Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:18:08.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Clinton Doomed? An Early Forecast for 1996

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Helmut Norpoth
Helmut Norpoth*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Forecasting elections may be impossible, but no more so than resisting the temptation to try. As citizens following a campaign, we all indulge in private guesses about who is going to win electoral contests. Some go further and engage in illegal acts—unless done through the services of the Iowa Electronic Market—and bet money on election outcomes. Numerous political scientists have invited fame, but also ridicule, by designing sophisticated models to forecast elections; readers of PS are no strangers to those efforts. Students of elections can hardly escape this tempting opportunity any more than they can escape elections themselves. No phenomenon in our discipline comes in such a regular, precise, and verifiable form as an election.

As Republican hopefuls announce bids to run for president in 1996, while Bill Clinton is pondering his strategy for reelection, political scientists resume their tinkering with models to predict the outcome of the 1996 presidential election. Those forecasts, however, will not arrive until two or three months before election day, when the most up-to-date readings for the various predictors are available. Some would argue that such early forecasting is presumptuous any-how, since it ignores the whole general election campaign. Others will complain that those forecasts arrive too late to have more than curiosity value.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 201 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1995

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.)

Footnotes

1.

This article incorporates material from a paper presented at the conference, “Future Days: Forecasting Elections,” July 18–22, 1994, Alicante, Spain. A note of thanks goes to Antonio Alaminos and Maria Jose Gonzales.

References

Box, George E.P., and Jenkins, Gwilym. 1976. Time Series Analysis, Rev. ed. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus,Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. and Mann, Thomas. 1992. “Forecasting the 1992 Presidential Election: A User's Guide to the Models.” The Brookings Review 10:22–27.10.2307/20080338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. and Wink, Kenneth A. 1990. “Trial-Heat Forecasts of the Presidential Vote.” American Politics Quarterly 18:251–69.10.1177/1532673X9001800301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, David A.,Bell, William R. and Miller, Robert B. 1986. “Unit Roots in Time Series Models: Tests and Implications.” The American Statistician 40:12–27.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1989. “Economic Conditions and the Presidential Vote.” American Political Science Review 83:567–573.10.2307/1962406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup Poll Monthly, Nov. 1992.Google Scholar
Granger, C.W.J. 1989. Forecasting in Business and Economics. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., “On the Demand for Economic Outcomes: Macroeconomic Performance and Mass Political Support in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany.” Journal of Politics 44:426–462.10.2307/2130595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowell, Roger et al. , 1993. “The 1992 British Election: The Failure of the Polls.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57:238–263.10.1086/269369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagay, Michael R. 1992. “Variability without Fault: Why Even Well-Designed Polls Can Disagree.” In Media Polls in American Politics, ed. Mann, Thomas E. and Orren, Gary R. Washington: Brookings, 95–124.Google Scholar
Kelley, Stanley Jr., and Mirer, Thad W. 1974. “The Simple Act of Voting.” American Political Science Review 68:572–591.10.2307/1959506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1983. Macroeconomics & Micropolitics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. “Sort-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964.” American Political Science Review 65:131–143.10.2307/1955049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V.O. Jr., 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17:3–18.10.2307/2126401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988. Economics & Elections. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Rice, Tom. 1992. Forecasting Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Lubell, Samuel. 1952. The Future of American Politics. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Mitofsky, Warren. 1991. “A Short History of Exit Polls.” In Polling and Presidential Election Coverage, ed. Lavrakas, Paul J. and Holley, Jack K. Newbury Park: Sage, 83–99.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut. 1984. “Economics, Politics, and the Cycle of Presidential Popularity.” Political Behavior 6:253–273.10.1007/BF00989620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr., and Simon, Dennis M. 1985. “Promise and Performance: A Dynamic Model of Presidential Popularity.” American Political Science Review 79:334–358.10.2307/1956653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, Charles W. and Cantril, Albert H. 1980. Polls: Their Use and Misuse in Politics. Cabin John, Md: Seven Locks Press.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J. 1983. Forecasting Presidential Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.2307/j.ctt1xp3vfxCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. and Iversen, Gudmund R. 1966. “On the Existence of Forces Restoring Party Competition.” In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Campbell, Angus et al. New York: Wiley, 180–193.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691219417CrossRefGoogle Scholar