Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:54:28.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Trial-Heat and Seats-in-Trouble Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

James E. Campbell
James E. Campbell*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, SUNY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: Forecasting the 2016 American National Elections
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 664 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

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

REFERENCES

Campbell, James E. 1986. “Forecasting the 1986 Midterm Elections to the House of Representatives.” PS: Political Science & Politics 19 (1): 83–7.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1997. The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections, 2nd edition, Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1997.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2000. The American Campaign: US Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote, College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Second edition published in 2008.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2004. “Forecasting the Presidential Vote in 2004: Placing Preference Polls in Context.” PS: Political Science & Politics 37 (4): 763–67.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2009. “The 2008 Campaign and the Forecasts Derailed.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (1): 19–20.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2010a. “The Exceptional Election of 2008: Performance, Values, and Crisis” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2010b. “The Seats in Trouble Forecast of the 2010 Elections to the US House.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (4): 627–30.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2012. “Forecasting the Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2012: The Trial-Heat and the Seats-in-Trouble Models,” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (4): 630–34.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2014a. “Issues in Presidential Election Forecasting: Election Margins, Incumbency, and Model Credibility,” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (2): 301–3.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2014b. “The Seats-in-Trouble Forecast of the 2014 Midterm Congressional Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (4): 779–81.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E., Cherry, Lynna L. and Wink, Kenneth A.. 1992. “The Convention Bump,” American Politics Quarterly 20 (3): 287–307.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cook, Charlie. 2016. The Cook Political Report, http://www.cookpolitical.com/.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1985. “Election Forecasts in 1984: How Accurate Were They?” PS: Political Science & Politics 18 (1): 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Rich. 1992. “Pollsters’ ‘nutty’ calculations added up on day that counted: In academia, however, one well-known political crystal ball lies shattered,” The Washington Post, (November 5), p.A37.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar