Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
STORY
Is This Any Way to Pick A Winner?
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday , May 26, 2000 ; A01
So how exactly did Al Gore win the election of 2000? By making the clever decision to run in the midst of an economic boom, and by choosing to succeed a popular incumbent.
You didn't realize that Gore has won the election? A technicality. According to half a dozen political scientists who have honed and polished the art of election forecasting, the die is all but cast. Today, with 165 days left before Americans go to the polls, they are saying Gore will win 53 to 60 percent of the vote cast for him and George W. Bush.
Although Bush's pollster finds fault with these forecasts, these academic prognosticators have a startlingly good record predicting election results months in advance. The fact that opinion polls today give Bush a modest lead over Gore doesn't faze them. Polls this early in the campaign "just have a relatively low correlation with the fall vote," said Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who has written about election forecasting. The forecasters have a better record, Mann added.
"It's not even going to be close," said Michael Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa, who foresees Gore winning 56.2 percent of the two-party vote. Lewis-Beck's forecasting model is based on growth of the gross domestic product from the fourth quarter of the preelection year through the first quarter of election year, and on poll findings on presidential approval and voter opinions on which party's candidate will best promote peace and prosperity.
Should anyone listen to Lewis-Beck? Well, in 1996 he did miscall the final results. His July forecast that year foresaw President Clinton winning 54.8 percent of the two-party vote in November. In fact, Clinton won 54.7 percent. Yipes. That was a better prediction four months before the election than most commentators and pollsters could make a few days before the voting. Indeed, Lewis-Beck was much closer to the actual result than the national exit poll taken on Election Day as voters left their polling places, which overstated Clinton's vote by more than 3 percentage points.
The leading academic forecasters share the belief that elections reflect, first of all, underlying trends in the economy and public opinion. Each has his own elaborate mathematical model, but they share common ingredients: a measurement of the health of the economy and poll findings on the public's political views. Some leave it at that, some add other factors, such as how Americans are feeling about their personal economic situations (literally better than ever before, at this moment). And different forecasting models use different measurements of the economy and of public opinion, taken at different times from about now through Labor Day.
All of them use elaborate higher mathematics to come up with predictions of the share of the two-party vote that the candidate of the incumbent party will win in November. (All agree that third-party candidates have no palpable impact on their models, and history bears them out.) Five of the best forecasters (measured by their records) say that as of today, Gore can be expected to win 53 to 60 percent of the two-party vote in November. This means none of the forecasts predicts a really close election. Most of these models have picked the winner correctly in years since 1952 when the winner got 53 percent or more of the vote.
If these models are right--and in fairness to their cautious authors, none seems ready to bet his pension on his prediction--Gore's biggest advantages are the popularity of the president and the continuing economic boom. Clinton enjoys an approval rating of about 60 percent in polls, a number that has remained constant for many months. This suggests that by November, many Americans may not agree with Bush and the Republicans that it's time for a change in the party holding the White House. While the longest economic expansion of the modern era continues, the status quo retains considerable appeal.
Thomas M. Holbrook, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, uses as an economic indicator public responses to a question asked regularly by one of America's oldest polls, the University of Michigan's survey of consumers: ". . . Would you say that you . . . are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago?" Positive answers to this question are literally off the chart.
In 1984, when President Ronald Reagan buried Walter F. Mondale, Holbrook noted in an interview, most Americans answered that question affirmatively. He gave their answers a numerical value of 121, meaning 21 percent more Americans said they were better off than said they were worse off, compared with a year earlier. This was the highest ever in an election year, Holbrook said--until now. In March of this year, the index was 135.
Reagan's 1984 approval rating, Holbrook noted, was actually lower (about 54 percent) than Clinton's is now, though of course Reagan was running for reelection, and Clinton is not. Nevertheless, Holbrook said he predicts that Gore will win 59.6 percent of the two-party vote. In 1996 Holbrook's model predicted a Clinton victory but overstated Clinton's share of the vote by 2.6 percent.
How confident is Holbrook in his prediction? "We all take a deep breath about now and hope nothing unusual happens" before November, he replied.
Holbrook explained that one problem faced by all the forecasters is the relatively small number of elections on which they can base their predictions. Most built their models using data from the last 13 elections, since 1948--that is, the elections for which comparable poll results and economic data are available.
Statistically, 13 is a small number--about 30 cases would sharply increase confidence in the model, Holbrook said. So the forecasts for the 2068 presidential election should be really reliable.
Another uncertainty is what Alan I. Abramowitz of Emory University calls the "time for a change" factor. Democrats are seeking a third consecutive term in the White House, and Abramowitz believes that fact will convince some voters who might otherwise support them that it is indeed time for a change. In his model, an incumbent party seeking a third term is docked 4 percentage points. This year, according to Abramowitz's model, if Clinton's approval rating and the economy remain at today's levels until the beginning of July, Gore will win 53 or 54 percent of the two-party vote.
Christopher Wlezien of the University of Houston said there might have been a "time for a change" factor in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections, when his forecasting model would have underpredicted the challenging party's vote. (Like the other forecasters, Wlezien has gone back to calculate predictions for elections that took place long before his model was invented.) But in 1988, when the Republicans were seeking a third consecutive term, Wlezien's model had George Bush's vote right within six-tenths of 1 percent.
In June 1996, Wlezien's model picked Clinton's November vote within one-tenth of 1 percent. As of this month, Wlezien said in an interview, his model gives Gore 56.1 percent of the two-party vote in November.
If election results can actually be predicted so far in advance, does that mean campaigns are irrelevant? Not at all, according to these political scientists. Two of them--Holbrook and James E. Campbell of the University of Buffalo--have written books on the subject. They differ on some points, but both agree that campaigns invigorate partisans, convey information to voters that helps them choose a candidate and expose the candidates to the public. And like all these prognosticators, Holbrook and Campbell said their predictive models assume that the campaign will occur and that both major party candidates will perform reasonably well.
As Abramowitz of Emory put it, "Campaigns play an important role in activating voters' partisan and ideological predispositions." But, he added, "these predispositions are largely determined before the campaign begins." In other words, the logic of the election can be seen far in advance, even if the voters need the effects of the campaign to see it for themselves, then act on it.
Asked for comment, an adviser to the Gore campaign said these models have some merit. "This is one of the reasons the campaign feels good about the election," said Samuel L. Popkin, a political scientist working during the campaign with Harrison Hickman, Gore's pollster.
Fred Steeper, Bush's pollster, however, said the forecasts "are probably wrong, and Bush will win." Steeper said that models dependent only on the state of the economy and a few basic poll findings miss special facets of this year's electorate, including voters' belief that although the country is doing well economically, it is suffering "a decline in moral values." He added that the forecasts also miss voter concerns with issues such as education.
Several of the forecasters pointed out that Americans are notoriously nonpolitical most of the time. Celinda Lake, a pollster, has written: "We should realize that the average family in America spends five minutes a week on politics."
The political scientists said their models could be undermined by a particularly good or bad performance by one candidate in a campaign. "What if Gore turns out to be a terrible candidate?" asked Wlezien. "This may be the year we find out something different" than the models predict. But he didn't sound like a man who expected to be surprised.
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox
I'll see you at the TFL End Of Summer Meet!
Is This Any Way to Pick A Winner?
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday , May 26, 2000 ; A01
So how exactly did Al Gore win the election of 2000? By making the clever decision to run in the midst of an economic boom, and by choosing to succeed a popular incumbent.
You didn't realize that Gore has won the election? A technicality. According to half a dozen political scientists who have honed and polished the art of election forecasting, the die is all but cast. Today, with 165 days left before Americans go to the polls, they are saying Gore will win 53 to 60 percent of the vote cast for him and George W. Bush.
Although Bush's pollster finds fault with these forecasts, these academic prognosticators have a startlingly good record predicting election results months in advance. The fact that opinion polls today give Bush a modest lead over Gore doesn't faze them. Polls this early in the campaign "just have a relatively low correlation with the fall vote," said Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who has written about election forecasting. The forecasters have a better record, Mann added.
"It's not even going to be close," said Michael Lewis-Beck of the University of Iowa, who foresees Gore winning 56.2 percent of the two-party vote. Lewis-Beck's forecasting model is based on growth of the gross domestic product from the fourth quarter of the preelection year through the first quarter of election year, and on poll findings on presidential approval and voter opinions on which party's candidate will best promote peace and prosperity.
Should anyone listen to Lewis-Beck? Well, in 1996 he did miscall the final results. His July forecast that year foresaw President Clinton winning 54.8 percent of the two-party vote in November. In fact, Clinton won 54.7 percent. Yipes. That was a better prediction four months before the election than most commentators and pollsters could make a few days before the voting. Indeed, Lewis-Beck was much closer to the actual result than the national exit poll taken on Election Day as voters left their polling places, which overstated Clinton's vote by more than 3 percentage points.
The leading academic forecasters share the belief that elections reflect, first of all, underlying trends in the economy and public opinion. Each has his own elaborate mathematical model, but they share common ingredients: a measurement of the health of the economy and poll findings on the public's political views. Some leave it at that, some add other factors, such as how Americans are feeling about their personal economic situations (literally better than ever before, at this moment). And different forecasting models use different measurements of the economy and of public opinion, taken at different times from about now through Labor Day.
All of them use elaborate higher mathematics to come up with predictions of the share of the two-party vote that the candidate of the incumbent party will win in November. (All agree that third-party candidates have no palpable impact on their models, and history bears them out.) Five of the best forecasters (measured by their records) say that as of today, Gore can be expected to win 53 to 60 percent of the two-party vote in November. This means none of the forecasts predicts a really close election. Most of these models have picked the winner correctly in years since 1952 when the winner got 53 percent or more of the vote.
If these models are right--and in fairness to their cautious authors, none seems ready to bet his pension on his prediction--Gore's biggest advantages are the popularity of the president and the continuing economic boom. Clinton enjoys an approval rating of about 60 percent in polls, a number that has remained constant for many months. This suggests that by November, many Americans may not agree with Bush and the Republicans that it's time for a change in the party holding the White House. While the longest economic expansion of the modern era continues, the status quo retains considerable appeal.
Thomas M. Holbrook, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, uses as an economic indicator public responses to a question asked regularly by one of America's oldest polls, the University of Michigan's survey of consumers: ". . . Would you say that you . . . are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago?" Positive answers to this question are literally off the chart.
In 1984, when President Ronald Reagan buried Walter F. Mondale, Holbrook noted in an interview, most Americans answered that question affirmatively. He gave their answers a numerical value of 121, meaning 21 percent more Americans said they were better off than said they were worse off, compared with a year earlier. This was the highest ever in an election year, Holbrook said--until now. In March of this year, the index was 135.
Reagan's 1984 approval rating, Holbrook noted, was actually lower (about 54 percent) than Clinton's is now, though of course Reagan was running for reelection, and Clinton is not. Nevertheless, Holbrook said he predicts that Gore will win 59.6 percent of the two-party vote. In 1996 Holbrook's model predicted a Clinton victory but overstated Clinton's share of the vote by 2.6 percent.
How confident is Holbrook in his prediction? "We all take a deep breath about now and hope nothing unusual happens" before November, he replied.
Holbrook explained that one problem faced by all the forecasters is the relatively small number of elections on which they can base their predictions. Most built their models using data from the last 13 elections, since 1948--that is, the elections for which comparable poll results and economic data are available.
Statistically, 13 is a small number--about 30 cases would sharply increase confidence in the model, Holbrook said. So the forecasts for the 2068 presidential election should be really reliable.
Another uncertainty is what Alan I. Abramowitz of Emory University calls the "time for a change" factor. Democrats are seeking a third consecutive term in the White House, and Abramowitz believes that fact will convince some voters who might otherwise support them that it is indeed time for a change. In his model, an incumbent party seeking a third term is docked 4 percentage points. This year, according to Abramowitz's model, if Clinton's approval rating and the economy remain at today's levels until the beginning of July, Gore will win 53 or 54 percent of the two-party vote.
Christopher Wlezien of the University of Houston said there might have been a "time for a change" factor in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections, when his forecasting model would have underpredicted the challenging party's vote. (Like the other forecasters, Wlezien has gone back to calculate predictions for elections that took place long before his model was invented.) But in 1988, when the Republicans were seeking a third consecutive term, Wlezien's model had George Bush's vote right within six-tenths of 1 percent.
In June 1996, Wlezien's model picked Clinton's November vote within one-tenth of 1 percent. As of this month, Wlezien said in an interview, his model gives Gore 56.1 percent of the two-party vote in November.
If election results can actually be predicted so far in advance, does that mean campaigns are irrelevant? Not at all, according to these political scientists. Two of them--Holbrook and James E. Campbell of the University of Buffalo--have written books on the subject. They differ on some points, but both agree that campaigns invigorate partisans, convey information to voters that helps them choose a candidate and expose the candidates to the public. And like all these prognosticators, Holbrook and Campbell said their predictive models assume that the campaign will occur and that both major party candidates will perform reasonably well.
As Abramowitz of Emory put it, "Campaigns play an important role in activating voters' partisan and ideological predispositions." But, he added, "these predispositions are largely determined before the campaign begins." In other words, the logic of the election can be seen far in advance, even if the voters need the effects of the campaign to see it for themselves, then act on it.
Asked for comment, an adviser to the Gore campaign said these models have some merit. "This is one of the reasons the campaign feels good about the election," said Samuel L. Popkin, a political scientist working during the campaign with Harrison Hickman, Gore's pollster.
Fred Steeper, Bush's pollster, however, said the forecasts "are probably wrong, and Bush will win." Steeper said that models dependent only on the state of the economy and a few basic poll findings miss special facets of this year's electorate, including voters' belief that although the country is doing well economically, it is suffering "a decline in moral values." He added that the forecasts also miss voter concerns with issues such as education.
Several of the forecasters pointed out that Americans are notoriously nonpolitical most of the time. Celinda Lake, a pollster, has written: "We should realize that the average family in America spends five minutes a week on politics."
The political scientists said their models could be undermined by a particularly good or bad performance by one candidate in a campaign. "What if Gore turns out to be a terrible candidate?" asked Wlezien. "This may be the year we find out something different" than the models predict. But he didn't sound like a man who expected to be surprised.
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox
I'll see you at the TFL End Of Summer Meet!
.