Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T11:14:53.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Trial-Heat Forecast of the 2008 Presidential Vote: Performance and Value Considerations in an Open-Seat Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

James E. Campbell
James E. Campbell
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, SUNY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The trial-heat forecasting equation grew out of an examination of Gallup's trial-heat polls (“if the election were held today, who would you vote for?”) at various points in election years as predictors of the November vote (Campbell and Wink 1990). My co-author Ken Wink and I found, not surprisingly, that polls as literal forecasts were not very accurate until just before the election, that taking the historical relationship between the polls and votes into account through a bivariate regression significantly increased their accuracy, and that taking the contemporary context of the election as measured by economic growth in the election year into account increased their accuracy even further. Corroborating Lewis-Beck and Rice's earlier finding (Lewis-Beck 1985, 58), we found that an equation combining the Labor Day trial-heat poll standing of the in-party candidate and the second-quarter growth rate in the economy produced the most accurate forecast of the national two-party popular vote.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 697 - 701
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

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.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2004. “When Good Forecasts Go Bad: The Time-for-Change Model and the 2004 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (October): 745–6.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2008a. The American Campaign, Second Edition: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2008b. “Do Swing Voters Swing Elections?” In The Swing Voter in American Politics, ed. Mayer, William G.. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 118–32.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2007. “Nomination Politics, Party Unity, and Presidential Elections.” In Understanding the Presidency, 4thed., ed. Pfiffner, James P. and Davidson, Roger H.. New York: Pearson Longman, 74–90.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2005. “Evaluating the Trial-Heat and Economy Forecast of the 2004 Presidential Vote: All's Well that Ends Well.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (January): 33–4.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2001a. “An Evaluation of the Trial-Heat and Economy Forecast of the Presidential Vote in the 2000 Election.” American Politics Research 29 (May): 289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2001b. “The Referendum that Didn't Happen: The Forecasts of the 2000 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (March): 33–8.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2000. “Polls and Votes: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns.” In Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, ed. Campbell, James E. and Garand, James C.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 17–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E., and Wink, Kenneth A.. 1990. “Trial-Heat Forecasts of the Presidential Vote.” American Politics Quarterly 18 (July): 251–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1989. “Economic Conditions and the Presidential Vote.” American Political Science Review 83 (June): 567–73.Google Scholar
Fair, Ray C. 2002. Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Alford, John R.. 1981. “The Electoral Impact of Economic Conditions: Who is Held Responsible?” American Journal of Political Science 25 (August): 423–39.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
King, James D. 2001. “Incumbent Popularity and Vote Choice in Gubernatorial Elections.” Journal of Politics 63 (May): 585–97.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F. 1944. “The Election Is Over.” Public Opinion Quarterly 8 (Autumn): 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1985. “Election Forecasts in 1984: How Accurate Were They?” PS: Political Science and Politics, 18 (Winter): 53–62.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988. Economics and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1925. The Phantom Public. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 1985. “Throwing the Rascals Out: Policy and Performance Evaluations of Presidential Candidates, 1952–1980.” American Political Science Review 79 (June): 359–72.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 2001. “National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 63 (February): 159–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut. 2002. “On a Short-Leash: Term Limits and the Economic Voter.” In Economic Voting, ed. Dorussen, Han and Taylor, Michael. Oxford: Routledge, 121–36.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 2002. “Partisanship and Incumbency in Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior 24 (December): 339–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar