Sports, stocks, and students all claim the power of election foresight

Sports, stocks, and students all claim the power of election foresight

Sports, stocks, and students all claim the power of election foresight


After more than a year of election news, the day is almost here. Tomorrow, millions of voters will head to the polls to cast their votes for president.

Currently in the polls, Republican Donald Trump is losing vital support while Democrat Hillary Clinton holds a slight lead.

The polls are hardly the only deciding factor, however. Here’s a list of 13 mostly unrelated factors that have predicted which candidate will claim a victory tomorrow:

Benjamin Franklin Elementary School: Clinton

In every election since 1968, students at this New York elementary school have studied the facts, hosted mock debates, and cast their votes for the candidate they believe should be the next president. And these kids have yet to be wrong.

This year, Clinton won with 52 percent of the vote while Trump fell short with only 43 percent of the vote.

NBA Finals: Clinton

Since 1960 — and ignoring 2008 when the pattern failed — every presidential election has been predicted by whether or not the Los Angeles Lakers played in the NBA finals, regardless of whether or not they won. If the team makes it to the finals during a presidential election year, it means a win for the Republican candidate.

This year, luckily for Clinton supporters, the Lakers had an especially rough season and finished dead last in their division. Without having even qualified for the playoffs, they had no chance of making it to the finals — suggesting an easy win for Clinton.

NCAA Men’s Basketball: Trump

Since 1980, if the NCAA Division 1 men’s basketball champion is affiliated with one of the six conferences with the word “Big” in it — Big 12, Big East, Big Sky, Big South, Big Ten, or Big West — the winner on Election Day will be a Republican. This prediction method has held up for seven elections, except when it falsely predicted a Republican win in 2008.

Villanova University, affiliated with the Big East Conference, won the championship this year, signaling a win for Trump.

Olympics: Trump

Each presidential election since 1968 — with the exception of the 1988 election — has been accurately predicted by which country hosted the summer Olympics. And this is convenient since the summer games and the presidential election always falls on the same year. If the country that hosted the games has previously been a host, the election will go to the candidate of the party already in office. Should the country be hosting their first Olympics, the opposing party will be the winner come Election Day.

This year, Brazil hosted the Olympics as a first not only for their country, but also for South America as a whole. This suggests a landslide win for Trump.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Trump

Lichtman, a professor at the American University, developed a method that has allowed him to accurately predict the winner of every presidential election since 1984. His model is math based and analyzes 13 factors while excluding polls and performance in swing states.

This year, though he said it was the toughest election he’s predicted, Lichtman believes Trump will take home the presidency.

Redskins: Clinton

From 1936 until the 2004 election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, the final result of the Redskins’ most recent home game before Election Day determined who the next president would be. A win signals the incumbent party will retain their control of the White House, while a loss signals a shift in party. This model was wrong again in 2012 when the Redskins lost their final home game before Election Day, indicating a win for Republican Mitt Romney despite President Barack Obama’s win.

This means the Redskins’ win of their most recent home game forecasts a subsequent win for Clinton.

S&P 500: Trump

Though the correlation isn’t necessarily an obvious one, the performance of the S&P 500 index has an eerie way of predicting the outcome of presidential elections. And so far, it’s got an 86 percent success rate in predicting a party change in the presidential election.

If the S&P 500 runs a positive return between July 31 and Oct. 31 of an election year, the newly elected president will be of the same political party as the previous president. A decline in the market, on the other hand, predicts the presidency will be given to a candidate from the opposing party.

Considering the general decline seen in the market since August, the index indicates a clear win for Donald Trump.

Scholastic Student Vote: Clinton

Children and teenagers across the nation were given the opportunity to vote for their favorite presidential candidate, and they widely chose Clinton as the next president. In an election that included an estimated 153,000 students, Clinton won 52 percent of the vote, while Trump trailed behind at 35 percent. The remaining 13 percent of votes were divided among third-party and write-in candidates. Libertarian Gary Johnson came in third.

The result of the Scholastic Student Vote has only been wrong in two elections since 1940 — Thomas E. Dewey vs. Harry S. Truman in 1948 and Richard M. Nixon vs. John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Spirit Halloween’s Candidate Mask Sales: Trump

Spirit Halloween’s presidential candidate mask sales have accurately predicted the winner of each presidential election since 1996 because, apparently, people love dressing up as their favorite candidate on a holiday when you can be anyone and anything you want.

Based on a poll of more than 2,000 participants conducted by Spirit Halloween, an estimated 55 percent of adults who bought a mask of either of the candidates for Halloween from their store chose Trump. Of those who chose Trump, 39 percent said it was to be funny and 32 percent said it was to mock him. More Democrats than Republicans said they chose to dress up as the candidate of the opposing party’s candidate to “frighten America.”

7-Eleven Coffee Drinkers: Clinton

Since the 2000 presidential election, the 7-Elections hosted by 7-Eleven have accurately predicted who would be the ultimate winner on Election Day. By allowing coffee drinkers to choose between red and blue coffee cups, customers are able to “cast” a vote for who they think should be president.

This year, for the first time, the company also gave customers the opportunity to choose a purple cup that represented third-party votes, none-of-the-above votes, and allowed customers to write in candidates and issues they were passionate about on Twitter by using the hashtag #7ELECTION.

Though the purple cup was this election’s obvious winner as of today — though 7-Election “polls” don’t close until 7 p.m. tomorrow — blue cups hold a 2 percent lead that suggests a narrow win for Clinton tomorrow.

University of Alabama vs. Louisiana State University: Clinton

With 100 percent accuracy, the winner of the Alabama-LSU football game has directly correlated with who would become president since 1984. When LSU wins, so does the Republican candidate. When Alabama wins, that means the Democratic candidate will win the White House.

Alabama’s win this season thus points to a Clinton presidency.

World Series: Clinton

As noted by Ken Rudin, host of popular political podcast “Political Junkie,” every time the World Series requires seven games before a winner is determined, the winning league indicates which party will win the presidency. When the American League wins game 7, so does the Republican candidate. If the National League wins, though, a Democrat will be elected.

The Cubs won game 7 this year, a National League team, thus predicting a Clinton victory.

Voice Pitch of the Candidates: Trump

According to a 2015 experiment conducted by professor Casey Klofstad of the University of Miami, in an election between two male candidates, the one with the deeper voice is more likely to be elected. When a female candidate is involved, though, voters are more likely to select the one with the higher voice — especially if it was a male.

Though this model didn’t ring true during the primaries, this could be good news for Trump. According to an analysis done by Vocatic, his voice registers at an average of 189hz while Clinton’s voice is slightly lower with an average of about 188hz.