Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday November 14 2015, @04:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the coin-flip dept.

The Bern Report reports

Dr. Rick Hardy and Dr. John Hemingway have been leading Mock Presidential Elections [at Western Illinois University] since 1975. During that time, students who have participated in these mock elections have chosen the winning party with 100% accuracy and have an astonishing record in selecting presidential winners.

On the Democratic side for the Primaries Sanders won[1] by close to a 2 to 1 margin over challenger Hillary Clinton.

[...] After nominating Sanders, the student Democrats put him up against Jeb Bush, who received the Republican nomination, with Bernie winning the electoral college by nearly a 4 to 1 margin and a decisive win for the popular vote.

This simulation always takes place the year before the presidential election year, and three months before the actual Iowa caucuses. The genesis of this mock presidential election began at the University of Iowa in 1975 with two political science doctoral students, John Hemingway and Rick Hardy. In that year, students selected Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford--long before anyone really knew of Jimmy Carter.

In the years that followed, Rick Hardy expanded the format and engaged thousands of students at the University of Missouri-Columbia where students registered a perfect record of selecting the subsequent winning presidential party. In 2007 and 2011, Hardy and Hemingway teamed up again to conduct a massive campus-wide simulation at Western Illinois University. In 2007, Western students selected Barack Obama as president at a time when no one thought he could win! And, in 2011, students narrowly re-elected President Obama.

[1] Content is behind scripts.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday November 14 2015, @06:26PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday November 14 2015, @06:26PM (#263371)

    Everyone just takes it as a given that Trump eventually implodes. Considering he as now had ample opportunity to implode and hasn't it is probably time to reevaluate whether it represents wishful thinking or careful reason.

    Trump wins because he has noticed and is exploiting a glitch in the system. When the other candidates were picking issues they all left one flag on the ground because it was universally considered as outside the Overton Window. Trump picked it up and waved the immigration banner around and found himself at the head of an army. The question nobody is asking is this: "What just happened?" And everything is going to hinge on correctly answering that question. Did Trump move the Window purely by force of personality and his Reality TV star larger than life charisma? Or is that issue still outside the Window and he is merely surviving holding that flag by virtue of his Reality TV Billionaire gadfly status?

    Because which reality we live in determines whether and how another candidate can beat Trump. If the Window has now moved another candidate only needs to make two successful arguments. First that they can also grab that flag and survive the media poopstorm that will hit them as a plausible candidate. Second that they are a more worthy bearer of that flag, considering Trump's recent conversion from a pro amnesty Democrat that second task should be the easier one.

    If the Window has not actually moved the only option is to utterly destroy Trump and since the entire establishment has been trying that and failing to accomplish anything other than cement the loyalty of the base to Trump this option probably means it is time to make peace with the phrase President Trump. I believe this is because of the lack of a viable alternative, so long as Trump is the only candidate asking for the votes of those who oppose open borders and amnesty no attack is going to peel them away. It is really hard to force people to abandon a candidate and simply stay home, another candidate must be available to collect their support.

    At the last debate it was pretty clear Cruz was making a grab for the flag, but he recently voted for a big H1B increase so might not be the best replacement. Jindal has made several outright grabs but is ignored to a point nobody knows he even tried. Except where he is campaigning hard on the ground, in other words in IA and his numbers are quietly rising there.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday November 14 2015, @08:37PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday November 14 2015, @08:37PM (#263444)

    Another strange thing that might be in the back of peoples minds (about Trump), is that he is spending *his* money.

    If there is one overarching problem with *all* of the candidates of either dogmatic camp, it is the ultra-polished message that is being thrown at the public.

    So the question is, as many negative things as Trump can say, and as unpolished an image he sometimes presents, he is at least a provably decent businessman.

    And the President is more CEO (hire the right board) than Surgeon (sic).

    Thoughts?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @09:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @09:08PM (#263454)

      he is at least a provably decent businessman.

      I've heard just the opposite. He could have invested his father's money in trivial index funds and ended up with a similar amount of money that he has now.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 14 2015, @10:05PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday November 14 2015, @10:05PM (#263473)

      There is that. I'm mixed on Carson though. One the one hand he is woefully unfit for the job. On the other, while still unready it is amazing how fast the guy has been leveling up. When he first launched he was just cringeworthy anytime he opened his mouth and in only a few months has been training up like a madman. So I have to respect his mind, but realistically there is zero chance he would be truly ready by Jan 2017 other than as somebody who picks experts. And that is where I hit the problem. I can see who Trump would pick (because he isn't ready for a lot of POTUS decisions either) as advisers bit Carson isn't dropping any clues. And who he would choose to surround himself with would be THE vital bit of info since his advisers would be wielding a lot more power than in a typical administration. His current hangers on and fundraisers do not inspire confidence.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:30AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:30AM (#263601)

        A grand majority of actual lifelong politicians are unfit for the job, because they are evil scumbags who support laws and policies that violate the highest law of the land and our fundamental liberties. And I don't think either Trump or Carson would be any different, given many of their stated goals. It's just more militaristic nonsense and the same drug war we've been having.

  • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday November 14 2015, @11:42PM

    by BK (4868) on Saturday November 14 2015, @11:42PM (#263499)

    Great analysis of the Republican campaign so far. One thing to add regarding Trump:

    He has done / said many things so far that would cause other campaigns to implode, usually from cringing donors and sponsors. As a self- funded campaign, he has the privilege of moving on without bowing to the money and without a self flagellating apology.

    The glitch is not in a misread of the Overton Window, but rather in the system that allows the big money and corporate interests to maintain control.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday November 15 2015, @05:18AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Sunday November 15 2015, @05:18AM (#263565)

      Well your argument basically boils down to it being the money men who establish the current position of the Overton Window so Trump is operating outside of it by virtue of not needing them. That means the Republicans find another self funding zillionaire that agrees with Trump on immigration enough to siphon votes while somehow being beholden to the establishment enough they would approve of him/her and being more desirable to the base. So unless they find this unicorn in the next few weeks, say hello to President Trump. Not sure whether I hope you are right or wrong.

      Can think of one other option. The establishment could decide to accept the facts on the ground and 'permit' one of the other candidates to adopt the 'full Trump' position on immigration and keep the donor money coming in. The danger, from their perspective, is that doing so would in fact move the Window and then permit a stampede of one upmanship on who would be the most severe immigration hawk. I suspect they would never do this, far preferring to risk a Clinton victory to losing control of an issue near and dear to their plans for a borderless transnational world.

      • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday November 15 2015, @07:32AM

        by BK (4868) on Sunday November 15 2015, @07:32AM (#263589)

        I wouldn't say the Trump is operating outside of the Overton Window, but rather that he's operating outside of the Window as presented by the MSM. This means that he's operating within the_actual_ Window. I suppose we could discuss whether the idea of an actual versus an apparent Window even make sense, but I think that for the sake of expediency we should just accept that this is so.

          Trump's main issue of course is immigration. Everyone knows this. Apart from Trump, the 2016 Republican position on immigration has been that of course we_can't_actually deport all of the illegal immigrants because doing so would be "UnAmerican". And we can't enforce the laws or control the borders because that would be impractical and un-American. This is basically values argument. The problem with this position is that for the Republican base, this is an economic issue, and a simple one at that.

          This is Microeconomics 101. And the supply and demand curves are both labeled "labor". In the 80s and 90s, this issue primarily affected US farm workers and the urban poor. That is to say "black people"-- not exactly the Republican base. Since then, through H1B visas and other policies, this issue has grown to significantly impact the middle class... including the "Important" white male demographic that is the core of the Republican Party.

          Within the past week I saw an article on CNN.com where the "impartial" reporter and tried to explain just how much it would cost to deport all of the illegal immigrants in the US. I think it's clear that the monied interests and have realized that they have to at least speak to the economic issue. Of course old habits die hard-there was still plenty of discussion in the story about how bad it would look and about how "un-American" it would be to do such a thing.

          If someone wants to beat trump in the Republican field, they're going to have to make an economic argument. They're going to have to explain why open borders and trans nationalism makes sense -- and I mean economic sense-- to rank-and-file Republican voters.

        --
        ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:35AM (#263602)

          and I mean economic sense

          Why economic sense? I don't oppose the NSA's unethical and unconstitutional mass surveillance because it's bad for the economy or because it doesn't work, but because it violates the constitution, our principles, and our fundamental liberties. 'Practical' arguments hardly factor in at all, so it is mostly value-based. Why do you want to limit the discussion to economics in this case?

          • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday November 15 2015, @10:26AM

            by BK (4868) on Sunday November 15 2015, @10:26AM (#263611)

            The immigration issue is, at this time, an economic issue. At least it is for a large portion of Trump's supporters. It is difficult to counter an economic argument, which is fairly concrete, with the values argument which by its nature is somewhat less concrete.

            There are lots of issues that are primarily values issues either because they don't have an economic component, or because the economic ramifications are not clear. You mentioned mass surveillance. Abortion rights and gun rights are also good examples. If one of these is most important to you, you'll probably care about your candidates values position with regard to it. In fact you might be offended if someone were to make an economic argument on some of these issues.

            So no you don't need to have an economic argument against mass surveillance. But if you are pro open borders and want a Trump supporter to vote for you, and economic argument would sure help.

            --
            ...but you HAVE heard of me.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @12:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @12:50AM (#263518)

    The Republican insider thought is that Trump is a Manchurian candidate, an agent of the Democrats. He's good friends with Hilary, and his intervention in the race so far has kept the Republican candidates from getting any oxygen or momentum. None of them can get enough screen time to make themselves heard. Coupling that with the Republican party's getting one of the only overtly leftist news companies to host a debate (the people behind Rachel Maddow -- WTF were they thinking?) that descended into inanity, there's just no message coming from Bush, Rubio, or any of the candidates. It's really pathetic. If Trump is working for Hilary, she probably deserves the nomination just for being that clever.