• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

University prof: 97-99% chance Trump wins Pres. if nominated

How hard is it to predict the past?
Yeah, on one hand they talk about unprecedented voter turnout and make-up, but then on the other, use a statistical model which was reverse engineered to to correlate to historical success based on precedent.

I'll wait to hear what Nate Silver has to say about it when he decides there is sufficient evidence to make a truly educated guess.
 
You keep touting this guy like he's Nostradamus in a lab coat. I don't know this mother fucker, and you certainly aren't objective enough to give any kind of credible opinion.

So again, I say in louder words, nobody gives a fuck. Bc anyone with a brain can see trump and laugh at how ridiculous he is.

I have no dog in this fight. Frankly, of the republicans, I like Rubio and would vote for him over Clinton if given the opportunity, but that opportunity will not be given because Trump is going to get the nomination.

Trump vs. Hillary's match to lose. But then I read an intriguing article that basically said Hillary is tailor-made to get stomped in the general by Trump.

The point of the article was basically that Trump is not a good issues campaigner but is good with his particular brand of labeling his opponents as losers/liars/nasty guys/untrustworthy and the like. So the author basically said that Trump would have SO much material with which to come at Clinton. He could hammer her as a liar...reference scandals going back to Whitewater let alone the more recent e-mail server stuff. If she comes at him as demeaning toward women/sexist, he can point to Bill's transgressions and HIllary's complicity. She is perceived as untrustworthy and Trump would call her the biggest liar he's ever met over and over again.

The contention of the article was that styles make fights and that even though Sanders seems far less mainstream than Clinton, Clinton is more vulnerable to Trump.
 
Little advice @Rex Kwon Do, Try not to argue this as a certainty, and instead argue it as evidence to be more likely, then some would think.
 
No. The professor's method has a fatal flaw, as documented by his pick in the 1960 election: it doesn't account for rigged elections. Considering Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt person in Washington, will likely be involved in the general election, I'm not putting my prized Sherdog account on the line.

Plus you're a noob so it'd be like putting wagering a Pinto against a Ferrari.

Unless Rex isn't your first account then I've been here longer. Doesn't matter. I knew you wouldn't wager your precious account to back up your words. I'm sure it's up there with your most valued possessions.
 
Is the University of Michigan PhD with 50 years in the field under his belt and a method with a near perfect track record a tard, too? Or are you just lashing out because you're scared and your hunch isn't supported by the data?

His method doesnt have a near perfect track record. He made it fit previously known data. I havent seen any actual perdictions before the last Obama win.
 
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...e-president-statistical-model-says?src=usn_fb

Lol keep believing in those fantasies that FEEL THE BERN or Shillary can defeat Trump, guys. I'll trust the statistics professor with a UMich PhD whose research interests deal with elections that has only picked wrong once in over 100 years when he says Trump is untouchable if nominated.

Trump-wary Republicans: Look at the numbers. Nearly 100% chance Trump wins, yet only 61% any of the other shlubs win. A vote for not-Trump is practically a vote for a communist or Hillary Clinton. Your move.

As the good doctor says, “Take it to the bank.”

Not that im questioning the dude, but i supposed the guy is wealthy as fuck since he obviously knows the results beforehand and bets all his life savings on the winner.
 
I don't think Rex knows any professors personally. It's not like they know how to sell books or anything.
 
Unless Rex isn't your first account then I've been here longer. Doesn't matter. I knew you wouldn't wager your precious account to back up your words. I'm sure it's up there with your most valued possessions.

Feel better now?

I don't think Rex knows any professors personally. It's not like they know how to sell books or anything.

Well, my uncle's a professor, so that's one off the top of my head.

Are you discrediting all research done by all professors as financially motivated shlock, or just the research that comes to conclusions you don't like?
 
Here's a list of Norpoth's books/monographs:

Analysis of Variance (with Gudmund Iversen) Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications, 1976; 2nd ed. 1987.

Politics and Government in Europe Today (with Colin Campbell, Harvey Feigenbaum and Ronald Linden). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990; 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1995.

Economics and Politics: The Calculus of Support (ed., with Michael Lewis-Beck and Jean-Dominique Lafay). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Confidence Regained: Economics, Mrs. Thatcher and the British Voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. [Featured in an "Author Meets Critics" panel at the 1993 Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC]

The American Voter Revisited (with Michael Lewis-Beck, William Jacoby and Herbert Weisberg), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008.

Yeah, he sounds like he loves writing sensationalist crap to make a quick buck. Those are some real exploitative, strike while the iron's hot titles. The types you see at Wal-Mart and Costco meant to draw people in with eye-grabbing titles. They must be really lucrative since he only has to write one every 10 years of his 50 year career.
 
Feel better now?



Well, my uncle's a professor, so that's one off the top of my head.

Are you discrediting all research done by all professors as financially motivated shlock, or just the research that comes to conclusions you don't like?

So, are you confident that this professor is not motivated by financial again, and notoriety? Is he simply a highly competent scientist who's struck upon a virtual certainty about a future event? Yet, you won't wager a worthless virtual account on that certainty.
 
I will say that academics who attempt to assign numbers to social and political matters are the most suspect when it comes to having motives other than the truth.
 
So, are you confident that this professor is not motivated by financial again, and notoriety? Is he simply a highly competent scientist who's struck upon a virtual certainty about a future event? Yet, you won't wager a worthless virtual account on that certainty.

I'll tell you what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to make the assumption that a quiet academic of 50 years has all of a sudden become an attention whore and is willing to risk the ridicule or scorn of his colleagues by putting out a bogus prediction without evidence. Do you have any? Have you heard from people around him that he's having a post-midlife crisis, or that he's hurting for cash? Or are you just butthurt?

You're going to embarrassingly great lengths to try and discredit this guy because you don't like his conclusions.
 
The advantage to Trump is that the minorities will most likely stay home this time which means Hillary could possibly lose some key purple states.
 
I will say that academics who attempt to assign numbers to social and political matters are the most suspect when it comes to having motives other than the truth.

Proof that he has other motives?

Are you discrediting all social science? Lol. Damn those social scientists and their assignation of fancy numbers to social and political phenomena.

Do you make sure to wear your tinfoil hat when you use the microwave? Apparently you're an assume-the-worst-damn-the-lack-of-evidence type of guy.
 
I'll tell you what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to make the assumption that a quiet academic of 50 years has all of a sudden become an attention whore and is willing to risk the ridicule or scorn of his colleagues by putting out a bogus prediction without evidence. Do you have any? Have you heard from people around him that he's having a post-midlife crisis, or that he's hurting for cash? Or are you just butthurt?

You're going to embarrassingly great lengths to try and discredit this guy because you don't like his conclusions.

I'm saying the guy uses numbers in a less than rigorous manner. The social "sciences" are pretty bunk. In general they are the least respected of the numerical sciences. Somewhere below economists. With all probabilistic conjectures the ultimate measure of certainty is the wager. After all probability was invented for gambling. This professors conclusion isn't worth betting a zero value account is what you're demonstrating in backing down.
 
So basically you are saying the choices are:
Hilary
A communist
Or the american Le pen.

Well between those the choice is obvious: Hilary.
 
I have no dog in this fight. Frankly, of the republicans, I like Rubio and would vote for him over Clinton if given the opportunity, but that opportunity will not be given because Trump is going to get the nomination.

Trump vs. Hillary's match to lose. But then I read an intriguing article that basically said Hillary is tailor-made to get stomped in the general by Trump.

The point of the article was basically that Trump is not a good issues campaigner but is good with his particular brand of labeling his opponents as losers/liars/nasty guys/untrustworthy and the like. So the author basically said that Trump would have SO much material with which to come at Clinton. He could hammer her as a liar...reference scandals going back to Whitewater let alone the more recent e-mail server stuff. If she comes at him as demeaning toward women/sexist, he can point to Bill's transgressions and HIllary's complicity. She is perceived as untrustworthy and Trump would call her the biggest liar he's ever met over and over again.

The contention of the article was that styles make fights and that even though Sanders seems far less mainstream than Clinton, Clinton is more vulnerable to Trump.
That's how I feel as well. Sanders entire image relies on being above personal attacks, but that makes him weaker against Hillary because he's clearly not willing to sling mud at her. Trump would have no problem dragging her integrity issues and scandals out into the open. She just has too many of them to win a fight with someone intent on targeting them.
 
Back
Top