Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Elections

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.