was the terrorists. In fact, Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire on almost daily basis for 12 straight years. We should have taken him out long before, but we had a Democrat in office, the same Democrat who couldn’t bring himself to take Bin Laden when he was offered up on a silver platter.

      You are also dealing with a more informed public now than back in 2008. People are realizing that the economy was great until the Democrat Congressional infestation that began in 2007. That’s when the spending spree began. People have also had time to learn and understand the link between the Comminity Fair Housing Act (Carter and Clinton- AGAIN more Democrats) and the housing bubble. Blaming Wall Street may have been opportunistic and popular, but it wasn’t really that honest.
      And that’s the crux of the matter. There isn’t an honest Democrat politician alive in these United States. Republicans aren’t much better, but at least there are still some, and we’re finally starting to see them upstage the establishment types.
      The only way Obama doesn’t lose in a landslide come November is voter fraud.

    2. Anna Keppa

      Barack has never been opposed to the war in Afghanistan, and the Left is having trouble dealing with that.

      BTW: where did you get that “100% blamed Bush” factoid? Bush didn’t crash the banks — Barney Frank and the Dems did that, by forcing banks to offer mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them. Disagree? Well, OK. But you will get a lot of people to agree with me, ergo your 100% claim is bogus.

      1. Bobloblaw

        So presidents aren’t responsible for anything g that happens in their first term?

        1. Bush warned congress 17 times. Too bad the democrats would do nothing about it.
          and… Clinton started sub prime.
          I say this as a mortgage professional for 25 years.

        2. Not if they are Republicans, Boloblaw, only if they are Democrats.

      2. > Barney Frank and the Dems did that, by forcing banks to
        > offer mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them

        Banks were never the problem.

  9. Luckily for our country I don’t think there’s much to this model.

    We cannot afford to go back to the same policies that created the mess in the first place.

    1. lolol, precisely why we need Republicans in Wash. period, no Dems.

    2. AD-RtR/OS!

      Yes, it is imperative that the excesses allowed by Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, at Fannie and Freddie be reined in, so that the home-owner market can return to the stable model that existed prior to CRA, and its expansion under Clinton/Cuomo.
      That is what you meant, right?

    3. Bobloblaw

      You mean the excesses created by Alan Greenspan and Ben bernanke. Also if there is nothing to this model why has it done relatively well. The two errors 1996 and 2000 are in the center on the line not towards the ends. Also 1996 predicted the winner But Clinton over performed.

  10. Dennis F. Brophy

    1st of all this poll is based a two party vote, but factoring the tea party that`s 5% less going to Romney, it still looks like Obama`s going to win anyway. Romney`s got negative written all over it. And I`m a Republican. Ron Paul`s got the only real chance of winning against Obama. And this poll`s got alot of fact`s in it that are not so to the Real numbers vs Bogus numbers. see

  11. me thinks it matters a damn who gets elected president. no one in congress, where laws are written and budgets passed, wants to take any meaningful action to significantly reduce the amount of money we have to borrow, much less figure out how in the wide wide world of sports we are going to pay back what we owe the suc…fine folks who have lent us over 15 trillion $$$
    an obama re election will be like riding a bike off a cliff….a romney election will be like riding a bike down a steep hill with no brakes…
    either way, when you get to the bottom, it is not going to be pleasant, or pretty.

  12. Ferd Berfel

    I just looked at POLLINGREPORT.COM and in virtually every poll, Obama is ahead by a couple of points. As it stands now, I don’t see a Romney win. What I can’t figure out is why Obama is ahead with a consistant unemployment rate of 8%. What, in God’s name, is going on????

    1. Voter fraud

    2. Over sampling of liberals and democrats?

  13. higgins1990

    47% is far too generous. Obama will not garner more than 44% of the popular vote, and that includes ACORN hijinks and Democratic ballot-box stuffing.

  14. The biggest problem with this model is that the public is virtually unaware of military fatalities. Military fatalities were a front-page story for the last 5 years of the Bush administration, but the second Barack Obama took office, they disappeared from the newspapers and television news entirely. Hardly anyone knows that U.S. soldiers are being killed at a higher rate under Obama than under Bush, so any analysis based on the absolute numbers of war casualties, as opposed to public awareness of war casualties has to be suspect.

  15. Bobloblaw

    According to this formula the GOP actually seriously underperformed in 2000 and 2004 and slightly underperformed in 2008. If the GOP underperforms as much in 2012 as in 2000, Obama will narrowly win. Changing demographics mean a dem can run in a worse environment and still win.

    1. Bobloblaw

      Sorry I am wrong the Dems underperformed in 2000 . But my point is changing demographics mean the Dems have a lower threshold to win than does the GOP.

      1. Rush Limbaugh speculates that with generous welfare programs, the unemployment rate isn’t as devastating as in previous cycles. Which makes him sound like one of the mean, selfish 1%, but he could still be correct.

  16. Every other race has been between two white men, but race is a factor in this one. That changes a lot, with the media coverage being the least of it.
    Race is a bigger factor in American life than anything that has ever been in play during an American presidential election before. On those grounds alone, I’d ignore the previous model (speaking as a card-carrying prob/stat guy).

  17. Clinton only received 49.2% of vote in 1996 – why does it show 55%.

    1. Mike Whitty

      Re “Clinton only received 49.2% of vote in 1996 – why does it show 55%.”

      The left-hand vertical axis is marked “Incumbent share of two-party vote,” not “share of total vote”. In 1996, Ross Perot and some other independents picked up enough of the total vote to make Clinton’s 49.2% of the total vote into 55% of the combined Dem-GOP vote.

  18. Tulsa Jack

    No one who leans toward re-electing the odious, disloyal, lying fraud in the White House deserves much respect for their opinions, no matter how “scientific.”

    Mr. Pethokokis’s analysis is overly simplified, pussy-footing around the obvious. There are many more significant variables at work here that the two he cites as proxies. His two point to a Rat wipe-out. What happens when we admit that in the real world there are at least ten other factors as well, just as powerful, all tending to the same conclusion?

    A big part of Obozo’s legacy is likely to be the end of the so-called “Democrat” Party. There is nothing democratic about these gangsters, and the sooner America is rid of them the better for all of us, D-Rats included.

  19. “incumbent Democratic Party candidate Gore”.

    I don’t think you understand the term “incumbent” the way most people understand it.

    1. Mike Whitty

      True, this is not using “incumbent” in the typical way, but there’s a rational explanation.

      The author is looking for a way to more consistently present his model for every election, including those where the incumbent president did not run (whether because of the 22d Amendment, or because of an otherwise eligible president’s choice not to run, as in 1952 and 1968). So, he treats the candidate of the incumbent president’s party as the de facto incumbent for that election.

  20. Patrick DeBurgh

    This predictive model is more than a little deficient in credibility. The severe bias of the modeler is hard to overlook.

    I really have a hard time seeing the utility of the whole thing. Other than being a limp noodle with which to flog the true believers on the right, what good is it? Of course AEI is in the business of putting out rightist propaganda but these sort of products convince no one who isn’t already on board. Perhaps bucking up the boys on the bandwagon is the purpose, no?

  21. The amusing thing is that anyone could create a model showing exactly the opposite result, if you just used different cherry-picked variables. Liars, damn liars, and statisticians, ya know. Nice try, though, it certainly feeds well into confirmation bias.

    1. Rajinder Goyal

      And this article fits what you are saying, a total abberation from reality.

  22. i don’t get this at all. what is the correlation between what he does with the “bread” and “peace” quantities he comes up with and presidential vote shares? this model looks like something that used to work when there was a correlation between bad economies and “throw the bums out.” in more recent years this correlation doesn’t hold up. the correlation today is between tough economies and voters favoring more government assistance in those tough economies. that is what hibbs’s own data seem to bear out, with the notable outliers appearing to have occurred since 1996, and correlation reliability seeming to have occurred (but now absent) back in the 1950s and 1960s. like it or lump it, we live in a new america. it used to be that when times were tough, voters wanted jobs. today, when times are tough, voters want handouts. the failure to recognize this cataclysmic shift in the general american attitude is the core fault of what hibbs is doing. and it’s why obama’s margin will continue to increase as the economy gets even worse.

  23. I am doing all that I can do to insure this man is correct about Obama losing big. Everyone who cherishes their blood-bought Liberty should work for a landslide victory over all things Democrat; otherwise the voter-fraud that has become a favorite Democrat-tactic will enable Democrats to continue their subornation of murder (Fast & Furious) and tyranny (EPA & Executive Orders). The international Left and their acolytes in the U.S. Democrat Political Party should be repudiated in the strongest possible terms. In America, Democrat leaders and followers are the #1 enemies of Liberty & individualty. The Democrat Political Party has become a party of tryanny, terror, oppression & death. Repudiate & defeat the Democrat at every level: city, county, state, federal.

    1. Awesome comment. 100% true. Or using democrat stats, 240% true.

  24. Here’s an even simpler analysis, short on statistics but long on sense:

    Just sayin’.

  25. The government is going to win

    1. Rajinder Goyal

      This write-up goes totally against all the polls that have been published since the campaign started in January. Not one poll has shown R=Money winning. This includes CNN, Time, Huffington Post, MSNBC, CBS, NY Times, Washinghton Post, Politico, RCP, and the list goes on and on. So, either this one model is totally out of whack, or, everyone else in the country is wrong.

      The most exhaustive analysis is carried out by Nate Silver of NY Times and it shows Obama gaining as time goes on. So, I wouldn’t place my bet on this one sided article especially when it says that Romney will win by a landslide. Go back and do your homework again.

      1. Sam Shultz
  26. From Mr. Hibbs’ graph to God’s mind.

    1. gunnar myrdal

      From God’s mind to Dr. Hibbs’ graph.

  27. It’s been 3 and 1/2 years and I have not seen 1 news report of 1 single fatality in Afghanistan nor Iraq. Seems like Jan. 2009 the war ended. How does that factor into the graph ? Google ‘Code Pink’ seems like they folded in 2008.

    1. I guess the nation guard guys who died a couple weeks ago in afghanistan didnt happen then eh?

    2. MikeTheTerror

      Google it buddy:
      There have been 1,188 U.S. military deaths in the Afghan war since Barack Obama was sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the database tally of casualties.

      That is a 208 percent increase from the 569 deaths that occurred in the war during the two terms of President George W. Bush.

    3. MikeTheTerror

      In Iraq, approximately 261 came on Obama’s watch, or about 6 percent of the total.

    4. MikeTheTerror

      Man I think your Googler is broken:….yup, they’re still around…

      1. Sure they are around. You just don’t get to see them because they love Obama and the press till not tolerate any form of apostate behavior when it comes to their messiah.

  28. You forgot to factor in the madness of the MSM…No way they’ll let O lose.

  29. richard40

    On purely objective factual terms, like the horrible state of the country, and the measurable results of his programs, obama should lose. But who ever said dems were objective or worried about things like measurable success. hopefully there will be enough moderates out there that do though, and have not been brainwashed by the MSM.

  30. God, lets hope so… let the nightmare be over, please!!!!

  31. bob welke

    This is one article to save and revisit in November. This man is either a genius or a few chads short of a ballot.
    I know which way I’m betting.

  32. Incredibly silly. In order to win, Romney needs to get the majority of electoral votes. At this point, and at this rate, he is falling farther and farther behind. Unless there is something dramatic to shake this up negatively for Obama, he will win by a comfortable margin in the electoral college by narrowly winning battleground states, even if he is totally buried in the Red States and slips in the safe Blue States.

    1. Says who? PMSNBC? Obama has not even stammered his way through the first debate. He has not faced any serious questions from an adoring press. Romney, if anything, is not a dummy.

      Obama will look like a cheap huckster when faced with debating a seasoned and knowledgeable businessman.

    2. Having studied polling since 1978 we know the following is more than likely to play out.
      1. Pay no attention to polls that ask only “Registered Voters.” 1/3rd of which don’t even bother to show up and vote.
      2. The only polls that matter are “Likely Voters.”
      3. The incumbent always loses slightly more than 2% of vote from where they last polled in a Likely Voter Poll.
      4. 90% of the Undecided voters end up voting for the challenger.
      5. The incumbent usually ends up close to his approval number in the final percentage of the actual vote.
      Using this formula if you go state by state in the leaning or battleground states Romney is ahead in the electoral vote count 315 to Obama’s 201. In addition, if you take the daily Rasmussen tracking poll and use the above formula you will have as of today: Romney 50.6% to Obama’s 43%. Also, Obama’s current job approval is at 46%. Bread and Peace is pretty close to being on target.

  33. Michael Anthony K.

    Yes, I truly believe that now the momentum is shifting totally to Mr. Romney’s corner. You can feel it in the air. People are preparing for a new dawn. I truly believe that it will be another Reagan period of prosperity and job creation. I truly do. You can feel it. The first year for President Romney will be bumpy of course, but by the second year, we will be feeling the turnaround. Mr. Obama will be a one-term president; he’s ideas and his philosophy were too un-American. He just never got it.
    President Romney, I will be very happy to know that you are going to be our commander-in-chief.

  34. “But the model says what it says — even he kind of gently suggests Romney is another stiff, just like Dole and Gore.”

    So this economic-based model in which “stiff” candidates like Dole and Gore consistently under-perform is supposed to give us confidence in Romney? Winning in a landslide?

    It amazes me how people cannot grasp the simple fact that while a good (or even great) candidate won’t win you the election on that fact alone, a bad candidate can definitely lose an election by that fact alone.

  35. magnavox

    Romney needs to step it up. How? By raising his voice when he talks. We dont want or need another Jimmie C. Start talking with a louder voice instead of your current “soft” spoken volume. Just my thoughts. His message is there but not enough people are listening. START YELLING IT OUT… just like using captal letters when you type or send emails. RAISE YOUR VOICE. /Mikey

  36. Remember how all of Romney’s primary opponents were up by 5, 10, sometimes 15 points only a week or two before the elections? Romney hasn’t even STARTED yet (i.e.-can’t legally spend most of his $$ until the Convention)!! Wait until Urkel gets the “Gingrich” treatment in Sept. and October. It’s not going to be pretty, but, the fact of the matter is that even young voters don’t want to live as quasi-slaves under Socialism. They’re sick of fat bureaucrats trying to control their internet, eating, drinking, and energy use,etc……
    “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” -Barack Obama

  37. Paul Richard Strange Senior

    We are probably going to give the neo-cons another invasion and occupation, this time Iran, whether Obama is re-elected or replaced by Romney. I hope that you’re right about Romney winning by a landslide. Even though I am not a big Romney fan by any stretch, I do believe that the American nation will be better off if Romney wins………..provided he wins with a strong Republican Congress! Romney is a moderate who can govern well only if conservatism wins a mandate!

  38. Except that Obama, liberal as he is, is not beyond starting a short war to try to maintain his power. He has already scheduled American naval war games in the Persian Gulf for this September. If belligerent Iran cooperates, we could have a nice little patriotic shooting war, an address to Congress and a rally around the Flag, just in the weeks before the election. Obama’s popularity will rise for a short time and possibly give him a boost for election victory.

    Remember, for liberals. the ends-justify-the-means and they will allow some patriotic soldiers to die if it keeps themselves in power.

  39. George K. Stevens

    Models based on electoral trends and past history fail to take into account voter fraud and purposely changing the demnographic and economic dynamics, both of which can have a dramatic effect on electoral outcomes, especially in “winner-take-all” EC votes. The solution is proportional EC votes based on election results, making every state a player in every election.

  40. From your thoughts to Dick Morris’ and Rush Limbaugh’s ears . . .

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content