Chapter 9. Understanding presidential
Elections Elections
Bob Botsch -- Fall 2012
3/12/2016
Why predict ?
entertainment
-- like point spreads in
sports – media “horse race”
helps candidates as the run
exit polls help interpret vote
3/12/2016
1
Formal Mathematical Models





Based on economic factors: GDP, growth, inflation,
real disposal income, interest rates, unemployment
Attitudes: job approval of incumbent, right/wrong
track
Pol Cycle: # of terms a party has held White
House—hard to win 3 straight!
Example: See PollyVote; Ray Fair; fivethirtyeight;
Princeton Consortium
Work pretty well, but campaigns matter—affect
undecided split
Tracking Polls -- early efforts
Literary
Digest: correct in 1924, 28, 32
1936 disaster with 2 million surveys –
sample bias
Gallup/Roper/Crossley correct with small
samples
1948: stopped too early—quota sampling
was biased
3/12/2016
1
How accurate?






“Snapshot in time” limitation
hardest in close elections—sampling
error
hardest when hi % make up mind late
in campaign–how to divide undecideds
Complicated by turnout estimates (lv’s)
generally good record (pp.299-300)
Averaging poll results— RCP average
and Princeton Consortium average
2
Exit Polls






Early efforts based on early returns—1952
Univac predicted Ike had 100 to 1 chance of
winning, but network too afraid to make call
First exit poll in 1968
Media consortium pooling efforts since 1980s
– about 100k interviews + 15k tel interviews
most accurate kind of poll
problem of competitive pressure to make early
calls (2000 and Fla)
Do early calls affect later voters? 1980 – not
so much
3
Voter Models: major factors




partisanship -- Critical Election Theory – growing
polarization
prospective or retrospective view of voters—
greatly affected by filter of party id
issues and personality balance in any election
short term forces critical in close elections –
deviations from the “normal vote”
3
1952, 1956: Personality
Eisenhower
vs Stevenson
short term forces favors
Republicans
personality was critical – “I like
Ike”
3/12/2016
1
1960: near “Normal” election




JFK vs Nixon
short term favors Rep -- slightly
Catholicism -- hurts in South -helps in North
movement of Af-Am minority to
Dem swings election
4
1964: Normal Election




LBJ vs Goldwater
short term favors Democrats
Goldwater seen as radical -issues help LBJ (the fraudlent
“peace candidate”)
Regional realignment starts –
1964 Civil Rights Act and white
South
5
1968: Dealignment with regional
Relaignment



HHHumphrey vs Nixon vs
Wallace
short term issues favor Rep’s
Issues split Democrats: Vietnam
and civil rights (Strom’s role in
the South)
6
1972: Flip of 1964, & More Dealignment
Nixon
(“Peace with Honor”) vs McGovern
short term forces favor Rep’s
issues and personality -- McGovern loses
on both (the Eagleton fiasco)
Dem’s lose more support in South
3/12/2016
1
1976: Rebuilding the New Deal Coalition?
Carter
vs Ford
short term forces favor Democrats –
economy and Watergate
retrospective judgment on trust
personality -- Carter (“never lie”) more
trusted
3/12/2016
Carter rebuilds southern
base – Normal
Election?
1
1980 – Dealignment
Carter
vs Reagan
short term forces favor Republicans –
“misery” index (unemployment/inflation/int
rate)
Retrospective judgment -- poor economy,
Iranian hostage crisis -- the “ABC” election
– “are u better off?”
more regional realignment: the rise of the
“Reagan Democrats”
3/12/2016
1
1984: A New Realignment?
Mondale
vs Reagan
short term forces favor Republicans
Retrospective judgment -- better
economy – good timing! (fortuna)
Issues play small role -- voters closer to
Mondale on issues
reinforces regional realignment
Gender gap appears
3/12/2016
1
1988: Three in a row!
Dukakis
vs Bush
short term forces favor Republicans
Retrospective reward to heir apparent -good economy
Dukakis seen as too liberal on issues
3/12/2016
1
1992: Rebuilding the New Deal again
Clinton
vs Bush vs Perot
short term forces favor Democrats
Retrospective judgment over personality - poor economy -- the ABB election
Clinton moves to center on issues
(“triangulation”) -- New Democrats
Perot distracts Bush but not a factor in
end
3/12/2016
1
1996: Normal Election
Clinton
vs Dole vs Perot
short term forces favor Democrats
Retrospective judgment over personality
-- good economy -- 1984 de ja vu
3/12/2016
1
2000: Almost 3 in a row
Gore
vs Bush2 vs Nader vs Buchanan
Bush runs “prospective” campaign
Retrospective judgment on economy
favors Gore, but Gore disassociates from
Clinton
Personality favors Bush
Minority winner, thanks 2 Nader and
Supreme Court
3/12/2016
1
2004 – Maximize the base




Bush v Kerry
Bush uses wedge issues (e.g. gay
marriage) to turn out Republican base
Ties Iraq to war on terrorism
Personality--Candidate image critical:
“wartime” president vs weak flip-flopper
with unpatriotic past
2008 A normal election with short term
factors mostly helping Democrats







New larger Dem base: 51-38%
Retropspective factors help Democrats
1.
Historical low approval ratings of incumbent, in the 20’s
2.
Majority view Iraq as a “mistake”
3.
Economic crisis tied to deregulation
McCain’s poor response to crisis and vp choice
Echoes of 1932, 1960, 1980, and 1992
“Get tired” effect—3 in a row is tough!
Discipline, organization, $ , favor Dem
Two factors hurt Democrats:
1.
Ethnic antipathy depresses white Dem vote
2.
Divisive Dem primary helps GOP, but HRC helps bind the
wounds
2012? A Chance for Realignment Lost







Democrats could have cemented advantages won in
2008—blown by marginal economic success (summer
2012 economic numbers)
Dealignment with rise of “independents” as largest
group—smaller Dem base
Democratic success(?) was planned to turn on personal
factors (trust and favorability), but lost that advantage
Retrospective moving toward Obama--Gallup
Prospective tends to favor Romney— wrong track
Will be remembered as a campaign in which a really
bad first debate (almost?) decided the election
Turnout is key—why low turnout favors the GOP—see
Pew Study of “nonvoters”
2012? A Chance for Realignment Lost—
Continued





Wildcards:
Weather 1: Sandy, leadership image and
independents—the “Chris Christi effect”
Weather 2: bad weather interacting with the
“enthusiasm gap,” esp. wrt young voters
Tracking Polls—the rapidly rising refusal rate:
90%!?!
Early warning sign Tuesday evening?
 If Obama loses a state he is supposed to win,
like Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania or Ohio, then
all the projections were off.