1 / 23

Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Elections

Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Elections. Bob Botsch -- Fall 2012. Why predict ?. entertainment -- like point spreads in sports – media “horse race” helps candidates as the run exit polls help interpret vote. 1. Formal Mathematical Models.

tphyllis
Download Presentation

Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Elections

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Elections Bob Botsch -- Fall 2012

  2. Why predict ? entertainment -- like point spreads in sports – media “horse race” helps candidates as the run exit polls help interpret vote 1

  3. 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

  4. 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 1

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 1952, 1956: Personality Eisenhower vs Stevenson short term forces favors Republicans personality was critical – “I like Ike” 1

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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 1

  13. 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 Carter rebuilds southern base – Normal Election? 1

  14. 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” 1

  15. 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 1

  16. 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 1

  17. 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 1

  18. 1996: Normal Election Clinton vs Dole vs Perot short term forces favor Democrats Retrospective judgment over personality -- good economy -- 1984 de ja vu 1

  19. 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 1

  20. 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

  21. 2008 A normal election with short term factors mostly helping Democrats • New larger Dem base: 51-38% • Retropspective factors help Democrats • Historical low approval ratings of incumbent, in the 20’s • Majority view Iraq as a “mistake” • 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: • Ethnic antipathy depresses white Dem vote • Divisive Dem primary helps GOP, but HRC helps bind the wounds

  22. 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”

  23. 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.

More Related