5/5/2015 chapter 9. understanding presidential elections elections bob botsch -- fall 2012

04/18/23

Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Elections

Bob Botsch -- Fall 2012

04/18/23

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

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

04/18/23

Tracking Polls -- early effortsLiterary Digest: correct in 1924, 28, 321936 disaster with 2 million surveys – sample biasGallup/Roper/Crossley correct with small samples1948: stopped too early—quota sampling was biased

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

04/18/23

1952, 1956: PersonalityEisenhower vs Stevenson short term forces favors Republicanspersonality was critical – “I like Ike”

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

04/18/23

1972: Flip of 1964, & More DealignmentNixon (“Peace with Honor”) vs McGovernshort term forces favor Rep’sissues and personality -- McGovern loses on both (the Eagleton fiasco)Dem’s lose more support in South

1

04/18/23

1976: Rebuilding the New Deal Coalition? Carter vs Ford short term forces favor Democrats – economy and Watergateretrospective judgment on trustpersonality -- Carter (“never lie”) more trustedCarter rebuilds southern base – Normal Election? 1

04/18/23

1980 – DealignmentCarter vs Reaganshort 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

04/18/23

1984: A New Realignment? Mondale vs Reaganshort term forces favor RepublicansRetrospective judgment -- better economy – good timing! (fortuna)Issues play small role -- voters closer to Mondale on issuesreinforces regional realignmentGender gap appears

1

04/18/23

1988: Three in a row!Dukakis vs Bushshort term forces favor RepublicansRetrospective reward to heir apparent -- good economyDukakis seen as too liberal on issues

1

04/18/23

1992: Rebuilding the New Deal againClinton vs Bush vs Perotshort term forces favor DemocratsRetrospective judgment over personality -- poor economy -- the ABB electionClinton moves to center on issues (“triangulation”) -- New DemocratsPerot distracts Bush but not a factor in end

1

04/18/23

1996: Normal ElectionClinton vs Dole vs Perotshort term forces favor DemocratsRetrospective judgment over personality -- good economy -- 1984 de ja vu

1

04/18/23

2000: Almost 3 in a rowGore vs Bush2 vs Nader vs BuchananBush runs “prospective” campaignRetrospective judgment on economy favors Gore, but Gore disassociates from ClintonPersonality favors BushMinority winner, thanks 2 Nader and Supreme Court

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.