Electoral Science: 2016 Presidential Election Winner will be a Republican

By guest author, “No Passport” American Daniel Bruno, reporting from Buenos Aires. Daniel is from NYC, is an author, inventor, specialist in 9/11 studies, and the interview host at www.hpub.org.

I was the first person in the world to proclaim that Barack Obama would be U.S. president from January, 2009 until January, 2017.

No, I’m not an Illuminati or Bilderburger.  I’m not on the Trilateral Commission or Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and I don’t get invited to Davos.  But in 2007 I told about forty CFR members that Obama would have to be president before they had decided on the matter.  At the Democratic Party Convention in Denver, I gave Joe Biden my 2007 book, Why Obama will win in 2008 & 2012, and explained the basics.  He later made indirect references to it in some of his talks.

When Obama confirmed he would run in the spring of 2007, I was intrigued and joined his New York strategy committee.  Our task was to beat New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  Most people, especially establishment Blacks, dismissed us as fools.  Even Al Sharpton was a skeptic.  Shelby Steele, a mulatto at the Hoover Institution, wrote a nonsensical but successful book entitled, Why Obama Can’t Win.

It took a lot of work and a number of personal visits by Obama to win hearts and minds in New York City.  Obama’s campaign had a scientific approach, replete with charts and electoral history data sheets shared on google docs.

Like all of his volunteers, I was deceived by Obama’s rhetoric, and thought we could achieve a soft coup of sorts, if only he were in power.  So I started a serious inquiry to determine whether we really could reverse the nightmare bequeathed to us by G.W. Bush.

The outcome of this inquiry was my book.

Inspired as a retort to Steele and published long before Obama/Biden had even been nominated by the Party, it boldly announced that Obama would beat McCain in 2008, as well as the Republican contender five years in the future in 2012.

To reach this conclusion, I built on the work of Allen Lichtman of American University and Ray C. Fair at Yale.  Lichtman’s 13 Keys to the White House consists of a series of binary options, true or false, that have predicted every US presidential election outcome since 1860.

When five or fewer of these options are false, the incumbent party remains in power.  If six or more are false, the incumbent party loses the election.   Polling data are not relevant to the 13 Keys.  My book goes in to detail explaining the application of these keys to the election of 2008.

Ray C. Fair developed a theory of elections based on economic data.  This econometric theory crunches economic growth, inflation, and employment to predict which party will get the largest share of the two-party share of the vote.  It has a standard error of 2.5%  The Fair Model has not faired as well as the 13 Keys, but is still useful, especially when used together with other techniques.

My contribution to electoral theory is the application of deflationary cycles.  Commodity and stock prices alternate in waves marked by peaks and troughs of cycles.

These cycles repeat over and over and can be extrapolated into the future.  This works especially well with interest rates.  If you can predict interest rates you will have a clue about the strength of the dollar.  If you know that, you will know how commodities and other currencies will trend in the future.  Knowing where commodities will trend tells you about deflation and the deflation will predict the political upsets.

Interest rates depend largely upon fiscal policies and the party in power.  Parties try to remain in power and stimulate the economy to benefit the incumbent during election cycles.  This is the presidential cycle.

One of the startling realizations of electoral science is that candidate rhetoric and opinion polls don’t count.  Had Obama run as a Republican in 2008, he would have lost.  Had Clinton been nominated in 2008, she would have won.  Had McCain run as a Democrat, he too would have won the election.

My 2007 book explained why Obama would win the party nomination, the election of 2008 and the election of 2012.  Neither Lichtman nor Fair could do this because they look only backwards.  They look at past and present.  My method looks at past, present and future.

When there is a deflationary trough, a big shake up occurs in politics.  For example, FDR won because of the deflation of 1929-1930.  Since Obama was the outlier and Clinton the establishment pick, and since the ruling party candidate (Bush) could not run for a third term, the probabilities greatly favored the outside man from the party out of power, i.e. Obama.  Since the odds favored him in the general election, he would have to win the primaries to get there.

The deflation in asset values, the crash of Lehman Brothers, and the election of Obama were consequences of the same force.

My theory was that there would have to be an electoral re-alignment: a new party system to mark a New Progressive Era.  I envisioned a Cabinet full of reformers like Van Jones.

Obama would win in 2008, the cycle would bottom out and turn back up before 2012.  This, plus the fact that he would be a sitting president running for re-election, guaranteed his win in 2012.  Note that it made no difference who the Republican nominee would be.

As it turned out, I was right, except about the electoral realignment and New Progressive Era.  Those were stillborn.  Obama deceived us terribly.  Some say it’s because he was afraid of becoming a JFK.  That is probably true.  But then, what was the point in becoming president?

Now, the forces I observed pushing for a New Progressive Era are personified by Bernie Sanders while the most despicable NeoCons want Billary Clinton.  Neither will win.  The reasons are that the Democrats have seven false Keys and the Fair Model is at 45.7 for the incumbent party.  Whoever wins the Republican nomination will be the next president of the United States.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Chris B

    Unless the Republicans put up the most electorally repulsive candidate imaginable up for nomination to ensure their preferred choice – Hillbilly Clinton – had a free run to the White House. That’s the trouble with economic modelling and statistical analysis: it can’t accurately predict future human behaviour, especially in times of turmoil and upheaval.

    • Chris B

      I’ll have to refute myself here and admit economic modelling and statistical analysis can and does accurately predict a large amount of social behaviour – but every so often they inevitably get it radically wrong, a situation I predict is about to ensue in the case of the US presidential election. I would be utterly stunned to the point of having to reject everything I’ve every learned if Hillary doesn’t become 45th president of the United States. God help us!

      • The fact that so many people share your revulsion at her would lend
        anecdotal support to my thesis…they will turn out in droves to vote
        against her. Electoral science looks at probabilities. If the election
        were held to day, the incumbent party would need to be more than one
        standard deviation of 2.5 better than the 45.7 figure of the Fair
        Model. In fact, two standard deviations would garner only 50.7% of the
        vote. This means there is a 93% chance the Democrat nominee will obtain
        less than this percentage. This number could change between now and
        election time, but then what are the odds of blockbuster economic
        performance in the next 3 quarters? Not good odds.

        at Lichtman, there’s no getting around the fact that the Democrats lost
        big at the midterm elections and Obama cant run for a third term. Now,
        they can increase their chances by waging a successful military
        campaign, turning false keys back to true. But as things stand now,
        they have too many false keys for a Democrat to win in 2016.

  • Carl_Herman

    This is excellent data, “No Passport” Daniel; thank you!

    History is no guarantee of the future, but is certainly where to bet your money. My take is our “masters” seek control over all candidates, then let them fight it out. “Rogue” candidates are smeared in the media, blackmailed, threatened, and eventually killed if they become too dangerous. Our “masters” also work in election fraud for two reasons: keep developing evil and control, AND to push forward the most pliable candidate.

    This is all we’ll ever have until the public recognize obvious crimes in war and money, and demand arrests. And it will get worse, as fundamental rights will continue to be crushed.

    • That’s it. All candidates are vulnerable to blackmail for something. This system was set up by J Edgar Hoover. That rare person who cant be bribed or blackmailed is killed in an “accident.” It happens all the time. Obama is acutely vulnerable for obvious reasons. The way people are eliminated is, security let their guard down. Thats all it takes. Remember the sex scandals with secret service in Colombia? Remember the incidents at the White House fence and the guy that got into the party without an invitation? Those were warnings to Obama. BTW, I strongly suspect Obama has been a CIA man since 1981. He knows the deal.

  • p51dman

    For those that think they can predict the result, watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7W7rHxTsH0

    • Great documentary everybody should watch. Especially at 40 minutes where Kerry tells a lawyer that the optical scans in NM were rigged for Bush and there was no point in contesting the fraud. We would be naive to think that fraud is not at work in American elections now. In 2000 and 2004 Bush was not democratically elected. Fortunately, its not a straightforward undertaking because the fraud has to be done in the right way at the right places and people like Bev Harris are on the case. . Unfortunately, the prospect of fraud in 2016 tends to support my thesis that the Republicans will win.

  • TimeToWakeUpAmerica

    Regardless, the next President will be PRE-SELECTED BY THE WESTERN OLIGARCHS, NOT “ELECTED” BY WE THE PEOPLE. OF THAT YOU CAN REST ASSURED. Question is: WHO, will they find to replace Donald Trump?

    • TimeToWakeUpAmerica

      The Western Oligarchs (mainly Jews) are seriously DEBAUCHING AMERICA, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the RULE OF LAW, to enrich themselves, at the expense of everyone else, particularly “middle class” Americans, who they wish to grind down to Third World Poverty levels, so they can preside over a “globalized” debt slave plantation.

      • TimeToWakeUpAmerica

        What they REALLY want, is HILLARY CLINTON in the White House.

  • hoover653

    For developed the science education we need a science lover presidents. If we found such kind of people we can developed our science education so more and get the success in technology field.