Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:32:00.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forecasting the 2006 Elections for the U.S. House of Representatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2006

Carl Klarner  and
Stan Buchanan
Carl Klarner
Affiliation:
Indiana State University
Stan Buchanan
Affiliation:
Indiana State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“To arrive at some understanding of what is going on is hard enough,” said Abraham Kaplan, “without having also to meet the demand that we anticipate what will happen next” (1964, 351). Political scientists have been taught to describe and to explain phenomena rather than to predict them. Kaplan, for one, appeared to think that this was enough. But within the rich soil of explanation, Kaplan admitted (346), lay the seed of prediction. Indeed, Carl G. Hempel and Paul Oppenheim (1948, 138), whom Kaplan took to task for saying so, flatly stated that “an explanation is not fully adequate” unless it also served as the basis for prediction (quoted in Kaplan, 346).

Type
FEATURES
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 857 - 861
Copyright
© 2006 The American Political Science Association

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. 2002. “Who Will Win in November: Using the Generic Vote Question to Forecast the Outcome of the 2002 Midterm Election.” In Symposium on Mid-Term Elections, APSA Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior Section, www.apsanet.org/∼elections/archives.html. (Accessed July 19, 2006.)
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2006. “National Conditions, Strategic Politicians, and U.S. Congressional Elections: Using the Generic Vote to Forecast the 2006 House and Senate Elections.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (October): 863–866.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Jeffrey Segal. 1986. “Determinants of the Outcomes of U.S. Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics 48 (2): 433–9.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Jeffrey Segal. 1992. Senate Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. 2006. Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Roderick Kiewiet. 1989. “Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (November): 997–1015.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2003. “The 2002 Midterm Election: A Typical or an Atypical Midterm?” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (April): 203–7.Google Scholar
Gujarati, Damodar N. 1995. Basic Econometrics. Third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hempel, Carl G., and Paul Oppenheim. 1948. “The Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75.Google Scholar
Highton, Benjamin. 2000. “Senate Elections in the United States: 1920–94.” British Journal of Political Science 30: 483–506.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 6th ed. New York: Longman.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2005. “ The Congress: The Structural Basis of Republican Success.” In The Elections of 2004, ed. Michael Nelson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Kaplan, Abraham. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler.
Klarner, Carl, and Stan Buchanan. 2006. “Forecasting the 2006 Elections for the United States Senate.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (October): 849–855.Google Scholar
McGhee, Eric. 2004. “National Tides and Local Results in U.S. House Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.