2016 President

Dear Readers: This is the first of a multi-part series on the political science forecasts of the 2016 races for the White House and Congress. We’ll be featuring forecasts from nine different individuals and/or groups this year, which James E. Campbell is assembling as part of a project for PS: Political Science and Politics that we are also featuring in the Crystal Ball. These models are based on factors such as the state of the economy, polling, whether an incumbent president is running for reelection, and other indicators. They can often be a better predictor of the eventual results than polls alone, and many are finalized months before the election. We are pleased to feature Campbell’s work and the work of the many top political scientists who have built these models, both in an attempt to predict the outcome of the election and, more importantly, to identify the factors that actually affect presidential races. Following Campbell’s introductory essay are the first two of the nine models we’ll be including in this series. As we feature new models, we will update Table 1 to provide a running tally of these forecasts. — The Editors Normally around this time in a presidential

Contrary to claims made by some commentators recently, there is little evidence, except for one state, that there are big shifts taking place across the electoral playing field in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This is based on comparing the 2012 results with the 32 states with 2016 presidential polls conducted since March. I used the RealClearPolitics average or, where there was no average, just the results of most recent poll(s). Figure 1: Scatterplot of relationship between 2012 presidential results and 2016 polling There is one very big outlier here: Utah. If you take out Utah, the R-squared goes up from .74 to .84. But the bottom line here is that there is a lot of consistency between the 2012 results and the 2016 polling. And that’s despite the fact that some of these polling results are undoubtedly somewhat off the mark — for example, I strongly suspect that the estimates for Clinton’s margins in California and New York are too low. When we get the actual election results, I am very confident that the correlation will be stronger. Here are the regression results, with a dummy variable for Utah — the coefficient for the Utah dummy

Recent presidential elections in the United States have been characterized by sharp divisions between Democrats and Republicans on a wide range of issues along with high levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting. Voting patterns in these elections have been very stable — the same voter groups and the same geographic areas have consistently supported either the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate. Democratic candidates have depended heavily on younger voters, nonwhites, and single women while Republican candidates have depended heavily on white voters — especially southern whites — as well as married men, those over the age of 60, and those without college degrees. Overall, 40 out of 50 states voted for the same party in all four elections between 2000 and 2012. But none of these elections involved a major party nominee like Donald Trump — an insult-hurling businessman who has never run for elected office, has no longstanding ties to the Republican Party, and who has regularly attacked the party’s established leadership including its most recent president and its two most recent presidential nominees. Since Trump’s emergence as the favorite to win the Republican nomination, there has been considerable speculation about whether his candidacy could result in

Some of our readers may recall that the Crystal Ball published its first 2016 Electoral College map at the end of March. It was somewhat controversial — at least judging by many of the reactions we received. As you see below, at that time we projected Hillary Clinton at 347 electoral votes and Donald Trump at 191. While Toss-ups are perfectly reasonable at this stage of the campaign, we decided for clarity’s sake to push every close state one way or the other. Map 1: March 31 Crystal Ball Electoral College ratings This decisive Clinton edge in the Electoral College came despite the fact that she was still engaged in a tough battle for the nomination (as was Trump back then). We also had no clear picture of the third parties and independents that might play a role in November. Now that the primary season is over, the overall picture is clearer: 1. Both parties have semi-official nominees in Clinton and Trump, even if Bernie Sanders has not yet dropped out and some unhappy Republicans are still toying with a quixotic convention challenge to Trump. Some have argued that prognosticators should allow for the possibility that one or both of

Editor’s note: This is the first of two editions of the Crystal Ball this week. While we typically only publish once a week, this is an extraordinary political year and we hope to provide additional commentary and analysis throughout the rest of the cycle as warranted. Today’s piece kicks off “Map Week” for the Crystal Ball: First, Associate Editor Geoffrey Skelley compares Hillary Clinton’s county-level primary performance in 2016 to her 2008 results. We will then follow with an update to our Electoral College ratings map on Thursday. — The Editors One striking aspect of the Democratic primary race was the stark role-reversal in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance compared with her narrow loss to Barack Obama in 2008’s Democratic nomination battle. Whereas she ran against Obama in 2008, she positioned herself as his successor at every turn during her race against insurgent Bernie Sanders in 2016. It’s very easy to see the effect of this in a county-level map of the change in her performance from eight years ago to this cycle, as shown by the coloring in Map 1 below (a choropleth map). (We recommend clicking on the map for a much larger version.) Map 1: Clinton percentage of

As we find ourselves at the end of the primary season, we can all look back in wonder: What hath the voters wrought? Last summer when he announced a candidacy, almost no political professional picked Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee — yet here he is. And no one we know thought that the big, complicated GOP field of contenders would sort itself out many weeks before the small group of Democrats — but Trump has been in general election mode for some time while Hillary Clinton has had a devil of a time shaking off a persistent foe. As of this writing — Wednesday morning — Bernie Sanders remains in the race, but Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee and the first woman ever chosen by a major party on Monday night, according to the Associated Press, and she sealed the deal comfortably with big wins in California and New Jersey. In particular, the Golden State was critical for Clinton because her intraparty opponent had targeted it and planned to use a victory there as justification for a long struggle. However, while Clinton won a majority of the pledged (elected) delegates, her majority amongst all the delegates rests

On June 7, five states — California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota — will hold primary elections. It is the last major day of primaries of 2016, and with the Republican race already decided, almost all of the attention will be focused on the Democratic side, where 676 pledged (elected) delegates will be at stake in those five states. As of now, Hillary Clinton holds a seemingly insurmountable lead of about 270 pledged delegates over Bernie Sanders, and a much larger lead when unpledged “superdelegates” who have endorsed her are added to her total. Nevertheless, Sanders hopes that winning decisive victories in these contests, especially in California with its 475 pledged delegates, will dramatically reduce his deficit in pledged delegates and help him to persuade a large number of superdelegates to switch sides. So what does the Democratic primary forecasting model predict for the June 7 primaries? The model uses four variables to predict Clinton’s margin: the percentage of a state’s primary electorate made up of African Americans, the percentage of a state’s primary electorate made up of Democratic identifiers, whether a state is in the South, and the number of other states holding primaries on the

With only a few weeks left in the 2016 primary campaign, a lot of liberal pundits and Democratic Party leaders are getting very nervous about the outlook for the general election. To almost everyone’s surprise, Donald Trump has secured the Republican presidential nomination while Hillary Clinton is still locked in a contentious battle with Bernie Sanders. Although Clinton holds a nearly insurmountable lead over Sanders in pledged delegates, Sanders continues to attack Clinton and win primaries. There is mounting concern in Democratic Party circles that even after Clinton clinches the nomination, most likely after the California and New Jersey primaries on June 7, she will have difficulty winning over Sanders’ base of young, liberal voters, many of whom identify themselves in exit polls as independents. And without the votes of the overwhelming majority of Sanders’ supporters, Clinton probably cannot win the general election. But how difficult is it going to be to unite Democratic voters once the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders is over? An examination of survey data from the 2008 presidential election, an election in which Democrats experienced an equally if not more contentious nomination battle between Clinton and Barack Obama, suggests that unifying Democrats may actually

While presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has seemingly done a better-than-expected job of uniting the Republican rank-and-file after dispatching his presidential rivals, he continues to face elite opposition from some GOP leaders and opinion-makers. Rumors of a third-party presidential bid designed to give #NeverTrump Republicans an option continue even if, frankly, that seems less and less likely by the day, as independent filing deadlines are approaching or, in the case of Texas, have already passed. That could leave disaffected Republicans searching for an option, which probably will lead to the Libertarian Party having its best presidential election ever. But that might not be quite as impressive as it sounds. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, and it first fielded a presidential candidate, philosopher John Hospers, in 1972. Hospers won less than 4,000 votes, but he received an electoral vote from a faithless Richard Nixon elector from Virginia. Four years later, that faithless elector — Roger MacBride — won 0.2% as the Libertarian nominee. The party, which bills itself as the “third largest political party in the United States,” has fielded a presidential candidate in every election since 1972. Generally speaking, the Libertarians haven’t had much success: Only once

This is the second of a two-part series analyzing the Democratic and Republican vice presidential possibilities. This week, we examine presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s considerations and options. Last week, we looked at Hillary Clinton’s choices on the Democratic side. — The Editors Heading into the 2014 National Football League draft, rumors were swirling that Jerry Jones, the eccentric Dallas Cowboys owner, was considering using his team’s first-round pick on the biggest star available: Johnny Manziel, the controversial star quarterback from Texas A&M. Indeed, when Dallas’ pick came around, and Manziel was still available, Jones reportedly wanted to pick Manziel. But Jones’ son and other team leaders advised Jones against it, and the team instead selected Notre Dame offensive lineman Zack Martin. For months after the May draft, Jones fumed over being talked out of taking Manziel, who he saw as a future star and the kind of flashy selection that defined “America’s Team,” the Cowboys. “I get madder, every day, about missin’ (Manziel),” Jones said that August. However, it worked out well for the Cowboys that Jones didn’t get his man. Martin became a Pro Bowl player for the Cowboys and a linchpin of Dallas’ offensive line, which most

Now that the nominations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appear inevitable, attention turns, as it always does at this time, to the vice presidential selections. This year presents the fifth time in 40 years that both parties will select new running mates. Although Trump’s recent victories have eliminated the prospect of a brokered Republican convention with its range of possibilities for vice presidential selection, the running mate decisions still present complexities. Vice presidential selection is dictated by the pool of available candidates, the context in which the decision is made, and the way in which the presidential nominee and others around him/her evaluate information regarding options and the political environment. Some aspects of the context are beginning to emerge although many others remain obscure, making prediction of ultimate choices premature. What is becoming clear is that both sides will face some unusual challenges in creating, narrowing, and selecting from the available pool but that the difficulties on the Republican side outweigh the challenges their opponents face. 1. Some General Observations Vice presidential selection has been fundamentally different the last 40 years as a shift to a primary and caucus system resolves presidential nominations more quickly and creates a lengthy

Editor’s note: This is the first of two editions of the Crystal Ball this week. While we typically only publish once a week, this is an extraordinary political year and we hope to provide additional commentary and analysis throughout the rest of the cycle as warranted. In the piece below, Senior Columnist Rhodes Cook provides an in-depth look at the primary turnout this year and addresses what it might mean for the fall (make sure you read all the way to the finish to see his many excellent tables, charts, and maps). On Thursday, we’ll look at Donald Trump’s vice presidential options. — The Editors No matter what one thinks of this often surreal presidential primary campaign, it has been a hit at the ballot box. Republicans have already smashed their record of 20.8 million ballots, set in 2008. Through the May 10 contests, the 2016 GOP primary turnout stands at 26.1 million and counting. Democrats are on course to have their second-highest presidential primary turnout ever. Their record of 36.8 million votes (the high for both parties) for the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton race in 2008 is well out of reach for both Democrats and Republicans this year. But with

When a presidential campaign wants to signal that it is turning from the nomination clash to the general election, “sources close to the campaign” make it known the Veep search has begun. Right on schedule, as Donald Trump has become the Republican nominee-presumptive and Hillary Clinton has maintained an unassailable mathematical lead on the Democratic side, both campaigns have reportedly hinted that they have started to vet possible vice presidential options. How serious the vetting is at this moment cannot be known, but it would be irresponsible to let the process languish. Thorough investigation of all candidates for vice president is now a given. No presidential nominee ever wants to find him or herself in George McGovern’s shoes. In the summer of 1972 the Democratic candidate for the White House hurriedly chose Sen. Thomas Eagleton (D-MO) as his running mate, only to discover days later that Eagleton had been hospitalized several times for serious depressions and had undergone electric shock treatments. McGovern had barely checked Eagleton’s background and Eagleton didn’t volunteer the damaging information. After declaring he’d back Eagleton “1000 percent” despite the revelations, McGovern eased Eagleton off the ticket after a mere 18 days. McGovern replaced him with Sargent

This is the first of a two-part series analyzing the Democratic and Republican vice presidential possibilities. This week, we’ll look at likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s choices, and then we’ll assess presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s options next week. — The Editors “First, do no harm” The Hippocratic Oath is the prime directive for doctors, but to us it also provides good guidance for vice presidential selection. Running mates often make very little difference in the election one way or the other, which can be an argument for making a safe, noncontroversial selection. Often, attempts to make a bold vice presidential pick can fall flat: For instance, John McCain’s outside-the-box selection of then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave his ticket a quick shot of adrenaline, but it’s hard to argue Palin ultimately helped McCain (in fact, the opposite is probably closer to being true). But as Hillary Clinton considers her options for the second slot on her ticket, she has to consider not only the harm that could be done to her November prospects by a poor selection — she has to also be concerned about the harm done to her governing prospects. That’s because many of her best potential running