2016 Election Prediction Results
In January, I made a series of predictions about the 2016 election. Some where practically spot on, while others were a little bit off. Here is a quick report card.
Seat by Seat: A
Unlike nearly every major media source (including both the “mainstream” and “alt-right” media), my 2016 Presidential election map is mighty close to accurate. I missed Wisconsin (like everyone), North Carolina, and Arizona.
Although I missed the margin of victory, I correctly called the end result of 94% of the electoral contests.
Of the 34 settled Senate elections, my forecast accurately called 33… assuming that Louisiana’s runoff to finish will turn red as widely expected. Only Feingold’s race in Wisconsin was a miss. My batting average here is north of 97%.These estimates are better than most projections found online. My seven year accuracy is now north of 90%.
As far as projecting the House of Representatives, I once again underestimated the Republican gains. The Trump tidal wave appears to have delivered 10 more Republican seats than I projected. My annual accuracy is exactly +/- 6 seats.
Republican Poorer White Strategy: A+
In January, I predicted that the Republican Party would forego their Romney post mortem inspired, pro-minority strategy in lieu of doubling down on poorer, less educated white voters. Donald Trump’s campaign followed this exact strategy.
2016 Realignment: A+
In January, I also predicted that the election cycle would feature an electoral realignment. With the political flip of Midwestern states from sapphire blue to Trump red — along with the shifting sands in Arizona and Texas — the United States’ political map is fundamentally different than it has ever been.
The Republican Party appears to have transitioned into a white nationalist party — with electoral majorities in state governments, Congress, and the Electoral College; the Democratic Party appears to be a disjointed “everyone else” party with no clear leader for the next several years.
War Hawks Against ISIS: A
I expected ISIL to be a featured part of both parties’ platform. Both Clinton and Trump highlighted destroying ISIL as a key policy goal, and both sides appeared more hawkish than Barack Obama. The series of distractions throughout the election cycle muddled these positions.
No Change to the Status Quo: I
Despite all of these expectations, I projected that there would be no major changes to the Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberal policy system. This accuracy of this prediction is still yet to be seen. Based on Trump’s rhetoric, it appears to be way off. Time will tell.
Overall: A, with a critical I to be determined
Senate accuracy: 92.1% accuracy on average (128/139)
- 2016: 97.1% (33/34)
- 2014: 94.3% (33/35)
- 2012: 87.8% (29/33)
- 2010: 89.2% (33/37)
House accuracy: within 6 seats on average
- 2016: -10 Republicans
- 2014: -10 Republicans
- 2012: +4 Republicans
- 2010: +/- 0