The 2016 Projection: Hillary's day finally comes

Clinton 323, Trump 217


Since it became clear that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination in June, I have been about 80% certain that Hillary Clinton would beat him in the General Election. So I put my money where my mouth is, buying stock in Clinton the day before the Democratic Convention when the price was $0.64 to win $1.00, in essence a 64% chance of winning.

Like any good scientist, I was prepared to factor new information into my view. But the real threats to Hillary's candidacy (an indictment from the FBI investigation, a Lehman Brothers like collapse, etc.) never materialized. On Twitter, I doubled down on this confidence a number of times in response to particulary silly moments in the news cycle, such as when Hillary was struck was pneumonia...

or when FBI Director James Comey (who someone will win a Best Supporting Actor Emmy for playing when the HBO movie is made about this campaign) cryptically "reopened" the email investigation at the end of October.
Finally, here are three thoughts from this cycle:

1) The times Clinton lagged (like the Pneumonia episode), usually fell during a time when there was little actual news. By "news", I mean events like the debates where there was new information available. Trump's ability to flood the media with outrageous statements at his rallies proved to be more effective than I previously assumed it could be.

He weaponized the speed of the modern news cycle. There was always a flurry of reporting on the latest demographic group or public figure he attacked, such that he could avoid losing any individual news cycle by too much. In political science terms, he was able to shift the scope of conflict when it was not going his way by opening a new one.

In the end, individual voters seemed to dwell on a single episode (the Khan family, Mexicans are "rapists", and the Billy Bush tape seemed to resonate the most), and when aggregated together, he never grew his appeal beyond the Republican base.

2) The map. I see two important trends from the Kerry and Obama elections to this Clinton election. First, is states like Ohio and Iowa that Trump is poised to win that Obama won. I subscribe to the belief that white, non-college educated voters have moved towards the Republican party, which is seen here. However, this trend is countered by two, arguably more substantial trends. The first is the growth of the Latino vote, which gives me confidence Democrats will win Nevada, and in future cycles will compete in Arizona and eventually Texas (mark it down Texas will be the most important electoral college state in 2028 or so). Second, is the growth of liberal votes in major urban centers, like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that will power Clinton in Pennsylvania.

3) The Senate. Much harder to know. My best guess is that the Democrats take the Senate with 51 seats (Dems win NH, PA, IN, WI, NV and lose FL, MO, NC). But 50-50 might be the most likely outcome. Despite this rosy prediction for the Democrats, I don't think they will win the US House. Not because of gerrymandering (although that plays a part), but because they didn't run enough competitive candidates to capitalize on what will be a strong national vote. (I bet Clinton will win by 2-4% total).

Now get out there and vote!


Popular posts from this blog

Turnout for What?: An altogether different concern with field experiments

Image
To the degree that Political Science Twitter can blow up, it blew up this week with the controversy over a field experiment run by professors at Stanford and Dartmouth in Montana (For the latest in the debate, see John Patty ; for overview, Derek Willis in NYT ). I don’t have anything to add to the ethics in field experiments discussion, although I am sympathetic to the accused profs. (If you would like a totally ethical look at how information increases participation in races like these, see my MPSA paper from last year!) My concern with this episode is that it illustrates a problem with the literature on turnout studies. They’ve gotten too good. One only needs to look around at the mail parties send to voters to see that voter shaming ( like in Alaska ), and possibly intimidation, is alive and well. These are techniques that were first tested by field experiments. (Look, it even happened to me in 2012) The combination of these techniques and the robust field offi...
Read more

2024 Projection: Not Going Back

Image
  This is the most difficult little projection that I can remember doing because the polling industry seems broken. I'll get to why in the polls section below. But first, I think Kamala Harris is winning, and as I've told a few reporters this week, on track for perhaps a "comfortable" win. Let's talk about why. Kamala June 28-July 21 of this year was just about the most fascinating period of party politics I've ever lived through, rivaled only by the 2008 Obama-Clinton primary, or 2015-16 Trump vs. Everyone in the Republican party primaries. But Joe Biden's terrible debate was almost more interesting because there was no schedule, no rhythm to it. In those party nomination contests there's a cycle of polls-fundraising numbers-nomination contest-polls-etc. that was absent here. This was just Democrats working behind the scenes to determine who was their best chance to win the election. I was shocked by what I saw from Biden in the debate, and even thou...
Read more

10 Tips for Going on the Political Science Job Market

Image
It’s August, and academics are procrastinating so I’ve seen lots of advice on the job market. A lot of this advice seems good, but it usually comes from tenured professors who last went on the market before the advent of Twitter. So here are ten quick thoughts on my two recent trips to the academic job market: My qualifications for dispensing advice include spending many hours in the belly of the beast. Long term planning. One of the most sobering pieces of advice I got on the market came from Mike Horowitz at Penn, who emphasized to a group of us: “The market is a multi-year process.” This turned out to be the case for me, and the majority of people I have seen go through the market. At Penn we had 5 years of guaranteed funding, so planning for the market should begin in earnest in the second half of the fourth year. Once you lose that guaranteed funding, you’ll need to spend time on finding contingent employment, and anytime that is spent not on research you will not get...
Read more