Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-25T13:45:25.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forecasting the Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2012: The Trial-Heat and the Seats-in-Trouble Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2012

James E. Campbell
James E. Campbell*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article presents forecasts of the 2012 presidential and US House of Representatives elections. The presidential forecasts are of the national two-party presidential vote percentage for the in-party candidate and are based on the trial-heat and economy forecasting equation and its companion convention-bump equation. The House election forecast is of the net seat change for the Democratic Party from 2010 to 2012. This forecast is produced from two versions of a seats-in-trouble forecasting equation.

Type
Symposium: Forecasting the 2012 American National Elections
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 630 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012 

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

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. http://www.bea.gov/. Accessed September 1, 2012.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2000. “The Science of Forecasting Presidential Elections.” In Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections, ed. Campbell, J. and Garand, J., 169–87. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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): 33–38.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2008. The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote. 2nd edition. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2010a. “The Exceptional Election of 2008: Performance, Values, and Crisis.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 225–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2010b. “The Seats in Trouble Forecast of the 2010 Elections to the U.S. House.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (4): 627–30.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2011. “When the Fundamentals Are Trumped: The 2008 Wall Street Meltdown Election and Election Forecasting.” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA 2011.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E., Cherry, Lynna L., and Wink, Kenneth A.. 1992. “The Convention Bump.” American Politics Quarterly 20 (3): 287–307.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E., Dettrey, Bryan J., and Yin, Hongxing. 2010. “The Theory of Conditional Retrospective Voting: Does the Presidential Record Matter Less in Open Seat Elections?” Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1083–95.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E., and Wink, Kenneth A.. 1990. “Trial-Heat Forecasts of the Presidential Vote.” American Politics Quarterly 18 (3): 251–69.Google Scholar
Conference Board. 2008. “The Conference Board Announced that the U.S. Leading Index Increased 0.3 Percent.” Press Release. (October 20) http://www.conference-board.org/data/bciarchive.cfm?cid=1&pid=3500.Google Scholar
Cook, Charlie. 2012. The Cook Political Report. http://www.cookpolitical.com/. Accessed August 20, 2012.Google Scholar
Fair, Ray C. 1978. “The Effect of Economic Events on Votes for President.” Review of Economics and Statistics 60 (2): 159–72.Google Scholar
Gallup. 2012. “Election 2012 Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx. Accessed September 10.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M. 2008. “Incumbency, National Conditions, and the 2008 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 709–12.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1985. “Election Forecasts in 1984: How Accurate Were They?” PS: Political Science & Politics 18 (1): 53–62.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2008. “Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Presidential Elections: The Historical Record.” Political Science Quarterly 123 (2): 201–28.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 2001. “National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 63 (1): 159–81.Google Scholar
National Bureau of Economic Research. 2012. “U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.” http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html. Accessed July 27.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut. 2002. “On a Short-Leash: Term Limits and the Economic Voter.” In Economic Voting, ed. Dorussen, H. and Taylor, M., 121–36. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polling Report. 2008. “Business Issues in the News.” November 11. http://www.pollingreport.com/business.htm.Google Scholar
Survey of Professional Forecasters. 2008. “Third Quarter 2008.” Research Department of Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, August 12.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 2002. “Partisanship and Incumbency in Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior 24 (4): 339–60.Google Scholar