Anyone familiar with The Primary Model?

[Sugarcoated]

I've never heard of it until tonight. It's a polling outfit run by Helmut Norpoth. It's saying the opposite of every other pollster out there. My bullshit alarm is ringing....

http://primarymodel.com

[JonLP24]

1. I am aware of him

He correctly predicted the last 5 out of 6 Presidential elections including Trump's win over Clinton.

Wiki

Norpoth's research focuses on multiple subjects in political science, including public opinion and electoral behavior, and predicting the results of elections in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany.[3][4]

Norpoth developed the Primary Model, a statistical model of United States presidential elections based on data going back to 1912. According to his website Primary Model, he has used the model to correctly predict five of six presidential elections from 1996 to 2016[5], including Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 election.[6] This model is based on two factors: whether the party that has been in power for a long time seems to be about to lose it, and whether a given candidate did better in the primaries than his or her opponent.[6] In February 2015, he projected that Republicans had a 65 percent chance of winning the general election the following year.[7] In 2016, this model gained significant media attention because it predicted that Donald Trump would win the general election.[8] In response to critics who cited polls in which Clinton led Trump by a significant margin, Norpoth said that these polls were not taking into account who will actually vote in November, writing, "…nearly all of us say, oh yes, I'll vote, and then many will not follow through."[9] In 2020, Norpoth stated that his model gave Trump a 91% chance at winning re-election.[10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Norpoth

Not saying I agree. Trump doesn't have the benefit of the doubt anymore and he is losing more and more swing voters.

[Sugarcoated]

2. I'm seeing Trumpers starting to cite

stuff from this website to argue against Joe's high poll numbers.

[brush]

13. That's to please their idiot boss. This pollster may have predicted...

nine out of the last ten presidential elections but none of those elections had an incumbent who badly bungled a pandemic response resulting in 200,000+ dead Americans by election day which resulted in a severe unemployment rate of his own making, not to mention a race with a fool president defending traitorous confederates in response to a nationwide reckoning on police killings of blacks and a demand for racial justice—three huge national crises at once, all self-inflicted.

Oh, and it's becoming more and more clear to the public, including many Republicans with buyers' remorse, that the president is a never-before-seen combination of narcissistic sociopathy, borderline dementia, quite evident ineptitude, a stark aversion to reading, and a blusteringly maddening confidence despite his glaring stupidity, lack of knowledge and ill preparedness for his job.

Because of all that, and it's a lot, this pollster is way wrong this time.

[cayugafalls]

3. His model is based on motivation. Who is more motivated to vote.

Perhaps, this year he gets it wrong.

I am thinking that the Norpoth has overlooked the motivation of the younger voters who feel trump is a direct threat to their future and they will be voting in masses this November.

[Sugarcoated]

5. We were way more motivated than Repubs to vote for our candidates in 2018

and in many states Biden on every county Hillary won AND Sanders won and by bigger margins. I think we're pretty
motivated to vote so I don't know why Dems would be polling lower in motivation. I wonder if this includes Indies....

[JonLP24]

7. His model is based mostly on primaries

Trump is dominating his primary victories (like an incumbent would) while Joe Biden had some struggles in the early states falling behind 2nd place in some cases. I understand what he is saying but any system has a flaw.

[Sugarcoated]

14. 2nd place in turnout compared to Trump in a few states?

[fierywoman]

4. I trust the Princeton Election Consortium.

Primary Model looks like something created by Brad P after tRump has discovered the latest real polls show him with mashed potatoes dumped over his head.

[Sugarcoated]

6. I believe I read it's been around since the early 90s

Was the Princeton Election Consortium right in 2016?

[fierywoman]

9. It was -- but of course we know there was cheating. They were dead on (to 1 electoral vote,

I think) in 2012.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

8. nothing like staying focused. works for me. zero in on swing states only. put early money

in places like TX and Georgia--but the usual suspects should be where Biden focuses his time and his surrogates:

1.Florida
2.Pennsylvania
3.Michigan
4.Ohio
5.Wisconsin
6.Virginia
7.North Carolina
8.Colorado
9.Arizona
10. ???

[Awsi Dooger]

10. His model is single handedly destroyed by the ignorance of Donald Trump

That stuff is very familiar, especially the table regarding how a party fares when its only held the White House for one term. I have emphasized that here and elsewhere for more than 30 years. Trump owned massive advantage this cycle. He was in the catbird seat of American politics...an incumbent whose party had been in power only one term. Only Jimmy Carter has lost in that scenario in more than a century. The benefit of a doubt to the incumbent is extraordinary.

It is the reason I always expected Trump's approval rating to steadily rise to 45% level on 538 by election day, and that he would narrowly pull out another victory similar to 2016. That is what the model is based on. Notice it was published on March 2, 2020 and not updated. It relies on fundamentals and not details. That is my belief also, that day to day crap means nothing.

Trump was favored on March 2. His approval was up to 44% in February and I worried it might reach 46% instead of 45% by November. But the model could not account for coronavirus, nor the deadly dismissive attitude from Trump and the right wing. I always added the caveat that Trump's situational advantage was fragile because he would never understand that all he needed to do was shut up, and that meant one potential implosion after another.

Joe Biden could not defeat Donald Trump. That's what it boils down to. Trump had to lose it himself. However it's tragic that it required coronavirus and George Floyd to send us in that direction. Everything prior should have been more than enough.

I saw this dynamic in Las Vegas all the time. People would win a wager and be crowing, even if they won the bet for all of the opposite reasons they cited ahead of time. That is going to apply to forecasters like Rachel Bitecofer. Her notion of lack of swing voters is preposterous. The polling has moved recently because those voters indeed exist, and thankfully in our direction this time.

This model is based on sound principles and will be useful in the future

[JonLP24]

11. +1 for your whole post

You explained the flaw better than I could.

[Sugarcoated]

15. So much is unprecedented this election

these past four years, so many political norms have been shattered it's hard to know what models hold true anymore. One thing I'm seeing is, Biden's numbers are very consistent and stable and have been for months. I wonder, could it be that Biden's supporters will be just as unshakable and unmovable as Trump's? It's been drummed down our throat's every day for five years: His supporters won't budge, he can do anything. I think that loyal bent is happening for Joe, partly because Donnie lowered the bar but also because Americans are realizing it's necessary to get his ass out.

[Ms. Toad]

12. As a number of us have been saying - we need to stop being so cocky

[Sugarcoated]

16. ...

[Wanderlust988]

17. His model only goes by enthusiasm, right?

He basically doesn't account for anything else, just enthusiasm? His model will be dead wrong this year!