Fundamentals-Based State-Level Forecasts of the 2020 US Presidential Election

Forecasts of US presidential elections have gained considerable attention in recent years. However, as became evident in 2016 with the victory of Donald Trump, most of them consider presidential elections only at the national level, neglecting that these are ultimately decided by the Electoral College. In order to improve accuracy, we believe that forecasts should instead address outcomes at the state-level to determine the eventual Electoral College winner. We develop a political economy model of the incumbent vote share across states based on different short- and long-term predictors, referring up to the end of the second quarter of election years. Testing it against election outcomes since 1980, our model correctly predicts the eventual election winner in 9 out of 10 cases – including 2016 –, with the 2000 election being the exception. For the 2020 election, it expects Trump to lose the Electoral College, as only 6.2 percent of simulated outcomes cross the required threshold of 270 Electoral Votes, with a mean prediction of 106 Electoral Votes.

The fragile blue wall: analyzing geographies of the 2020 US presidential election

Quaderni dell'Osservatorio elettorale QOE - IJES ◽

10.36253/qoe-10161 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 84 (1) ◽

pp. 31-44

Author(s):

John Agnew ◽

Michael Shin

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Presidential Election ◽

Presidential Elections ◽

The United States ◽

Electoral College ◽

Donald Trump ◽

Election Polls

US presidential elections are peculiar contests based on mediation by an Electoral College in which votes are aggregated on a state-by-state basis. In 2020, as in 2016, the outcome was decided by a set of states where the two candidates were equally competitive: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Two geographical stories tend to dominate accounts of what happened in 2020. The first story is based on red (Republican) versus blue (Democratic) states, and the second story relies upon rural versus urban biases in support for the two parties. After showing how and where Donald Trump outperformed the expectations of pre-election polls, we consider these two geographical stories both generally, and more specifically, in relation to the crucial swing states. Through an examination of the successes of Joe Biden in Arizona and Georgia, two states long thought of as “red”, and the role of the suburbs and local particularities in producing this result, we conclude that the polarization of the United States into two hostile electorates is exaggerated.

The 2016 Election: Like 1888 but not 1876 or 2000

10.1017/s1049096518001269 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 52 (1) ◽

pp. 20-24 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fabrice Barthélémy ◽

Mathieu Martin ◽

Ashley Piggins

Keyword(s):

House Of Representatives ◽

Presidential Election ◽

Presidential Elections ◽

Anomalous Behavior ◽

Electoral College ◽

Popular Vote ◽

The Us ◽

2016 Election ◽

House Size

ABSTRACTDonald J. Trump won the 2016 US presidential election with fewer popular votes than Hillary R. Clinton. This is the fourth time this has happened, the others being 1876, 1888, and 2000. In earlier work, we analyzed these elections (and others) and showed how the electoral winner can often depend on the size of the US House of Representatives. This work was inspired by Neubauer and Zeitlin (2003, 721–5) in their paper, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” A sufficiently larger House would have given electoral victories to the popular vote winner in both 1876 and 2000. An exception is the election of 1888. We show that Trump’s victory in 2016 is like Harrison’s in 1888 and unlike Hayes’s in 1876 and Bush’s in 2000. This article updates our previous work to include the 2016 election. It also draws attention to some of the anomalous behavior that can arise under the Electoral College.

The 2020 election and its aftermath: Love, lies, and ensorceling leadership

Leadership ◽

10.1177/1742715021994352 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 174271502199435

Author(s):

George R Goethals

Keyword(s):

Presidential Election ◽

American Politics ◽

Essential Elements ◽

Electoral College ◽

Donald Trump ◽

Leaders And Followers ◽

Though Donald Trump decisively lost the 2020 US presidential election, his mob-inciting charisma created a large and devoted base unusual in American politics. Insights from Sigmund Freud’s account of the emotional connections between leaders and followers, and later reframing of those views, suggest some of the dynamics that create the intense attachment expressed by Trump supporters, and his resulting ability to get his most loyal followers and allies to believe and do almost anything, no matter the evidence revealing his lies and the extremity of his demands. Essential elements include qualities of a leader and the leader’s message that make followers unable to countenance any criticism of their loved, overvalued messenger; followers’ uncritical willingness to believe whatever the leader says; and followers’ capacity to rationalize whatever actions they take as a result of those claims. The troubling implications for democracy of both the Electoral College and the Republican Party’s embrace of Trump and his message are discussed.

Pollster problems in the 2016 US presidential election: vote intention, vote prediction

Quaderni dell'Osservatorio elettorale QOE - IJES ◽

10.36253/qoe-9529 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 83 (1) ◽

pp. 17-28

Author(s):

Natalie Jackson ◽

Michael S. Lewis-Beck ◽

Charles Tien

Keyword(s):

Public Opinion ◽

Presidential Election ◽

Presidential Elections ◽

State Level ◽

Horse Race ◽

Present Evidence ◽

Probability Sampling ◽

Election Forecasting ◽

Vote Intention ◽

In recent US presidential elections, there has been considerable focus on how well public opinion can forecast the outcome, and 2016 proved no exception. Pollsters and poll aggregators regularly offered numbers on the horse-race, usually pointing to a Clinton victory, which failed to occur. We argue that these polling assessments of support were misleading for at least two reasons. First, Trump voters were sorely underestimated, especially at the state level of polling. Second, and more broadly, we suggest that excessive reliance on non-probability sampling was at work. Here we present evidence to support our contention, ending with a plea for consideration of other methods of election forecasting that are not based on vote intention polls.

Forecasting the 2012 Presidential Election with State-Level Economic Indicators

10.1017/s1049096512000984 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 45 (04) ◽

pp. 669-674 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Michael J. Berry ◽

Kenneth N. Bickers

Keyword(s):

Presidential Election ◽

Presidential Elections ◽

State Level ◽

Forecast Model ◽

Vice President ◽

Electoral College ◽

Popular Vote ◽

Major Party ◽

White House ◽

Forecast Models

Nearly all forecast models of US presidential elections provide estimates of the national two-party vote (Campbell 2008). Each of the nine forecasts published in the 2008 forecasting issue ofPS: Political Science and Politicsmade national popular vote total predictions for the major party candidates, while only one provided an expected result in the Electoral College (Klarner 2008). These national vote models are assumed to be reliable forecasts of who is likely to win the general election. In most cases, this assumption is reasonable. It becomes problematic, however, at precisely the point that forecasts are most interesting: when elections are close. In tight elections, national forecasts can and have produced a “winner” different from the actual winner. Consider the forecasts and ultimate outcome of the 2000 election. Each of the 2000 presidential election forecasts predicted vice president Al Gore to win a majority of the two-party popular vote, which he did, but none correctly predicted governor George W. Bush to assume the presidency (Campbell 2001). Never in US history have White House residents been determined through a national popular vote. Presidential elections are decided through contests in the states and the District of Columbia. The forecast model we developed explicitly models the presidential contest based on factors inherent to these 51 jurisdictions. This modeling approach allows us to make a projection of the Electoral College result, which popular vote estimates cannot.

Courting the Youth Vote in 2008: The Obama Effect

Vanderbilt Undergraduate Research Journal ◽

10.15695/vurj.v5i0.2814 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

Author(s):

Lindsey C Bohl

Keyword(s):

Presidential Elections ◽

Voter Registration ◽

The Internet ◽

The Past ◽

Several Variables ◽

High Turnout ◽

Short And Long Term ◽

Use Of The Internet ◽

Youth Vote

This paper examines a few of the numerous factors that may have led to increased youth turnout in 2008 Election. First, theories of voter behavior and turnout are related to courting the youth vote. Several variables that are perceived to affect youth turnout such as party polarization, perceived candidate difference, voter registration, effective campaigning and mobilization, and use of the Internet, are examined. Over the past 40 years, presidential elections have failed to engage the majority of young citizens (ages 18-29) to the point that they became inclined to participate. This trend began to reverse starting in 2000 Election and the youth turnout reached its peak in 2008. While both short and long-term factors played a significant role in recent elections, high turnout among youth voters in 2008 can be largely attributed to the Obama candidacy and campaign, which mobilized young citizens in unprecedented ways.

Obama's Reelection Prospects under “Bread and Peace” Voting in the 2012 US Presidential Election

10.1017/s1049096512000911 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 45 (04) ◽

pp. 635-639 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Douglas A. Hibbs

Keyword(s):

Presidential Election ◽

Presidential Elections ◽

Weighted Average ◽

Armed Forces ◽

Average Growth ◽

Us Military ◽

Per Capita ◽

Objectively Measured ◽

Foreign Wars

According to the Bread and Peace Model postwar, American presidential elections should be interpreted as a sequence of referendums on the incumbent party's record during its four-year mandate period. In fact postwar aggregate votes for president are well explained by just two objectively measured fundamental determinants: (1) weighted-average growth of per capita real disposable personal income over the term, and (2) cumulative US military fatalities due to unprovoked, hostile deployments of American armed forces in foreign wars. No other outside variable systematically affects postwar aggregate votes for president.

State-Level Forecasts for the 2020 US Presidential Election: Tough Victory Ahead for Biden — Corrigendum

10.1017/s1049096520001912 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 54 (1) ◽

pp. 193-193

Author(s):

Bruno Jérôme ◽

Véronique Jérôme ◽

Philippe Mongrain ◽

Richard Nadeau

Keyword(s):

Presidential Election ◽

State Level ◽

A Review of Mormon Studies in China

Religions ◽

10.3390/rel12060375 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (6) ◽

pp. 375

Author(s):

Hongmeng Cheng

Keyword(s):

Presidential Election ◽

National Level ◽

Chinese Government ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Internal Factors ◽

History Of ◽

Chinese Scholars ◽

Mitt Romney ◽

High Level

Mormon studies in China began in the early 1990s and can be divided into three phases between the years of 2004 and 2017. The first Master’s and Doctoral theses on Mormonism were both published in 2004, and journal articles have also been increasing in frequency since then. The year of 2012 saw a peak, partly because Mormon Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination for the 2012 US presidential election. In 2017, a national-level project, Mormonism and its Bearings on Current Sino-US Relations, funded by the Chinese government, was launched. However, Mormon studies in China is thus far still in its infancy, with few institutions and a small number of scholars. Academic works are limited in number, and high-level achievements are very few. Among the published works, the study of the external factors of Mormonism is far more prevalent than research on its internal factors. Historical, sociological, and political approaches far exceed those of philosophy, theology, and history of thoughts. To Mormon studies, Chinese scholars can and should be making unique contributions, but the potential remains to be tapped.

Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.2013581117 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 117 (45) ◽

pp. 27940-27944 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robert S. Erikson ◽

Karl Sigman ◽

Linan Yao

Keyword(s):

Presidential Election ◽

Presidential Elections ◽

Electoral College ◽

Popular Vote ◽

The Past ◽

Electoral Vote ◽

Republican Candidate

Donald Trump’s 2016 win despite failing to carry the popular vote has raised concern that 2020 would also see a mismatch between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College. This paper shows how to forecast the electoral vote in 2020 taking into account the unknown popular vote and the configuration of state voting in 2016. We note that 2016 was a statistical outlier. The potential Electoral College bias was slimmer in the past and not always favoring the Republican candidate. We show that in past presidential elections, difference among states in their presidential voting is solely a function of the states’ most recent presidential voting (plus new shocks); earlier history does not matter. Based on thousands of simulations, our research suggests that the bias in 2020 probably will favor Trump again but to a lesser degree than in 2016. The range of possible outcomes is sufficiently wide, however, to even include some possibility that Joseph Biden could win in the Electoral College while barely losing the popular vote.