Chapter 9 Understanding presidential Elections Bob Botsch

Chapter 9. Understanding presidential Elections Bob Botsch -- Fall 2012 3/16/2018

Why predict ? uentertainment -- like point spreads in sports – media “horse race” uhelps candidates as the run uexit polls help interpret vote 3/16/2018 1

Formal Mathematical Models u u u 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 Polly. Vote; Ray Fair; fivethirtyeight; Princeton Consortium Work pretty well, but campaigns matter—affect undecided split

Tracking Polls -- early efforts u. Literary Digest: correct in 1924, 28, 32 u 1936 disaster with 2 million surveys – sample bias u. Gallup/Roper/Crossley correct with small samples u 1948: stopped too early—quota sampling was biased 3/16/2018 1

How accurate? u u u “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 u u u 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 1980 s – about 100 k interviews + 15 k 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 u u 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 u. Eisenhower vs Stevenson ushort term forces favors Republicans upersonality was critical – “I like Ike” 3/16/2018 1

1960: near “Normal” election u u 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 u u 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 u u u 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 u. Nixon (“Peace with Honor”) vs Mc. Govern ushort term forces favor Rep’s uissues and personality -- Mc. Govern loses on both (the Eagleton fiasco) u. Dem’s lose more support in South 3/16/2018 1

1976: Rebuilding the New Deal Coalition? u. Carter vs Ford ushort term forces favor Democrats – economy and Watergate uretrospective judgment on trust upersonality -- Carter (“never lie”) more trusted 3/16/2018 u. Carter rebuilds southern base – Normal Election? 1

1980 – Dealignment u. Carter vs Reagan ushort term forces favor Republicans – “misery” index (unemployment/inflation/int rate) u. Retrospective judgment -- poor economy, Iranian hostage crisis -- the “ABC” election – “are u better off? ” umore regional realignment: the rise of the “Reagan Democrats” 3/16/2018 1

1984: A New Realignment? u. Mondale vs Reagan ushort term forces favor Republicans u. Retrospective judgment -- better economy – good timing! (fortuna) u. Issues play small role -- voters closer to Mondale on issues ureinforces regional realignment u. Gender gap appears 3/16/2018 1

1988: Three in a row! u. Dukakis vs Bush ushort term forces favor Republicans u. Retrospective reward to heir apparent -good economy u. Dukakis seen as too liberal on issues 3/16/2018 1

1992: Rebuilding the New Deal again u. Clinton vs Bush vs Perot ushort term forces favor Democrats u. Retrospective judgment over personality - poor economy -- the ABB election u. Clinton moves to center on issues (“triangulation”) -- New Democrats u. Perot distracts Bush but not a factor in end 3/16/2018 1

1996: Normal Election u. Clinton vs Dole vs Perot ushort term forces favor Democrats u. Retrospective judgment over personality -- good economy -- 1984 de ja vu 3/16/2018 1

2000: Almost 3 in a row u. Gore vs Bush 2 vs Nader vs Buchanan u. Bush runs “prospective” campaign u. Retrospective judgment on economy favors Gore, but Gore disassociates from Clinton u. Personality favors Bush u. Minority winner, thanks 2 Nader and Supreme Court 3/16/2018 1

2004 – Maximize the base u u 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 u u u u 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 Mc. Cain’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 u u u u 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 u u u Wildcards: Weather 1: Sandy, leadership image and independents—the “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? u If Obama loses a state he is supposed to win, like Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania or Ohio, then all the projections were off.

Chapter 9 Understanding presidential Elections Bob Botsch —