Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:25.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The 2010 Elections: Why Did Political Science Forecasts Go Awry?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

David W. Brady
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Morris P. Fiorina
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Arjun S. Wilkins
Affiliation:
Stanford University

Extract

In President Obama's words, the Democratic Party experienced a “shellacking” in the 2010 elections. In particular, the net loss of 63 House seats was the biggest midterm loss suffered by a party since 1938—the largest in the lifetimes of approximately 93% of the American population.

Type
Spotlight
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. “How Large a Wave? Using the Generic Ballot to Forecast the 2010 Midterm Elections.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (4): 631–32.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, Erikson, Robert S., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. “Forecasting House Seats from Generic Congressional Polls: The 2010 Midterm Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (4): 633–36.Google Scholar
Barone, Michael. 2010. “Gallup's Astonishing Numbers and the Lake Superior Congressional Districts.” Washington Examiner. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-s-astonishing-numbers-and-lake-superior-congressional-districts.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2001. “The Referendum that Didn't Happen: The Forecasts of the 2000 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science & Politics 34 (1): 3338.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” American Political Science Review 96: 127–40.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Matthew. 2010. “The Most Nationalized Midterm Election in at Least 56 Years.” Presidential Power [blog]. http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. 1998. “A Tale of Two Congresses: Social Policy in the Clinton Years.” In The Social Divide: Political Parties and the Future of Activist Government, ed. Weir, Margaret, 4982. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2003. “The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved?British Journal of Political Science 33: 163–87.Google Scholar
Gorenstein, Peter. 2010. “Obama Should Have Focused on Jobs, Not Health Care, Says Arianna Huffington.” http://www.examiner.com/small-business-management-in-phoenix/ariana-huffington-obama-should-have-focused-on-jobs-not-health-care.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr. 2010. “The 2010 Midterm Election for the U.S. House of Representatives.” CEFOS Working Paper 9. http://douglas-hibbs.com/house2010election22september2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1996. “The 1994 House Elections in Perspective.” Political Science Quarterly 111: 203–23.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tien, Charles. 2010. “The Referendum Model: A 2010 Congressional Forecast.” PS: Political Science and Politics 43 (4): 637–38.Google Scholar
Lombardo, Steve. 2010. “21 Days to Go and Democrats Facing a 60–70 Seat Loss.” Huffington Pollster, October 12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-lombardo/21-days-to-go-anddemocra_b_760085.html.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Bruce I., Stimson, James A., and Waterman, Richard W.. 1986. “Interpreting U.S. Congressional Elections: The Exposure Thesis.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11: 227–47.Google Scholar
Trende, Sean. 2010. “How Bad Could 2010 Really Get for Democrats?” Real Clear Politics, April 14. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/14/how_bad_could_2010_really_get_for_democrats_105152.htmlGoogle Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar