Looking back at election forecasts
Predicting future events is difficult. The Babylonians discovered this nearly 2,700 years ago, when they began trying to predict the weather. We have been working to improve those forecasts ever since. Lives, crops and more depended on them.
It took until 1859 for a country (Britian) to offer its first official weather forecast (for shipping, the lifeblood of the maritime empire).
After millennia of refinement, just how accurate are weather forecasts? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tells us that five-day forecasts are accurate nearly 90 percent of the time. Ten-day forecasts and longer are only correct about half the time.
When it comes to where hurricanes will make landfall, even a 48-hour forecast has a margin of error around 50 nautical miles.
Humans can be even less predictable than weather patterns. Yet here, too, the stakes can be sky-high.
Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake in economic forecasts. Corporations, stock market investors and even the Federal Reserve rely on them to make consequential decisions.
Two Berkeley business school researchers analyzed responses to the Survey of Professional Forecasters, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 1968. They found forecasters were correct a mere 23 percent of the time.
To take just one recent example, economists predicted U.S. gross domestic product would grow by 1.3 percent in 2024. In fact, the growth rate was more than twice the forecast.
A dear friend who spent a few years working at a prominent econometric forecasting firm decades ago, reported their staff motto was 'we predicted 10 of the last three recessions.'
Election forecasting has a shorter history. It is both more difficult and less consequential, since the forecasts have no effect on the real world. But it has grown into a cottage industry.
Given the difficulties, it is surprising just how accurate these forecasts have proven to be, especially when they employ data collected many months prior to the event itself.
The American Political Science Association recently published a journal with a dozen forecasts all completed well before the election, each of which used somewhat different data and varying methodologies. Most of them foresaw the close popular vote finish. The high-end prediction for Harris's share of the popular vote was 54.5 percent and the low-end was 45 percent — the first based on online betting data, the second on the expectations of ordinary people, techniques that I would caution against. Still, most of the predictions clustered within a few points of the actual results.
Of the 11 entrants who forecast the popular vote, five foresaw victory for President Trump and six a win for Kamala Harris. Five predicted an Electoral College victory for Trump, whereas three wrongly anticipated that Harris would win the electoral vote.
As regular readers would expect, the predictions based on fundamentals (the economy, partisanship, presidential approval) tended to be the most accurate. As I have described before, Ray Fair's model, the longest running such forecast (but not included in the American Political Science Association collection), and based largely on hard economic indicators, was within a quarter point of the actual result.
Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck added presidential approval to a smaller array of economic variables, producing a forecast also less than a point off the mark.
Models employing poll data tended to be slightly farther off.
I have previously quoted statistician George Box saying that 'all models are wrong. Some are useful.' Models are (over-) simplifications of the world. To be wholly right, they'd have to be as rich, complex, and confusing as the world itself.
But these simplifications can tell us something about the 'whys' of this and other presidential elections.
For example, despite the conventional wisdom asserting elections are about the future, most of the accurate models use retrospective information about the past, not data about future expectations.
None of these models use information about the candidates' personalities, abilities or issue positions. Which is to say, the 2024 election was destined to be close, but any Democrat would have had a difficult time winning it. The situational deck was stacked against us, and neither candidate had a secret formula for greatly exceeding expectations. An exceptional candidate backed by an exceptional campaign may have been able to overcome the odds, but that's exactly what would have been required — beating the odds.
Would a different candidate, or one who had faced a primary, have done better? We have no way of knowing, but there is no evidence or suggestion Vice President Kamala Harris blew a race that was hers to lose.
Would former President Joe Biden have done better or worse? Again, we cannot know, though one of the American Political Science Association modelers claims evidence that Biden himself would have done slightly worse than Harris did.
It is no longer fashionable to quote Karl Marx, but he was right in saying that individual people 'make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.'
Psychology teaches us that humans put too much weight on personal factors while underrating the power of circumstances and situations in shaping behavior.
These models remind us that circumstances count for a lot and that the new science of presidential election forecasting stacks up pretty well, as predictions go.
Mark Mellman is president of The Mellman Group a consultancy that has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. He served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 30 years and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants' Hall of Fame.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EUWAX's (FRA:EUX) Dividend Will Be €3.26
EUWAX Aktiengesellschaft (FRA:EUX) will pay a dividend of €3.26 on the 1st of August. Based on this payment, the dividend yield on the company's stock will be 9.0%, which is an attractive boost to shareholder returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While it is great to have a strong dividend yield, we should also consider whether the payment is sustainable. Before making this announcement, the company's dividend was much higher than its earnings. It will be difficult to sustain this level of payout so we wouldn't be confident about this continuing. Earnings per share could rise by 6.8% over the next year if things go the same way as they have for the last few years. If the dividend continues on its recent course, the payout ratio in 12 months could be 271%, which is a bit high and could start applying pressure to the balance sheet. See our latest analysis for EUWAX While the company has been paying a dividend for a long time, it has cut the dividend at least once in the last 10 years. There hasn't been much of a change in the dividend over the last 10 years. It's encouraging to see some dividend growth, but the dividend has been cut at least once, and the size of the cut would eliminate most of the growth anyway, which makes this less attractive as an income investment. With a relatively unstable dividend, it's even more important to evaluate if earnings per share is growing, which could point to a growing dividend in the future. We are encouraged to see that EUWAX has grown earnings per share at 6.8% per year over the past five years. However, the payout ratio is very high, not leaving much room for growth of the dividend in the future. Overall, we don't think this company makes a great dividend stock, even though the dividend wasn't cut this year. The payments are bit high to be considered sustainable, and the track record isn't the best. We would be a touch cautious of relying on this stock primarily for the dividend income. Investors generally tend to favour companies with a consistent, stable dividend policy as opposed to those operating an irregular one. At the same time, there are other factors our readers should be conscious of before pouring capital into a stock. For instance, we've picked out 2 warning signs for EUWAX that investors should take into consideration. Is EUWAX not quite the opportunity you were looking for? Why not check out our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors Met With Slowing Returns on Capital At Padini Holdings Berhad (KLSE:PADINI)
There are a few key trends to look for if we want to identify the next multi-bagger. Ideally, a business will show two trends; firstly a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an increasing amount of capital employed. This shows us that it's a compounding machine, able to continually reinvest its earnings back into the business and generate higher returns. That's why when we briefly looked at Padini Holdings Berhad's (KLSE:PADINI) ROCE trend, we were pretty happy with what we saw. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. For those that aren't sure what ROCE is, it measures the amount of pre-tax profits a company can generate from the capital employed in its business. To calculate this metric for Padini Holdings Berhad, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.14 = RM242m ÷ (RM2.1b - RM369m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). Thus, Padini Holdings Berhad has an ROCE of 14%. That's a pretty standard return and it's in line with the industry average of 14%. View our latest analysis for Padini Holdings Berhad Above you can see how the current ROCE for Padini Holdings Berhad compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Padini Holdings Berhad . The trend of ROCE doesn't stand out much, but returns on a whole are decent. The company has consistently earned 14% for the last five years, and the capital employed within the business has risen 42% in that time. Since 14% is a moderate ROCE though, it's good to see a business can continue to reinvest at these decent rates of return. Stable returns in this ballpark can be unexciting, but if they can be maintained over the long run, they often provide nice rewards to shareholders. In the end, Padini Holdings Berhad has proven its ability to adequately reinvest capital at good rates of return. In light of this, the stock has only gained 40% over the last five years for shareholders who have owned the stock in this period. That's why it could be worth your time looking into this stock further to discover if it has more traits of a multi-bagger. On a separate note, we've found 1 warning sign for Padini Holdings Berhad you'll probably want to know about. For those who like to invest in solid companies, check out this free list of companies with solid balance sheets and high returns on equity. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Shifting views and misdirection: How Trump decided to strike Iran
It was almost entirely a deception. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world's most volatile regions. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's 'two weeks' statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first U.S. military strikes inside Iran since that country's theocratic revolution in 1979. Advertisement Interviews with administration officials, Trump allies and advisers, Pentagon officials and others familiar with the events show how, during this period, different factions of Trump's allies jockeyed to win over a president who was listing in all directions over whether to choose war, diplomacy or some combination. Advertisement Outsiders tried to divine which faction was ascendant based on whom Trump met with at any given time. Trump seemed almost gleeful in telling reporters that he could make a decision 'one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war.' All the while, Trump was making blustery statements indicating he was about to take the country into the conflict. 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' he wrote last Monday on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. The following day, he posted that he had not left a meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada to broker a Middle East ceasefire but for something 'much bigger.' So, he told the world, 'Stay tuned!' These public pronouncements generated angst at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, where military planners began to worry that Trump was giving Iran too much warning about an impending strike. They built their own deception into the attack plan: a second group of B-2 bombers that would leave Missouri and head west over the Pacific Ocean in a way that flight trackers would be able to monitor Saturday. That left a misimpression, for many observers and presumably Iran, about the timing and path of the attack, which would come from another direction entirely. The strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his Thursday statement about how he might take up to two weeks to decide to go to war with Iran. Refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for U.S. forces stationed in the region. Advertisement While the 'two weeks' statement bought the president more time for last-minute diplomacy, military officials said that ruse and the head fake with the B-2s also had the effect of cleaning up a mess -- the telegraphing of the attack -- that was partly of the president's making. Asked to comment on the details of this article, Leavitt said the president and his team 'successfully accomplished one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time' regarding Iran's nuclear sites. She added that 'many presidents have talked about this, but only President Trump had the guts to do it.' A shifting tune Trump had spent the early months of his administration warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a strike on Iran. But by the morning of Friday, June 13, hours after the first Israeli attacks, Trump had changed his tune. He marveled to advisers about what he said was a brilliant Israeli military operation, which involved a series of precision strikes that killed key figures in Iran's military leadership and blasted away strategic weapons sites. Trump took calls on his cellphone from reporters and began hailing the operation as 'excellent' and 'very successful' and hinting that he had much more to do with it than people realized. Later that day, Trump asked an ally how the Israeli strikes were 'playing.' He said that 'everyone' was telling him he needed to get more involved, including potentially dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombs on Fordo, the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underneath a mountain south of Tehran. The next day, the president told another adviser he was leaning toward using those 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, while taking pride in both the bomb's destructive power and the fact that the United States is the only country that has the bomb in its arsenal. The adviser left the conversation convinced that Trump had already decided to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Advertisement At the same time, the president's team was closely monitoring how their most prominent supporters were reacting on social media and on television to the prospect of the United States joining the war in a more visible way. They paid close attention to the statements of Tucker Carlson, the influential podcaster and former Fox News host, who was vehemently opposed to the United States joining Israel in taking on Iran. Trump became infuriated by some of Carlson's commentary and started complaining about him publicly and privately. Political advisers to Trump had been swapping notes on various public and private polls examining the popularity of military action against Iran, noting that American support for an operation depended in part on how pollsters asked the question. While polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the United States to go to war with Iran, most Americans also did not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Carlson was no longer on Fox, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate. Deliberations among administration officials about a possible American strike on Iran were in full swing by Sunday night, June 15, when Trump left for Canada for the G7 meeting. Trump seemed to his advisers to be inching closer to approving a strike, even as he told them that Israel would be foolish to try to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. Advertisement Moreover, he said, if the United States were to strike Iran, the goal should be to decimate its nuclear facilities, not to bring down its government. The 'biggest threat to Opsec' By then, a small group of top military officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had already begun refining attack plans on the Fordo facility and other Iranian nuclear sites that military planners had drawn up years ago. The planning was led by Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the Centcom commander, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs. B-2 stealth bombers, based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are the only warplanes capable of delivering the GBU-57 bombs without detection by Iranian radar. B-2 bomber pilots have done extensive rehearsals for extended-range missions like the one before them -- crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, refueling multiple times before syncing up with fighter jets for the final flight leg into Iran. But even as the military planning was being conducted in secrecy, each of Trump's social media posts seemed to be telling the world what was coming. The president, said one military official, was the 'biggest threat to opsec,' or operational security, that the planning faced. To build confusion into the attack plan, military officials decided to have two groups of B-2 bombers leave Missouri around the same time. One group would fly westbound, toward Guam, with transponders on that could be tracked by commercial satellite companies. Another group of seven bombers, carrying a full payload of bombs and with their transponders off, flew east toward Iran, undetected. Advertisement During a news conference Sunday, hours after the U.S. strike, Caine called the Guam feint a 'decoy.' Shaping the conversation By Tuesday, June 17, Trump had largely made up his mind to strike Iran. But he took his coercive diplomacy to a new level, issuing menacing threats over social media. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he posted on Truth Social, adding, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He demanded, in all-caps, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' By this point, several people in the anti-interventionist camp of Trump's advisers realized they most likely could not prevent the president from hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities. So, they turned their focus on trying to ensure the American war did not spiral into an expansive 'regime change' war. That day, June 17, Vice President JD Vance posted a long series of posts on social media that many within the anti-interventionist camp interpreted as him seeding the ground for a potential U.S. military operation and preemptively defending the president's likely decision. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote in the widely shared post. 'And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' Prominent activists began working to shape the conversation for what was likely to come after the bombing: a debate about whether or not to engage in a war intended to bring about new leadership in Iran. 'Regime change has quickly become the newly stated goal of this operation,' wrote influential activist Charlie Kirk, in a social media post two days before the U.S. strikes. 'America should learn its lesson and not involve itself in a regime change war.' Even as Trump was posting his own hawkish statements, he was becoming annoyed as he watched pundits on television telegraph his likely strike against Fordo. He was infuriated when The Wall Street Journal reported that he had already given a green light to putting the pieces of the operation in place but had not given the final order. On Thursday, Trump was joined for lunch at the White House by Bannon, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran. Some wishful thinkers in the anti-interventionist camp interpreted the meeting as a sign that Trump was getting cold feet. Leavitt reinforced that sentiment when she delivered Trump's statement, not long after Bannon arrived at the White House, indicating that he had given himself up to two weeks to make a decision, a time frame he often invoked for decisions on complex issues when he had no clear plan. But Trump had already dictated Leavitt's statement before he met with Bannon. It was a calculated misdirection intended to buy some breathing room for the president while suggesting that no attack was imminent. Up through that point, Trump had been willing to continue to listen to those skeptical about the Iran strike, and to hear arguments about its possibly dire consequences -- including for oil prices, civil war in Iran and a possible refugee crisis, in addition to the prospect of retaliatory attacks that could bring the United States into a sustained conflict. On Friday, Trump left the White House in the afternoon for a fundraising event at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, his main summer retreat, further feeding the impression that no attack was imminent. But within hours, around 5 p.m. Friday, Trump ordered the military to begin its Iran mission. Given the 18 hours it would take the B-2s to fly from Missouri to Iran, he knew he still had many more hours to change his mind, as he did at the last minute in 2019, when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian targets and then aborted them. But few in his administration believed he would pull back this time. A one-off, or not A complex and highly synchronized military operation began. Many hours after the two fleets of B-2s took off in opposite directions, the bombers bound for Iran joined up with fighter jets and flew into Iranian airspace. U.S. submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan. As the planes approached Fordo and Natanz, the fighter jets swept in front of the bombers and fired strikes meant to suppress any surface-to-air missiles that Iran might muster, Caine said in the Pentagon briefing Sunday. At 2:10 a.m. Sunday morning Iran time, the lead bomber dropped two of the GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo site, buried deep under a mountainside and hundreds of feet of concrete. By the end of the mission, 14 of the 'bunker buster' bombs had been dropped, the first time they had ever been used in combat. Pentagon officials said Sunday that the U.S. bombers and jet fighters never encountered any enemy fire. Hours after the American aircraft had departed Iranian airspace, Trump gave a triumphant speech at the White House saying that the mission had 'completely and totally obliterated ' Iran's nuclear capabilities. He suggested that the war could end with this one-off mission if Iran would give up its nuclear program and negotiate. By Sunday afternoon, however, U.S. officials had tempered the optimism of the night before, saying that Iran's nuclear facilities might have been severely damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Vance acknowledged that there are questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stock of near-bomb-grade uranium. He and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that a regime change in Tehran -- which could mean a protracted U.S. engagement -- was not the goal. But Trump, whose operation was the subject of praise in news coverage not just from allies but some of his critics, had already moved on, hinting in a Truth Social post that his goals could be shifting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'' he wrote, 'but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' This article originally appeared in
