Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T06:01:54.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Online Search Traffic to Predict US Presidential Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2013

Laura Granka
Laura Granka*
Affiliation:
Google, Inc.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Predictions of the United States presidential election vote outcome have been growing in scope and popularity in the academic realm. Traditional election forecasting models predict the United States presidential popular vote outcome on a national level based primarily on economic indicators (e.g., real income growth, unemployment), public approval ratings, and incumbency advantage. Many of these forecasting models are rooted in retrospective voting theory (Downs 1957; Fiorina 1981), essentially rewarding the party in office if times are good, punishing it if times are bad. These models have successfully predicted election results by modeling economic performance and incumbent approval ratings (Campbell 2012; Fair 1992; Fair 1996; Klarner 2012). For example, Abramowitz's (2004; 2005) “time for a change model” predicts election results using economic performance during the first half of the election year, the number of years the incumbent party has been in office, and presidential approval. For a full review of 13 presidential forecasts for the US 2012 election, see PS: Political Science and Politics October 2012 (45 (4): 610–75). Although national models are the most common, researchers have also started to use state-level predictions for presidential and congressional outcomes, with mostly positive success (Berry and Bickers 2012; Jerome and Jerome-Speziari 2012; Klarner 2012; Silver 2012). These models use similar predictors, such as incumbency, economic conditions, and home-state advantage, and predict the per-candidate percentage of popular vote. Unfortunately, with state-level models, many of the economic variables used in predicting national models are unavailable beyond 10–15 election cycles (compounded also by 1959 additions of Alaska and Hawaii), so state-level models naturally have a shorter period of analysis than do national models.

Type
Symposium: Technology, Data, and Politics
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 271 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013

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

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2004. “The Time-for-Change Model and the 2004 Presidential Election: A Post-Mortem and a Look Ahead,” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (1): 31.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2005. “When Good Forecasts Go Bad: The Time-for-Change Model and the 2004 Presidential Election,” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (4): 745–46.Google Scholar
Berry, M.J., and Bickers, K. N.. 2012. “Forecasting the 2012 Presidential Election with State-Level Indicators.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45 (4): 669–74.Google Scholar
Borra, E., and Weber, I.. 2012. “Political Insights: Exploring Partisanship in Web Search Queries.” First Monday 17 (7). Retrieved: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4070/3272.Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor. 2012. Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject. Unemployment. Retrieved: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. E. 2012. “Forecasting the 2012 American National Elections: Editor's Introduction.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45 (4): 610–13.Google Scholar
Choi, H., and Varian, H.. 2009. “Predicting the Present through Google Search Queries.” April 2. Retrieved: http://google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/google_predicting_the_present.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, Karen, and Smyth, Barry. 2008. “Who, What, Where, and When: A New Approach to Mobile Search.” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 309–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fair, Ray C. 1992. “The Effect of Economic Events on Votes for President: 1992 Update.” http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/1996A300.PDF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fair, Ray C. 1996. “Econometrics and Presidential Elections.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10 (3): 89–102. http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/1996B200.PDF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M., and Brilliant, L.. 2009. “Detecting Influenza Epidemics Using Search Engine Query Data.” Nature 457 (7232): 1012–14. doi: 10.1038/nature07634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goel, S., Hofman, J., Lahaie, S., Pennock, D., and Watts, D.. 2010. “What Can Search Predict.” In WWW 2010, April 26–30, 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina. Retrieved from http://cam.cornell.edu/~sharad/papers/searchpreds.pdf.Google Scholar
Google Trends. http://trends.google.com.Google Scholar
Granka, L. 2011. “Media Imagery and Political Choice: How Visual Cues Influence the Citizen News Diet.” PhD diss., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Granka, L. 2010a. “Improving Election Forecasting Models with Online Search Traffic.” Poster presentation Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2–5.Google Scholar
Granka, L. 2010b. “Measuring Agenda Setting with Online Search Traffic: Influences of Online and Traditional Media.” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2–5. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658172.Google Scholar
Granka, L. 2009. “Inferring the Public Agenda from Implicit Query Data.” SIGIR '09: Understanding the User–Logging and Interpreting User Interactions in Information Search and Retrieval at http://laura.granka.com/publications/granka_SIGIR09paper.pdf (accessed 23 June 2012).Google Scholar
Grimes, C., Tang, D., and Russell, D. M.. 2007. “Query Logs Alone Are Not Enough.” WWW 2007: Workshop on Query Log Analysis, at http://www2007.org/workshop-W6.php.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., and McGrady, J.. 2007. Media Politics: A Citizens Guide. New York: W. Norton.Google Scholar
Jansen, B. J., and Booth, D.. 2010. “Classifying Web Queries by Topic and User Intent.” Proceedings in ACM CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4285–4290.Google Scholar
Jerome, B., and Jerome-Speziari, V.. 2012. “Forecasting the 2012 US Presidential Election: Lessons from a State-by-State Political Economy Model.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45 (4): 662–68.Google Scholar
Klarner, C. E. 2012. “State-Level Forecasts of the Federal and Gubernatorial Elections.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45 (4): 655–62Google Scholar
McCombs, M. E., and Shaw, D. L.. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, Frank. 2010. Gallup. “More States ‘Competitive’ in Terms of Party Identification: Democrats Lose Ground, while Republicans Gain.” July 26. Retrieved: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141548/states-competitive-terms-party-identification.aspx#2.Google Scholar
Mellon, Jonathan. 2011. “Search Indices and Issue Salience: The Properties of Google Trends as a Measure of Issue Salience.” University of Oxford, Department of Sociology Working Paper Series, January. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/documents/working-papers/2011/swp1101.pdf.Google Scholar
Ripberger, J.T. 2011. “Capturing Curiosity: Using Internet Search Trends to Measure Public Attentiveness.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (2): 239–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D. E., and Levinson, D.. 2004. “Understanding User Goals in Web Search.” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, 13–19.Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. 2012. “Nate Silver's Political Calculus: Methodology.” FiveThirtyEight (blog). http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. 2010a. Educational Attainment by State. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education.html.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. 2010b. Population by State. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. 2010c. Computer and Internet Use. http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2010.htmlGoogle Scholar
Weber, I., Garimella, V. R. K., and Borra, E.. 2012. “Mining Web Query Logs to Analyze Political Issues.” Proceedings of WebSci 2012, June 22–24.Google Scholar
Weeks, B., and Southwell, B.. 2010. “The Symbiosis of News Coverage and Aggregate Online Search Behavior: Obama, Rumors, and Presidential Politic. Mass Communication and Society 13 (4): 341–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yahoo! Political Search Trends. http://politicalsearchtrends.sandbox.yahoo.com.Google Scholar