FAIR model prediction: 2012 a Democrat year

[Agorism]

I've always been a fan of FAIR model in terms of predicting presidential elections. To predict a party's success it uses number of years controlling the WH (4 is ideal) and GDP growth as well as good news.

It's not 100% right and doesn't account for everything esp wars and such, but it's a great model overall.

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/cgi/computv5.pl

Click submit with the default values of FAIR's equation (the values he's predicting right now), and see the share of the two party vote.



The equation to predict the 2012 presidential election is
VP = 48.39 + .672*G - .654*P + 0.990*Z
The equation to predict the 2012 House election is
VC = 45.63 + .384*G - .373*P + 0.565*Z
Your input values:
3.69 growth rate of real per capita GDP in the first 3 quarters of 2012 (annual rate) (G)
1.42 growth rate of the GDP deflator in the first 15 quarters of the Obama administration,
2009:1-2012:3 (annual rate) (P)
6 number of quarters in the first 15 quarters of the Obama administration in which the growth
rate of real per capita GDP is greater than 3.2 percent at an annual rate (Z)
Computed (output) values:
55.88 Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote in 2012 (VP)
49.91 Democratic share of the two-party House vote in 2012 (VC)


I can see Jeb looking for 2016 when the winds will be shifting again back to the R's.

YouTube - W. Movie Trailer #2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tqQz28NR_c)

[Anti Federalist]

I don't need ten tons of math to tell me that.

The system figured that out decades ago.

One term presidents put too much strain on the continuity of government, going through the "change of power theatre" every four years.

Keep them there for eight years.

[Agorism]

I don't need ten tons of math to tell me that.

The system figured that out decades ago.

One term presidents put too much strain on the continuity of government, going through the "change of power theatre" every four years.

Keep them there for eight years.

Basically although his system looks at which party controls rather than an individual.

So HW Bush was Reagan's third term making 1992 almost impossible for republicans even though he had good approval ratings from his "successful" war. Truman was FDR's 4th term. Gore would have been Clinton's 3rd term.

The ideal is when you're an incumbent so you can control the government machinery (advantage) yet your party has only been there for 4 years (so you haven't warn out your welcome yet.)

[Agorism]

bump

[Aratus]

someone is expecting mitt romney, jeb bush or sarah palin to be the republican contender
as barack obama tries to pull off a 1996 bill clinton aspected swing back to the status quo.