Predictive Analytics: Hacking the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Last month, I was retained by an unknown and non-political potential presidential candidate to help him determine if he had a shot at winning the presidency in 2016. Conventional wisdom would say "No way in hell!" However, I fielded a "Rhetorical Wargame" survey and was absolutely astounded by the resulting analytics.  Just two sets of factors framed the random survey:

• In 2016, the main focus of the voter must be our economy and the gridlock in Congress; and
• I provided a thorough list of politicians, economists, businessmen, and entertainers who might endorse this candidate, so he wouldn't be written off as "just another nut job" by a VERY skeptical electorate.

The key to a "Rhetorical Wargame" is to ask the hypothetical question at the beginning and at the end of the survey:  "Would you consider a candidate whose platform was…?" Between the two identical hypothetical questions, the survey spelled out the details of the platform AND asked the respondents (in a multiple-choice/choose-all-that-apply pull-down list) to choose what prominent endorsements would put this candidate over the top. I expected a one or two percent difference between all the potential endorsers. I was dead wrong.

Two individuals—non politicians but obviously trusted by American voters—could endorse and virtually guarantee my candidate could get elected in 2016. Net net: 68% of the voters would elect this candidate on the basis of a joint endorsement by these two men. And almost as interesting, 75% of the audience would vote AGAINST this candidate if were endorsed by any one of another half-dozen people. 

No, I don't choose to share the names of these two King Makers. Maybe later, grasshopper. After I see whether or not my candidate can meet with them and consider some unusual possibilities.

Selah.