Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-zgpz2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-23T06:56:51.367Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Forecasting the 2012 Presidential Election with State-Level Economic Indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2012

Michael J. Berry
University of Colorado, Denver
Kenneth N. Bickers
University of Colorado, Boulder


Nearly all forecast models of US presidential elections provide estimates of the national two-party vote (Campbell 2008). Each of the nine forecasts published in the 2008 forecasting issue of PS: Political Science and Politics made national popular vote total predictions for the major party candidates, while only one provided an expected result in the Electoral College (Klarner 2008). These national vote models are assumed to be reliable forecasts of who is likely to win the general election. In most cases, this assumption is reasonable. It becomes problematic, however, at precisely the point that forecasts are most interesting: when elections are close. In tight elections, national forecasts can and have produced a “winner” different from the actual winner. Consider the forecasts and ultimate outcome of the 2000 election. Each of the 2000 presidential election forecasts predicted vice president Al Gore to win a majority of the two-party popular vote, which he did, but none correctly predicted governor George W. Bush to assume the presidency (Campbell 2001). Never in US history have White House residents been determined through a national popular vote. Presidential elections are decided through contests in the states and the District of Columbia. The forecast model we developed explicitly models the presidential contest based on factors inherent to these 51 jurisdictions. This modeling approach allows us to make a projection of the Electoral College result, which popular vote estimates cannot.

Symposium: Forecasting the 2012 American National Elections
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012 

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.)


Abramowitz, Alan I. 2008. “Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 691–96.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1992. “Forecasting the Presidential Vote in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 386407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2001. “Taking Stock of the Forecasts of the 2000 Presidential Election.” American Politics Research 29: 275–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2008. “Editor's Introduction: Forecasting the 2008 National Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 679–82.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1998. “State-Level Public Opinion Polls as Predictors of Presidential Election Results.” American Politics Quarterly 26 (2): 139–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuzán, Alfred G., and Bundrick, Charles M.. 2008. “Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election: A Challenge for the Fiscal Model.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 717–22.Google Scholar
DeSart, Jay A., and Holbrook, Thomas M.. 2003. “Statewide Trial-Heat Polls and the 2000 Presidential Election: A Forecast Model.” Social Science Quarterly 84 (3): 561–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2008. “Leading Economic Indicators, the Polls, and the Presidential Vote.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 703–08.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M. 2008. “Incumbency, National Conditions, and the 2008 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 709–12.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and DeSart, Jay A.. 1999. “Using State Polls to Forecast Presidential Election Outcomes in the American States.” International Journal of Forecasting 15: 137–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2008. “Forecasting the 2008 U.S. House, Senate and Presidential Elections at the District and State Level.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41 (4): 723–28.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tien, Charles. 2008. “The Job of President and the Jobs Model Forecast: Obama for '08?PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 687–90.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R., Benoit, William L., and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2003/2004. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.”Political Science Quarterly 118 (4): 599626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Richard J. 2004. “The Strategic Importance of State-Level Factors in Presidential Elections.” Publius 34 (3): 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar