Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

Abstract

A number of scholars successfully modeled and predicted presidential nomination outcomes from 1996-2008. However, dramatic changes occurred in subsequent years that would seem to make replicating these results challenging at best. Building on those earlier studies, we utilize a series of OLS models that included measures of preprimary resources and early campaign successes or failures to forecast that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations in 2016. This outcome suggests that some fundamental factors governing nomination outcomes have not changed despite the conventional wisdom. N umerous models forecast general election outcomes by employing a variety of economic and political measures to make accurate predictions about whether the party in control of the White House will retain or lose the presidency (for an overview see Campbell 2012 ). In many ways forecasting presidential nominations presents a more challenging task. Important individual-level cues such as partisanship or systemic-level factors such as economic growth or the popularity of the incumbent are helpful in understanding why a voter might choose Bill Clinton over George W. Bush in 1992. Unfortunately, they are not useful in explaining why the same individual picked Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton or Tom Harkin nine months earlier in the New Hampshire primary (Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins 2012 ).While the McGovern-Fraser reform movement of the early 1970s created a new system of presidential nominations designed to increase the role of voters in picking party nominees, a period of stability in the nomination process of both parties' emerged by the end of the 1980s (Barilleaux and Adkins 1993 ). As these contests became more routinized, a number of scholars attempted to forecast the results of the presidential primary season by utilizing factors such as polling, fi nancial resources, and elite support (Adkins and Dowdle 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2005Mayer 1996 ; Steger 2000 ; see Steger 2008 for a comparison of the forecasts generated by the diff erent models). Momentum from performing well in early primaries was also found to play an important role in determining nomination outcomes (Bartels 1988 ), though there is some controversy about the precise eff ect of particular contests (Adkins and Dowdle 2001a ;Christenson and Smidt 2012 ;Hull 2008 ).At first glance, current events appear to have altered this equilibrium in at least two important ways. First, super PACs, a relatively new type of political committee that arose from the Speechnow v FEC and Citizens United v FEC court decisions in 2010, should alter the impact of traditional sources of campaign fi nance (Dwyre and Braz 2015 ). Second, the Republican elite has arguably fragmented in recent years, which should aff ect elite support on the process (Steger 2015 ). Since traditional forecasting models encountered diffi culty predicting the 2004 Democratic nomination correctly (Steger 2008 ), these new factors should make predicting recent...

Visual Priming and Framing During the 2020 Democratic Presidential Debates: Electoral Status Predicts Favorable Camera Treatment

“…Camera shot compositions are furthermore influenced by candidate stage position, which is affected indirectly by party activists and donors who fund media campaigns that lodge candidates in public memory when opinion polls are conducted (Clinton et al 2019; Dowdle et al 2016). Taken together, such behind-the-scenes maneuvers structure voter attention and memory while limiting the pool of candidates perceived as viable (Kam and Zechmeister 2013).…”

“…By appealing directly to the general public—indeed, to a broad national audience—presidential primary debates can influence the electoral fates of candidates before any ballots are ever cast (Clinton et al 2019; Dowdle et al 2016). A break-out or command performance in even a single debate can change a candidate’s prospects for the better; as a result, even slight differences in speaking time are closely monitored by the campaigns.…”

The 2020 Presidential Election Verdict

“…In part because of this history, many Democratic activists were opposed to nominating an elderly white man over someone who better represented the new progressive frontier of the party. Although he maintained a lead in national polls, by late 2019 he trailed Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the two most important gateway states to the nomination (Dowdle et al 2016).…”

Fundamentals Matter: Forecasting the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

“…Yet, races with no elite favorite and no clear frontrunner in polls, such as in the 2020 Democratic race, are more difficult to forecast. We replicate and extend two forecasting models from 1980 to 2016 used by Dowdle et al (2016) to predict the 2020 results. Our models suggest that Joe Biden may have been a stronger frontrunner than expected but that subsequent models may need to incorporate other early contests, such as the South Carolina primary.…”

“…Nevertheless, several studies developed successful nomination forecasts (Adkins and Dowdle 2000;Dowdle et al 2016;Mayer 1996;Steger 2000;2008a). Replication studies are important because they enable us to assess the strengths and shortcomings of previous models under differing conditions.…”