STEVE MEYER: “THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE WILL WIN THE 2016 ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE 347 TO 191, EXPANDING THE DEMOCRATIC MARGIN SLIGHTLY FROM THE 332 TO 206 VOTE OF 2012.”
Steve’s predictive methodology correctly predicted the winning candidate in 47 states and Washington D.C., along with President Obama’s overall victory in 2012.
Here is his commentary on how the democratic nominee will win the 2016 electoral election by a vote of 347 to 191.
(Steve Meyer’s biography is included at the bottom of his commentary.)
“Prof. Ray C. Fair, an economist at Yale, made a well-publicized prediction of the outcome of the upcoming 2016 presidential election years in advance of the election. What makes the professor’s predictions somewhat unique is that his forecast is based on underlying socio-economic factors and not polling.
Yale Professor Ray C. Fair
Prof. Fair takes into account certain socio-economic factors and predicts the election outcome in 2016 will hinge on the robustness of the economy.
With a robust economy, Prof. Fair predicts a Democrat will capture the presidency in 2016, and in a poor performing economy, Prof. Fair predicts the Republican nominee will win.
Owing to the professor’s prediction being based on economic conditions, he is in affect saying that the candidate, a seemingly important factor relating to the election, is immaterial to his forecast.
Prof. Fair doesn’t predict which party’s candidate will carry the day in the 2016 presidential election owing to the economic conditions at the time of the election are unknown, so the prediction is really not a prediction, but an alternative to the use of polling in predicting election outcomes.
There are other socio-economic factors which could be used to predict the 2016 election outcomes years in advance, but which also have the ability to predict which party’s candidate will win the election. I have made such a prediction based on the vote of the 2012 presidential election and trends established by the 1988 and 2012 presidential elections.
Unlike Prof. Fair’s method, which forecasts the popular vote, my method predicts the election outcome of each state and of Washington DC in an effort to predict the Electoral College vote.
There are 32 states, and the District of Columbia, which were becoming more Democrat based on trends established by the 1988 and 2012 presidential elections.
25 of these states and Washington DC are solidly Democrat.
Six of these 32 Democrat trending states (Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina), are sufficiently Republican to remain Republican in 2016 and one of these six states (North Carolina) is projected to flip to the Democrats in the 2016 presidential election according to the results arrived at using Steve’s methodology.
Eighteen states were trending to become more Republican in this same 1988 to 2012 time frame. Of these eighteen, seventeen are solidly Republican. The one Democrat state of these eighteen (Iowa) is sufficiently Democrat to remain Democrat in 2016.
This method of prediction based on the past election and vote trends, suggests the Democrat nominee will win the 2016 Electoral College vote 347 to 191, expanding the Democrat margin slightly from the 332 to 206 vote of 2012.
How valid is my method? Using the 2008 election results and trends established by the 1988 and 2008 presidential elections, my method was back-tested to predict the 2012 presidential election outcome. This methodology correctly predicted the winning candidate in 47 states and Washington D.C., along with President Obama’s overall victory.
Keep in mind that my methodology, based on data that is only as recent as the past presidential election, was much more accurate in predicting the 2012 presidential election outcome than most pollsters using real-time polling data.
My methodology begs a new question: Why are some states trending Republican and some states trending Democrat given that the states are all facing seemingly similar socio-economic situations created by the governance of the laws of the United States?
My answer to this question is that there are state and local policies that are causing these varying trends and the these policies concern the degree of overzealousness in local and state zoning and planning efforts, which manifest themselves in high-priced housing.
Zoning and planning polices change little from election to election. Zoning and planning policies are generally implemented at the state and local levels of government, so the future vote may be derived by extrapolating state election results out to the future by trends established by earlier elections.
Overzealous zoning and planning is a trait often found in high population counties of the United States. The effect of this overzealousness in local zoning and planning is readily observable in voting trends.
Of the 146 highest population counties in the United States, which are home to roughly half of our country’s population, only six were trending to become more Republican based on the 1988 and 2012 presidential elections. The average margin shift of these 146 counties in this 1988 to 2012 time period was to become 23.4% more Democrat.
One of the Republican’s largest demographic groups is the demographic of homeowners and one of the largest of the Democrat’s demographic groups is the demographic group of renters. The generally ever-rising home prices of the last few decades caused by overzealous zoning and planning inhibit most young Democrat voters from being financially able to join this generally Republican demographic of homeowners.
Republicans lose slightly more voters than do the Democrats to the aging process. These voters lost to attrition account for roughly 6% of the electorate every presidential election cycle. The coming of age of younger voters also accounts for roughly 6% of the electorate, with approximately two-thirds of this demographic voting Democrat.
Having lost the ability to join the Republican demographic of homeowners owing to the high price of housing, most of today’s younger Democrat voters fail to eventually convert to become Republican voters at the historical rates experienced prior to the run-up in home prices that have taken place in much of the nation in the last few decades.
The math works out to the Democrats gaining 2% vote margin every presidential election cycle owing to the high price of homes.
This change in vote is so slight as to be imperceptible to those who involve themselves in just campaign efforts, but the change is additive. Similar to the compounding of simple interest or the rising of the tide, the change is relentless.
If my method is valid, the ramifications are huge.
My method suggests that those of us actively involved in political campaigns are mostly wasting our time and money.
If I am correct, those of us trying to influence future political outcomes would be much better served dealing with housing policies, polices that have resulted in the national homeownership rate falling to levels not seen since the 1960s. Democrat political strategists seem to have figured out the importance of housing to the election process.
The Republican strategists; not so much!”
Steve Meyer biography:
Steve Meyer is a native Minnesotan and currently resides in Indian River Coounty.
He has varied and wide-ranging interests including writing (including two books and eight letters-to-the-editor published in The Wall Street Journal; and an engineering degree from BSME University of Minnesota; plus twenty plus year former employee of Rosemount Inc./BF Goodrich Aerospace, where he was named in a number of patents.
He has a keen interest in wellness, enjoys fishing, hunting, sports, and discussing political ideas. He is currently hosting a weekend radio show, the theme of which is capitalism and politics, broadcast by WTTB Radio, 1490 AM, Vero Beach, Florida on Saturday mornings from 9:00 to 10:00.
* This article received over 90 comments on our Facebook page. Should you wish to check them our please visit and scroll down to the article.