Clinton or Trump? Here’s What 7 Weird Prediction Methods Say.
August 7, 2016 - Finding Carter
When Nate Silver started examining presidential polls in 2007, it noted a commencement of a new epoch in domestic forecasting. Frustrated by what he saw as idle stating of indeterminate surveys, Silver set to work requesting his statistical astuteness to a 2008 presidential election. That March, he launched a site, FiveThirtyEight, where he weighted polls formed on their lane record and grown a forecasting indication formed on chronological trends and stream data—correctly presaging a formula 49 out of 50 states in that November’s Obama-McCain election.
Smart statistics had triumphed over uncertainty, and never again would a American people have to be needlessly surprised.
Story Continued Below
Then came a 2016 race, that defies expectations on a clearly daily basis. Early on, few expected Donald Trump would get a nomination. In September, Silver himself suggested to CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump had a roughly a 5 percent possibility of apropos a GOP standard-bearer (though in Silver’s defense, he done that prophecy before building his common ironclad statistical indication for a race).
In an choosing nobody could’ve foreseen, maybe it’s time to find a new prophecy model. Here are 7 of a strangest and many offbeat forecasting models in U.S. politics, and what they contend about who will win a Clinton-Trump ubiquitous election.
1. The Klofstad Model: How Deep Are a Candidates’ Voices?
Forget glamour and trustworthiness, a 2015 examination by University of Miami highbrow Casey Klofstad found that American group and women are some-more expected to opinion for a claimant with a deeper voice. Klofstad found support for this anticipating in a consult of 2012’s U.S. House elections, where possibilities with reduce outspoken ranges won a significantly incomparable share of votes than their squeakier competitors. There was, however, one caveat: When confronting a womanlike opponent, a possibilities with higher-pitched voices—particularly manly candidates—fared better.
What this means for 2016: Donald Trump, whose voice registers during 215hz, incited this indication on a conduct when, in a Republican primaries, he bested 13 manly contenders with deeper voices. The deepest-voiced candidate, John Kasich (147hz), wasn’t even Trump’s biggest competition; second-place finisher Ted Cruz, during a “whiny” 234hz, was a usually manly claimant with a higher-pitched voice than Trump. So far, if a Klofstad indication binds any predictive energy in 2016, things don’t demeanour good for Hillary Clinton: Trump’s comparatively high representation would theoretically play good conflicting a womanlike opponent.
2.The Abe Lincoln Advantage: Who’s Taller?
In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell reported that 14.5 percent of American group in a U.S. are 6 feet or taller, a soaring 58 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are during slightest 6 feet tall. For presidents, a story is a same. Several academic studies have shown that a taller presidential claimant has won about two-thirds of a time. Furthermore, presidents have, on average, been many taller than other group of their generation.
What this means for 2016: Both possibilities are high for their gender, though 6-foot-3 Trump still towers over Clinton, who was reportedly 5-foot-5 in 2008 though is now supposed to mount during 5-foot-7. What isn’t famous is how conflicting genders play into a equation, given we’ve never had a womanlike major-party presidential nominee. If low voices don’t do good conflicting women opponents, is a same loyal for height, another stereotypically manly characteristic? If so, Clinton might come out on top, even if she is shorter.
3. Rauch’s Rule: Has a Candidate Been in Elected Office for 14 Years or Longer?
In 2003, Jonathan Rauch of a National Journal posited that a claimant doesn’t get inaugurated boss if it took them some-more than 14 years to pierce from their initial vital bureau (representative, senator, governor, mayor, etc.) to a executive bend (president or clamp president). Sure enough, this matter is loyal for each boss given Teddy Roosevelt, with a difference of Lyndon B. Johnson. The American people, it turns out, wants gifted leaders, though not too experienced.
What this means for 2016: Clinton was initial inaugurated to a Senate in 2000, that means that she is usually past her 14-year death date. That said, it was usually 8 years after she assimilated a Senate that she became partial of a executive branch, despite as secretary of state. It gets even some-more difficult when we cruise a fact that Clinton entered a inhabitant spotlight prolonged before she became a senator. If your entrance on a inhabitant theatre was as initial lady, afterwards does that count toward a 14-year sell-by date? However we magnitude it, Clinton isn’t a domestic newcomer, that means that Trump would seem to have an corner on Clinton when it comes to a uninformed factor.
4. Home-State Disadvantage: Does a Candidate’s Party Control a Governor’s Seat?
After a 2010 elections, many domestic pundits suggested that a call of newly inaugurated Republican governors would assistance a celebration take behind a White House in 2012. There is small experimental evidence, however, to support a faith that a presidential hopeful is helped in states where his or her celebration controls a governor’s seat. In fact, one 2015 study found a conflicting to be true: On average, carrying a administrator of a same celebration in bureau translates to a 3 to 4 commission indicate chastisement for that party’s presidential hopeful in that state.
What this means for 2016: Of 2016’s expected pitch states, 7 have Republican governors, and 4 have Democrats. The 7 underneath Republican control also have significantly some-more electoral votes adult for grabs. If each bridgehead state was won by a claimant who doesn’t share a governor’s party, Clinton would win a choosing with 301 electoral votes to Trump’s 237.
5. Who’s Hosting a Olympics?
From boycotts during a Cold War to this year’s protests in Rio de Janeiro, a Olympic Games have always been political. Some even assume that it has an outcome on a hero of a U.S. presidential race: In each choosing given 1968 (other than 1988), if a nation hosting a summer games has already hosted an Olympics in a past, a obligatory celebration will reason on to a White House. But if a nation is hosting a Olympics for a initial time, a obligatory celebration is out of luck. (Just omit a 1988 exception.)
What this means for 2016: Unfortunately for Clinton, 2016 is not usually a initial time Brazil is hosting a Olympics, it is a initial time any South American nation is hosting. Therefore, it is protected to assume that, exclusive a 1988-like exception, Trump will win in a landslide.
6. Did a Lakers play in a NBA Finals?
In each choosing given 1960 (except 2008), a Republicans have won a White House if—and usually if—the Los Angeles Lakers played in that year’s NBA Finals. They don’t need to win a championship; they usually need to be one of a dual teams personification in a finals.
What this means for 2016: Last season, the Lakers had one of a misfortune annals in a NBA, winning usually 21 percent of their games and finishing final in their division. They weren’t even tighten to subordinate for a playoffs, many reduction creation it to a finals. Therefore, Clinton’s win is imminent. It’ll be a impact dunk, if we will.
7. The Oscars Method: How Did a Most Recent “Best Picture” Winner End?
Four years ago, Jacopo della Quercia of Cracked realized that last a leader of a presidential choosing is as elementary as this: Did a film that won Best Picture during a Oscars progressing that choosing year have a happy ending? If so, a obligatory celebration will also prevail. But if the movie ends on a unhappy note, afterwards a White House will change hands.
The trend started in 1976, with One Flew Over a Cuckoo’s Nest, that ends with a mental sanatorium erroneously lobotomizing a lucid person. Later that year, Jimmy Carter took a White House from Gerald Ford. Kramer vs. Kramer, the Best Picture leader in 1980, finished with a integrate identical to divorce and a mom observant goodbye to her immature son; that November, Ronald Reagan kick Carter. Silence of a Lambs, the leader in 1992, sealed with a fierce Hannibal Lecter formulation to “have an aged crony for dinner”; months later, Bill Clinton degraded George H.W. Bush. Other than a somewhat controversial box of The Last Emperor, that won Best Picture in 1988, a settlement has had a ideal record adult by a 2012 election.
What this means for 2016: At a finish of Spotlight, a many new Best Picture, a hard-charging reporters during a Boston Globe finally tell their exposé on pedophile priests in Boston. As a reporters arrive during a Globe’s domicile shortly after a paper hits newsstands, a paper’s phone lines are flooded with calls from past abuse victims entrance brazen with their stories. On-screen intertitles describe a chilling news that Cardinal Law, concerned in a cover in Boston, was given a new roost in Rome. We learn that a Globe’s coverage unprotected a large complement of crime and desirous identical investigations around a world.
Does that validate as a happy ending? Is that gloomy and sobering final note adequate to cancel out a critical work achieved during a Globe? Is exposing suppressed tragedy a impulse of fun or sorrow? The answer is subjective.
These 7 domestic foresee models—many of that move adult questions of association or causation—can save us from a stress of doubt this fall. Choose a indication that we many prefer, or total them adult to establish an ultimate winner. Of a initial 6 models, 3 envision a Clinton win and 3 envision a Trump win, that means a seventh model—the Best Picture winner—is a tiebreaker of sorts. So go watch Spotlight, be tender by a work of genuine journalism, and appreciate a finale however we like.