Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Hummel, Patrick and Rothschild, David 2014. Fundamental models for forecasting elections at the state level. Electoral Studies, Vol. 35, p. 123.


    Granka, Laura 2013. Using Online Search Traffic to Predict US Presidential Elections. PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 46, Issue. 02, p. 271.


    ×

Forecasting the 2012 Presidential Election with State-Level Economic Indicators

  • Michael J. Berry (a1) and Kenneth N. Bickers (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000984
  • Published online: 01 September 2012
Abstract

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.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

James E. Campbell 1992. “Forecasting the Presidential Vote in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 386407.

James E. Campbell 2001. “Taking Stock of the Forecasts of the 2000 Presidential Election.” American Politics Research 29: 275–78.

Jeffrey E. Cohen 1998. “State-Level Public Opinion Polls as Predictors of Presidential Election Results.” American Politics Quarterly 26 (2): 139–59.

Jay A. DeSart , and Thomas M. Holbrook. 2003. “Statewide Trial-Heat Polls and the 2000 Presidential Election: A Forecast Model.” Social Science Quarterly 84 (3): 561–73.

Thomas M. Holbrook , and Jay A. DeSart. 1999. “Using State Polls to Forecast Presidential Election Outcomes in the American States.” International Journal of Forecasting 15: 137–42.

John R. Petrocik , William L. Benoit, and Glenn J. Hansen. 2003/2004. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.”Political Science Quarterly 118 (4): 599626.

Richard J. Powell 2004. “The Strategic Importance of State-Level Factors in Presidential Elections.” Publius 34 (3): 115–30.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

PS: Political Science & Politics
  • ISSN: 1049-0965
  • EISSN: 1537-5935
  • URL: /core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×