Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:45:42.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Jobs and the Job of President: A Forecast for 2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

Michael S. Lewis-Beck
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Charles Tien
Affiliation:
Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY

Extract

During spring 2000, we released to the press a preliminary forecast of a Gore victory. Indeed, one of us, in a widely-read quotation, declared, “It's not even going to be close” (Washington Post, May 26, 2000, p. 1). We were wrong, as were all of our fellow modelers. Indeed, among “five of the best forecasters” identified by Robert Kaiser (Washington Post, May 26, 2000, p. 1), the Gore projection ranged from 53% to 60% of the two-party popular vote, pointing to a Democratic landslide. Such gross error raises the question: Should the models be junked? Some journalists, pundits, and scholars have suggested the answer is “yes.” We disagree. Remember that forecasters of all stripes—modelers, pollsters, marketers, campaign experts—failed to call 2000. (See the review of 49 forecasts, from multiple and international sources, in Lafay and Lewis-Beck 2000). The virtually total inability to predict the Bush-Gore result also reminds us that no model will ever be perfect, that electoral behavior can never be fully determined. Still, while falling short of perfection, we believe that modeling can be improved.

Type
Symposium
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

Abramowitz Alan. 1996. “Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election.” American Politics Quarterly 24: 434442.Google Scholar
Clarke Harold D., and Marianne C. Stewart. 1994. “Prospections, Retrospections, and Rationality: The ‘Bankers’ Model of Presidential Approval Reconsidered.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 11041123.Google Scholar
Lacy Dean, and Anthony Mughan. 2002. “Economic Performance, Job Insecurity, and Electoral Choice.” British Journal of Political Science 32: 513533.Google Scholar
Lafay Jean-Dominique, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 2000. “Qui Sera le Nouveau Président des Etats-Unis?Le Figaro, 20 octobre, XIII.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Tom W. Rice. 1982. “Presidential Popularity and Presidential Vote.” Public Opinion Quarterly 46: 534537.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Tom W. Rice. 1984. “Forecasting Presidential Elections: A Comparison of Naïve Models.” Political Behavior 6: 921.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Tom W. Rice. 1992. Forecasting Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Charles Tien. 1996. “The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models.” American Politics Quarterly 24: 468491.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Charles Tien. 2001. “Modeling the Future: Lessons from the Gore Forecast.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34: 2123.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck Michael S., and Charles Tien. 2002. “Presidential Election Forecasting: The Bush-Gore Draw.” Research in Political Sociology 10: 173187.Google Scholar
Nadeau Richard, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 2001. “National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 63: 159181.Google Scholar
Paldam Martin. 1986. “The Distribution of Election Results and the Two Explanations of the Cost of Ruling.” European Journal of Political Economy 2: 524.Google Scholar
White Theodore H. 1961. The Making of the President, 1960. New York: The Book-of-the-Month Club.Google Scholar
White Theodore H. 1969. The Making of the President, 1968. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar