On the evening of Wednesday, October 26th, less than two weeks before the U.S. Presidential Election, NIA sent out an alert entitled, ‘Landslide Victory for Trump is Coming’. In this alert, NIA predicted a landslide victory for Trump and said, “There is a very good chance that every mainstream media poll that has showed Hillary up in recent weeks is completely rigged.”
At the time of NIA’s October 26th prediction: Pivit gave Trump election odds of only 5%, the NY Times gave Trump election odds of only 8%, PredictWise gave Trump election odds of only 10%, FiveThirtyEight gave Trump election odds of only 14.5%, PredictIt gave Trump election odds of only 22%, and the average online betting site gave Trump election odds of only 16.7%.
One week later on November 2nd, NIA officially gave Trump a 75% chance of becoming U.S. President.
At the time of NIA’s November 2nd forecast: the NY Times gave Trump election odds of only 13%, PredictWise gave Trump election odds of only 16%, Pivit gave Trump election odds of only 26%, FiveThirtyEight gave Trump election odds of only 32.2%, PredictIt gave Trump election odds of only 36%, and the average online betting site gave Trump election odds of only 28.6%.
How did NIA see Trump’s victory coming at a time nobody else did? NIA invented a proprietary 7 step process to analyze and accurately predict the election outcome:
1) We analyzed Google Trends Data, which had a 100% perfect track record for the previous three U.S. Presidential elections. According to Google Trends, searches for “Vote Trump” were 64% higher than “Vote Hillary” and Trump won the election with 32% more electoral votes.
Leading up to the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, searches for “Vote Obama” were 67% higher than “Vote Romney” and Obama won the election with 61% more electoral votes.
Leading up to the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, searches for “Vote Obama” were 117% higher than “Vote McCain” and Obama won the election with 111% more electoral votes.
Leading up to the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, searches for “Vote Bush” were 20% higher than “Vote Kerry” and Bush won the election with 14% more electoral votes.
Google Trends was also accurate at predicting the outcome of the U.K. Brexit Referendum. Leading up to the June 23rd Brexit referendum, searches for “Vote Leave” were 89% higher than “Vote Remain” and the Leave Campaign won by 3.8 percentage points.
2) NIA calculated 2016 primary turnout data of both registered Republicans and Democrats as a percentage of the U.S. population and compared it to previous campaign seasons. Historically, Democrats have averaged a far higher primary turnout than Republicans, but in 2016 Republicans turned out in stronger numbers than Democrats.
As a percentage of the population, Republicans in 2016 saw their strongest primary turnout in history at 12.43%, well above the historical range of 6.58%-9.25% for the previous seven contested GOP primaries dating back to 1976. This was an indicator of strong enthusiasm for Trump and very similar to the strong enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 when 14.98% of the U.S. population voted in the Democratic primaries.
3) NIA analyzed polling methodologies and the demographics of survey samples. Despite all signs pointing to much stronger enthusiasm on the Republican side, mainstream media polls were oversampling Democrats by an average of 7 percentage points, which would be equal to the 2008 election when Democrats had by far the most charismatic candidate.
4) NIA analyzed the historical accuracy of each individual poll during previous election cycles. The only poll that appeared to be surveying a fair sample of the 2016 electorate was the LA Times Poll. Although ignored by most of the mainstream media, in 2012 the LA Times Poll was known as the RAND Poll and proved to be the #1 most accurate poll. The LA Times Poll had Trump in the lead on October 26th and showed a huge breakout towards Trump in the final two weeks of the race.
5) NIA also used the stock market as a predictor of the election winner. On November 3rd, after the S&P 500 had declined for eight consecutive days – NIA showed you how it was down 3.72% over the previous 50 trading days. NIA explained that since 1960, if the S&P 500 declines during the 50 trading days leading into a U.S. Presidential Election, the incumbent party loses 100% of the time!
The average trailing 50-day percentage change of the S&P 500 when the incumbent party wins is a gain of 3.65% vs. a decline of 2.52% when the incumbent party loses.
6) NIA factored in Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys to the White House, which asks 13 true/false questions about the incumbent party and if the answer to at least 6 of the questions are false – the incumbent party almost always loses. NIA calculated 8 to be false – pointing strongly to a Trump victory.
7) NIA conducted its own independent analysis of the Bradley Effect and if it applied to this race. Over a one week period in late-October, NIA’s staff brought up the topic of the U.S. Presidential race to 50 different Uber drivers – casually asking each of them in the middle of a normal conversation about who they supported/planned to vote for in the election.
Only 18 of the 50 Uber drivers immediately responded by expressing their support of a candidate: with 6 expressing their support of Donald Trump, 11 expressing their support of Hillary Clinton, and 1 expressing their support of Gary Johnson.
Shockingly, when NIA’s staff unveiled their support of Trump, 3 of the Uber drivers who initially said they supported Clinton – admitted that they had lied and actually support Trump. The reasons being: 1) fear of being thought of as racist, 2) fear of being thought of as sexist, 3) fear that we would give them a bad rating if they admitted to supporting Trump.
Of the 32 Uber drivers who didn’t immediately respond with their candidate of choice, 10 of them explained that they either didn’t care about politics or were undecided. These 10 quickly changed the subject and/or refused to discuss the matter further.
The remaining 22 expressed interest in the race but were reluctant to immediately share their opinion – with many of them reflecting the question back and asking who we supported. At this point, NIA’s staff expressed their enthusiastic support of Trump.
15 of these 22 Uber drivers responded in excitement (and obvious relief) by eagerly expressing their own similar sentiments about Trump – happily discussing Trump for the remainder of the ride.
Another 5 of these 22 Uber drivers responded by questioning NIA’s staff about their support of Trump – usually bringing up some of the media-contrived controversies such as the “second amendment people” or “refusing to denounce the KKK”. We assumed these 5 to be Clinton supporters.
The remaining 2 of these 22 Uber drivers responded by offering neutral and diplomatic thoughts/opinions about both Trump and Clinton. We assumed these 2 to be undecided.
All together, of the 50 Uber drivers surveyed: 24 supported Trump, 13 supported Clinton, 1 supported Johnson, and 12 were either undecided or refused to disclose. With only 25% of Trump’s supporters willing to openly disclose their support – prior to us disclosing our own – NIA confirmed that the Bradley Effect applied to this election!