Or so an election model made by Moody’s Analytics says.
The model makes certain assumptions, namely that the economy will be near the top, or not at the top, of voters’ minds during the election. The model captures the impact of the health of state economies in the lead up to the election on voting decisions, as well as party affiliation and political realities.
Just a little background: the fact that the model looks at state economies is important because the US has an electoral college. That is, each candidate wins a state by winning the most votes in that state. Candidates get a certain amount of points – or electoral votes - for winning certain states, and there are a total of 538 electoral votes to be won across all states.
To cut to the chase, Moody’s analytics predicts that the Democratic nominee for president “will win the election by the slimmest of margins with precisely 270 electoral votes. The republican nominee will fall just short with 268 votes."
The model uses the parties, but as Clinton is most likely to win the Democratic nomination, she would be most likely to become President.
The election model explains the share of the popular vote in each state that the incumbent party will win is based on the strength of each state’s economy and its politics. Most importantly is the growth in real personal income per household.
As economic conditions are looking mostly favourable, with gas and oil prices low and income and property prices rising, the Democrats – as the party currently in power – are favoured.
Of course, some states will always wear the same colour: regardless of what the economy does, they will vote for one party or the other. So these can be taken as a given.
And how accurate is this model? Well, since 1980 it has accurately predicted the winning party of 406 of the 459 elections in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Oh, and it nailed the 2008 and 2012 elections. So now might be a good time to put your money where Moody’s mouth is.