Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:06:51.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Primary to General Election: A Forecast of the Presidential Vote

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

Helmut Norpoth
Helmut Norpoth
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Yogi Berra might have said it: the best predictor of an election is, well, an election. Not a trial-heat conducted by opinion polls, but a real election of voters going to the polls. In the U.S., at least, what is known as a “general” election is preceded by a “primary” election, and that has been the case for presidential contests since 1912. So is the voting in presidential primaries a leading indicator of the vote in November? Remarkably so, as it turns out. How well presidential candidates do in primary elections foretells their prospects in the November election with great accuracy. What is more, the use of primaries as a vote predictor makes it possible to include in the forecast model both the candidate of the incumbent party and the candidate of the party out of the White House. The forecast for 2004 uses candidate vote shares in primaries, not just a win-lose dichotomy as done in the model used to predict the vote in 2000 (Norpoth 2001).

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 737 - 740
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams William C. 1987. “As New Hampshire Goes…” In Media and Momentum, eds. Gary Orren and Nelson Polsby. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Buell Emmett H. 2000. “The Changing Face of the New Hampshire Primary.” In In Pursuit of the White House 2000, ed. William Mayer. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Campbell Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Campbell James E., and James C. Garand. 2000. Before the Vote. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Jones Randall. 2002. Who Will Be in the White House? Predicting Presidential Elections. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Tom W. Rice 1992. Forecasting Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Midlarsky Manus I. 1984. “Political Stability of Two-Party and Multiparty Systems: Probabilistic Bases for the Comparison of Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 78: 929–951.Google Scholar
Norpoth Helmut. 1995. “Is Clinton Doomed? An Early Forecast for 1996.” PS: Political Science & Politics 28: 201–07.Google Scholar
Norpoth Helmut. 2001. “Primary Colors: A Mixed Blessing for Al Gore.” PS: Political Science & Politics 34: 45–48.Google Scholar
Norpoth Helmut. 2002. “On a Short Leash: Term Limits and Economic Voting.” In The Context of Economic Voting, eds. Han Dorussen and Michaell Taylor. London: Routledge, 121–136.Google Scholar
Norpoth Helmut, and Jerrold Rusk. 2003. “Wag the Dog: Congressional Elections and Political Change, 1828–2002.” Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Pomper Gerald M. et al. 2001. The Election of 2000. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Weisberg Herbert F., and Timothy G. Hill. 2004. “The Succession Presidential Election of 2000: The Battle of Legacies.” In Models of Voting in Presidential Elections: The 2000 U.S. Election, eds. Herbert F. Weisberg and Clyde Wilcox. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 27–48.Google Scholar