Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-08T14:42:50.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy Model: Presidential Forecast for 2024

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2024

Charles Tien Open the ORCID record for Charles Tien [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael S. Lewis-Beck
Charles Tien
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Hunter College & The Graduate Center, CUNY, United States
Michael S. Lewis-Beck
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, United States
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our political economy model, as it has come to be called, has offered up forecasts of the American presidential election outcome since the early 1980s. The model, based on referendum theory, as measured by the job performance of the president and the economy (1948 to the present), yields a forecast from data available in the summer of the election year. We consider alternative specifications of this parsimonious model, examining the possible effects of other economic measures, Covid-19, and incumbency advantage on forecasting. The current point estimate of the core political economy model predicts the Democratic candidate will receive 48 percent of the two-party popular vote, which translates into a narrow Electoral College loss for the incumbent party. This point forecast, however, comes with a considerable amount of uncertainty. There is an 11-point spread around our point estimate, which effectively means we have a horserace on our hands, with both horses close to the finish line.

Information

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 58 , Issue 2: Forecasting the 2024 US Election , April 2025 , pp. 248 - 252
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Dean. 2024. “Do People Think the Economy is Bad Because the Media Failed, or Because the Economy is Actually Bad? Media Failure.” The Nation, July pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2017. “Introduction: A Re-cap of the 2016 Election Forecasts,” PS: Political Science & Politics 50:331–32.Google Scholar
Donovan, Kathleen, Kellstedt, Paul M., Key, Ellen M., and Lebo, Matthew J.. 2019. “Motivated Reasoning, Public Opinion, and Presidential Approval.” Political Behavior 42:1201–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ferrari, Ignazio. 2015. “The Successor Factor: Electoral Accountability in Presidential Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 48(2):193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Marc, Stiers, Dieter, and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 2023. “Has the Electoral College Grown More Disproportional? An Analysis of Election Results, 1876-2020,” Politics and Policy 51(April): 167–183. http://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 2024. “The Matrix of Consumer Discontent.” The New York Times. July 9.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Colin and Martini, Nicholas F.. 2020. “Economic Perceptions and Voting Behavior in U.S. Elections.” Research and Politics, 7(4):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Rice, Tom W.. 1982. “Presidential Popularity and Presidential Vote.” Public Opinion Quarterly 46:534–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Rice, Tom W.. 1984. “Forecasting Presidential Elections: A Comparison of Naive Models.” Political Behavior 6(1):9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tien, Charles. 2004. “Jobs and the Job of President: A Forecast for 2004.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37(4):753–758.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tien, Charles. 2016. “The Political Economy Model: 2016 US Election Forecasts.” PS: Political Science and Politics 49: 661–663.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tien, Charles. 2020. “The Political Economy Model: A Blue Wave Forecast for 2020.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520001365.Google Scholar
Mongrain, Philippe, Bruce, Will, Dassonneville, Ruth, and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 2023. “A Political Economy Model Forecast for the 2023 Dutch Election.” October 12. Blog LSE EUROPP. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/10/12/a-political-economy-model-forecast-of-the-2023-dutch-election/Google Scholar
Small, Raphael, and Eisinger, Robert M. 2020. “Whither Presidential Approval?” Presidential Studies Quarterly 50 (4):845–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tien, Charles. 2024. “Replication Data for The Political Economy Model: Presidential Forecast for 2024.” PS: Political Science & Politics. DOI: 10.7910/DVN/2VKBGD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tien, Charles and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 2023. “Economics, Covid, Election Forecasting: Did Trump Escape Blame?” American Politics Research 51(5): 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X231168584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, J. C., and Easton, David. 1965. “A Framework for Political Analysis.” In The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 360(1):179–180. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271626536000117Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Tien and Lewis-Beck Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2VKBGD
Link