Search results

All indications are that 2010 will be a very good year for Republicans. After two election setbacks, they are poised for a comeback. Partisanship, ideology, the midterm decline from the prior presidential surge, the partisanship of districts being defended, and even President Obama's approval ratings have set the stage for significant seat gains by Republicans in the House.

Democrats were trounced in the 2010 midterm elections. They lost six seats in the U.S. Senate, six governorships, and about 700 seats in state legislatures. Compared to 2008, Democrats lost 64 seats in the House and Republicans regained their House majority. The Republican majority elected in 2010 was the largest number of Republicans elected since 1946. The analysis finds that Republican seat gains resulted from the receding of the pro-Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 as well as the incoming pro-Republican wave of 2010. Voters rejected Democrats in 2010 for their failure to revive the economy, but also for their advancement of the national healthcare reform and other liberal policies. The analysis speculates that Democrats are likely to gain House seats and lose Senate seats in 2012. Finally, President Obama's prospects of re-election have probably been improved because of the Republican gains in the 2010 midterm. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines the influences on the 2008 presidential election that led to the election of Barack Obama. There were many reasons why observers expected 2008 to be a strong year for the Democrats. The poor retrospective evaluations of the Bush presidency were thought to be too much of a burden for any Republican presidential candidate to bear successfully. On the other hand, open seat elections have been historically close, in part because successor candidates receive neither the full credit nor the full blame of incumbents. Moreover, in a period of partisan parity and ideological polarization, tight contests are to be expected. Add to these factors the fact that neither party's nominee faced an easy time winning his party's nomination and the fact that McCain was unusually moderate for a Republican presidential candidate and Obama was a northern liberal as well as the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party and there was every reason to suspect a closely decided election. That was the way that the election was shaping up in the polls until the Wall Street meltdown hit in mid-September. It was the "game changer" that tipped the election to Obama.

The October 2008 issue of PS published a symposium
of presidential and congressional forecasts made in the summer
leading up to the election. This article is an assessment of the
accuracy of their models.On September 8, 2008, the Trial-heat Forecasting Model predicted that
in-party candidate Senator John McCain would receive 52.7% of the
national two-party popular presidential vote. The forecast of a
victory of modest proportions for Senator McCain reflected his
having a five-percentage-point lead over Senator Barack Obama in
Gallup's early September, post-convention poll (49% to 44%) and the
Bureau of Economic Analysis' August report of a 3.3% GDP growth rate
in the second quarter of the year, about average for a second
quarter election year economy.

This article examines the influences on the 2008 presidential election that led to the election of Barack Obama. There were many reasons why observers expected 2008 to be a strong year for the Democrats. The poor retrospective evaluations of the Bush presidency were thought to be too much of a burden for any Republican presidential candidate to bear successfully. On the other hand, open seat elections have been historically close, in part because successor candidates receive neither the full credit nor the full blame of incumbents. Moreover, in a period of partisan parity & ideological polarization, tight contests are to be expected. Add to these factors the fact that neither party's nominee faced an easy time winning his party's nomination & the fact that McCain was unusually moderate for a Republican presidential candidate & Obama was a northern liberal as well as the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party & there was every reason to suspect a closely decided election. That was the way that the election was shaping up in the polls until the Wall Street meltdown hit in mid-September. It was the "game changer" that tipped the election to Obama. Adapted from the source document.

The trial-heat forecasting equation grew out of an examination of Gallup's trial-heat polls ("if the election were held today, who would you vote for?") at various points in election years as predictors of the November vote (Campbell and Wink 1990). My co-author Ken Wink and I found, not surprisingly, that polls as literal forecasts were not very accurate until just before the election, that taking the historical relationship between the polls and votes into account through a bivariate regression significantly increased their accuracy, and that taking the contemporary context of the election as measured by economic growth in the election year into account increased their accuracy even further. Corroborating Lewis-Beck and Rice's earlier finding (Lewis-Beck 1985, 58), we found that an equation combining the Labor Day trial-heat poll standing of the in-party candidate and the second-quarter growth rate in the economy produced the most accurate forecast of the national two-party popular vote.

This symposium presents 10 articles forecasting the 2008 U.S. national elections. The core of this collection is the seven presidential-vote forecasting models that were presented in this space before the 2004 election. Added to that group are one additional presidential forecasting model, one state-level elections forecasting model, and one model forecasting the relationship between congressional votes and seats won by the parties. Some of the articles that are focused on the presidential race have also taken the opportunity to forecast the congressional elections as well.