Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:01:14.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Election Forecasting: The Future of the Presidency and the House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Brad Lockerbie
Brad Lockerbie
Affiliation:
East Carolina University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is about a simple two-variable equation forecasting presidential election outcomes and a three-variable equation forecasting seat change in House elections. Over the past two decades a cottage industry of political forecasting has developed (Lewis-Beck and Rice 1992; Campbell and Garand 2000). At the 1994 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, several participants offered their forecasts of the upcoming midterm House elections. Unfortunately, not one of the forecasters was within 20 seats of the actual outcome. If, however, these forecasts had been pooled, as Gaddie (1997) points out, then they would have come remarkably close to the actual seat change that occurred. Moving forward, at the 1996 APSA Annual Meeting the collection of forecasters did a much better job with that year's presidential election. The forecasters also got the overall popular vote outcome correct at the 2000 APSA Annual Meeting for that year's presidential election. We all forecasted a victory for Al Gore, with James Campbell coming the closest to the actual total (50.2%) at 52.8%. At the panel at the 2004 APSA Annual Meeting almost every forecaster predicted the actual outcome correctly. Forecasting elections holds us accountable—we cannot go back and change our forecast for an election after it has occurred. Moreover, if we stick with one forecast, it easy to judge the overall accuracy of our equations.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 713 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

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 I. 2000. “Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election.” In Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, ed. Campbell, James E. and Garand, James C.. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” Journal of Politics 43: 1042–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E., and Garand, James C.. 2000. Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Collie, Melissa P. 1981. “Incumbency, Electoral Safety, and Turnover in the House of Representatives, 1952–1976.” American Political Science Review 75 (March): 119–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1972. “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 66 (December): 1234–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gaddie, R. Keith. 1997. “Congressional Seat Swings: Reexamining the Exposure in House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 50: 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1981. “Sociotropic Politics: The American Case.” British Journal of Politics 11: 129–61.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1979. “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 79: 10–27.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1986. “What Are People Trying to Do with Their Schemata? The Question of Purpose.” In Political Cognition, ed. Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 2006. “Does Economics Still Matter? Econometrics and the Vote.” Journal of Politics 68: 208–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 2005. “Election Forecasting: Principles and Practices.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 7: 145–64.CrossRefGoogle 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 Rice, Tom W.. 1992. Forecasting Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Skalaban, Andrew. 1989. “Citizen Forecasting: Can Voters See into the Future?” British Journal of Political Science 19: 146–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockerbie, Brad. 2008. Do Voters Look to the Future? Economics and Elections. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M., and Conway, M. Margaret. 1986. “Interpreting the 1974 Congressional Election.” American Political Science Review 80 (June): 593–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar