In 2004, the Crystal Ball notched a 99 percent accuracy rate in predicting all races for House, Senate, Governor and each state’s Electoral College outcome.
2008 was yet another banner year, as the Crystal Ball came the closest of any national prognosticator in predicting the results of the presidential race, while achieving a 100 percent accuracy rating by correctly predicting the result of every single gubernatorial and Senate race across the country.
The Crystal Ball continued its record of success in 2012. In July, our election model projected a close popular vote with an Obama victory of about 1%. When others were predicting a Romney victory, we forecast a substantial Obama margin in the Electoral College, and ultimately missed just two states.
>>69527968
Ted Cruz is the next President of the United States of America
I honestly think it's Hillary. The GOP is destroying itself. Thanks, Romney.
>>69527968
baghdadbobinfrontofrcpaverage.jpg
We'll see how Trumps run against Hillary goes
>>69528452
increasing_nervous_man_posts_carter_reagan_polling.tiff
gee i wonder how many crystal balls foretold trump was joke running, wouldnt make it past a deabate, wouldnt make it past iowa etc etc
>>69528249
That's right. It's all Romney's fault.
>>69527968
How exactly do they come up with these maps? It doesn't seem like they base it on any sort of statistical model.
>the magic ball successfully predicted nigger winning
>it also predicted the charismatic president winning against Lurch
WOW
>>69529020
They do though
>>69527968
Are you talking about the software "Crystal Ball"?
>>69527968
What is this "crystal ball" you speak of
>>69528459
They aren't going to give the nomination to Trump. Never happening.
It'll be a landslide Clinton/Bernie victory after the GOP continues to cannibalize itself to please it's jewish masters.
>>69529068
I wish they would be more transparent about whatever their methodology is. All I can gather is this.
>Creating Electoral College projections is a marvelous parlor game, and we’ve been doing so here since we obtained our magical sphere of crystal from China many years ago. (All other details shall remain confidential.)
Very informative. Do they adjust the numbers as time goes on or is this going to be the "final prediction?"
>>69529197
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/
>>69528911
I miss dubya. Great man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SenD9Sgw6mY
>implying anyone was expecting a Romney win
>>69529344
>Great man
In what fucking way?
>>69529432
He was a strong leader after 9/11
>>69527968
Who the fuck predicted a Romney victory????? Romney had no chance.. even Republicans predicted he had no chance.... nobody gave him a chance in hell.
>>69527968
Bill Clinton never recovered from being so far down to Bush in April.
>>69529408
Yeah and I was called a shill for months for saying that exact thing. In 4 years people will be saying the same exact thing about Trump.
>>69529432
No.. he meant he missed him when he threw a shoe at him.
>>69529432
He had his flaws but he knew how to let the military do it's thing.
Shhhh its going to be ok
http://primarymodel.com/
>>69529603
Hillary*
>>69529536
Yea until it was revealed Iraq wmds was a complete fab to get us into war which was a failed war at best and led to a still rapidly decreasing reputation around the world your ignorance is what's wrong with america
>>69529828
Anybody who believed Iraq had WMDs was a bluepilled sub-70 IQ retard.
>>69529408
1. Dick Morris: “This is going to be a landslide.” The former Clinton adviser predicted a dominant Romney win, calling it “the biggest surprise in recent American political history.” Claiming that polls were oversampling Democrats, Morris wondered if “it will rekindle the whole question on why the media played this race as a nailbiter.”
2. Roger Kimball: “Obama is toast.” The publisher of prominent right-wing book imprint Encounter Books and a frequent contributor to conservative outlets, Kimball boldly predicted that Romney “is going to win, big time.” It was easy, he could “tell you in three syllables and a few numbers…Ben-gha-zi.” Though the Benghazi story played big in right-wing media before the election, a vanishingly small number of voters reported foreign policy being the top priority in the election – let alone the Embassy issue, which the Romney campaign had completely dropped in the stretch.
3. Karl Rove: “At least 279 electoral votes.” “It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney,” Rove wrote in a WSJ op-ed ignoring the fact that most polls showed growing momentum for the president. He predicted that Romney will win 51 percent of the popular vote and “at least 279 electoral votes.”
4. Peggy Noonan: “There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now.” Noonan is one of the most respected political columnists in the country despite her penchant for deciding things based on her gut rather than actual data. But her Romney prediction wasn’t exactly well thought out even by her own standard. According to Noonan, “all the vibrations [were] right” for a Romney win because “something old was roaring back.” While this might be the right way to open an H.P. Lovecraft novel, it probably isn’t the best way to think about presidential elections.
also pol circa 2012
>>69529828
Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Also, it was Obama that withdrew prematurely from Iraq, not Bush.
>>69529763
>It is 87% to 99% certain that Donald Trump will win the presidential election on November 8, 2016; 87% if running against Hillary Clinton, 99% if against Bernie Sanders.
>In a match-up between the Republican primary winner and each of the Democratic contenders, Donald Trump is predicted to defeat Hillary Clinton by 52.5% to 47.5% of the two-party vote. He would defeat Bernie Sanders by 57.7% to 42.3%.
>For the record, the PRIMARY MODEL, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996. In recent elections the forecast has been issued as early as January of the election year.
>Presidential elections going back as far as 1912 are used to estimate the weight of primary performance. It was in 1912 that presidential primaries were introduced. That year the candidate who won his party’s primary vote, Woodrow Wilson, went on to defeat the candidate who lost his party’s primary vote, William Howard Taft. As a rule, the candidate with the stronger primary performance wins against the candidate with the weaker primary performance. For elections from 1912 to 2012 the PRIMARY MODEL picks the winner, albeit retroactively, every time except in 1960.
Seems like this model is more accurate given the much larger sample size.
>>69529915
What were u in diapers back then? His rhetoric of fear combined with the aftermath of 9-11 had 90 percent of the nation convinced
>>69529932
I just don't understand how they could have thought Romney had any chance. It's already hard enough to take out a candidate going for their second term... which only happens 25% of the time, and even lower if you take away HW Bush losing because of Ross Perot's third party run. And by the way, Hillary only has a 25% chance of winning (statistically speaking), and that's not even considering she's a horrible candidate... I don't give a fuck what the bookies say... Hillary has such a low chance of winning... put it this way, she wouldn't even be able to beat Trump in any of the swing states, so how the fuck is she going to win? She can barely hang with Bernie for Christ sakes.
>>69527968
so whats it say about 2016?
>>69529763
the "unskewed polls" of 2016
>>69529976
If you thing there could have possibly been a mature withdrawal from Iraq you are extremely naive. I went to Iraq and short of our nation controlling their for half a century that country would have never secured a self sustaining demo
>>69530352
I don't see why people say that. We pulled out of West Germany after WWII.
>>69530272
Also the fact that Clinton can't handle Bernie's tone in the debates how do you think she will handle Trump if she thinks Bernie is too tough
>>69530168
90%????? Lmfao.. He didn't even have 90% of REPUBLICANS convinced. YOU must have been in diapers, so stop projecting. Bush used Clinton's executive order HR4655 to go into Iraq, he didn't convince shit.
>>69530419
Wow...... Ur comparing Germany to a country whose citizens have never even heard of democracy....... Ur comparing apples to pickaxes. The most Iraq could of hoped for was a theocracy and the us would've never let that happen
>>69530851
Theocracy wouldn't work either because you have both Sunnis and Shiites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAP64DrMBk8
>>69530445
Do you mean 90 percent of republican politicians or 90 percent of republican citizens cuz the latter is completely false I knew lots of liberals(at the time I was one) and they were all convinced) I'm not projecting anything in telling u a factual observance from the many ppl I knew and talked to on a regular basis
>>69529432
Because he guided the country as well as he could (minus No Child) post 9/11, dicknuts
>>69531032
That's kinda what I was trying to say was that a theo was more likely than a demo which is saying something.
>>69529828
No one actually believed the WMD idea you raging cum dumpster
>>69530445
>>69531115
>>69530168
>>69529915
>>69530445
Also, you're a fucking faggot for misusing the word projecting.
Kill yourself.
>>69531355
I yea u must be right all the conspiracy videos talking about how bush had known already that the wmds in Iraq was a lie were made because everyone already knew it....... Shit that makes total sense but ur amazing debate tactics don't make you more right
>>69531635
Holy shit that was hard to read
>>69531852
Great argument
>>69529336
>100 points as "leaning d" as if trump if gonna swing them the other way once the general starts
im not even worried
>>69532568
Trump has good polls in swing states and Hillary will be exposed as a criminal to the young ones who weren't old enough to understand all the shit she's done
>>69532336
Write something worth arguing against and I'll bite
>>69533547
Well I argued that the average citizen was convinced of the wmd lie at the beginning of the thread and short of saying I was wrong u provided nothing except insults. I argued against a claim. I'm not here to start a new argument u can refute it or not
