No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Fundamentals Matter: Forecasting the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 October 2020
Abstract
Previous studies used pre-primary variables (e.g., endorsements, national polls, and fundraising) and momentum variables from the Iowa and New Hampshire contests to predict presidential nomination outcomes. Yet, races with no elite favorite and no clear frontrunner in polls, such as in the 2020 Democratic race, are more difficult to forecast. We replicate and extend two forecasting models from 1980 to 2016 used by Dowdle et al. (2016) to predict the 2020 results. Our models suggest that Joe Biden may have been a stronger frontrunner than expected but that subsequent models may need to incorporate other early contests, such as the South Carolina primary. Overall, our results also argue that the fundamental factors in winning presidential nominations have remained relatively stable.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association
References
REFERENCES
Adkins, Randall E., and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2000. “Break Out the Mint Juleps in New Hampshire? Is New Hampshire the ‘Primary’ Culprit Limiting Presidential Nomination Forecasts?” American Politics Quarterly 28:251–69.Google Scholar
Adkins, Randall E., and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2001. “How Important Are Iowa and New Hampshire to Winning Post-Reform Presidential Nominations?” Political Research Quarterly 54:431–44.Google Scholar
Adkins, Randall E., and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2002. “The Money Primary: What Influences the Outcome of Pre‐Primary Presidential Nomination Fundraising?” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32:256–75.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Engelhardt, Andrew M., and Trussler, Marc J.. 2019. “Knockout Blows or the Status Quo? Momentum in the 2016 Primaries.” Journal of Politics 81:997–1013.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, Loren, Barreto, Matt A., and Donovan, Todd. 2012. “Early Primaries, Viability, and Changing Preferences for Presidential Candidates.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42:231–55.Google Scholar
Dowdle, Andrew. 2020. “Replication Data for Fundamentals Matter: Forecasting the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination.” Harvard Dataverse doi: 10.7910.DVN.DVBL0A.Google Scholar
Dowdle, Andrew J., Adkins, Randall E., Sebold, Karen, and Cuellar, Jarred. 2016. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49:691–95.Google Scholar
Keeter, Scott, and Zukin, Cliff. 1983. Uninformed Choice: The Failure of the New Presidential Nominating System. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Knotts, H. Gibbs, and Ragusa, Jordan M.. 2019. First in the South: Why South Carolina’s Presidential Primary Matters. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, William G. 1996. “Forecasting Nominations.” In In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, ed. Mayer, William G., 44–71. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Mayer, William G. 2003. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations or, My Model Worked Just Fine, Thank You.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36:153–57.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1993. “Nomination Choices: Caucus and Primary Outcomes, 1976–88.” American Journal of Political Science 37:343–64.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2006. “The Attrition Game: Initial Resources, Initial Contests, and the Exit of Candidates During the US Presidential Primary Season.” British Journal of Political Science 36:487–507.Google Scholar
Olsen, Henry, and Scala, Dante. 2016. The Four Faces of the Republican Party and the Fight for the 2016 Presidential Nomination. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, David P., Tolbert, Caroline J., and Donovan, Todd. 2011. Why Iowa? How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2000. “Do Primary Voters Draw from a Stacked Deck? Presidential Nominations in an Era of Candidate-Centered Campaigns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 30:727–53.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2003. “Presidential Renomination Challenges in the 20th Century.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33:827–52.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2008a. “Forecasting the Presidential Primary Vote: Viability, Ideology, and Momentum.” International Journal of Forecasting 24:193–208.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2008b. “Who Wins Nominations and Why? An Updated Forecast of the Presidential Primary Vote.” Political Research Quarterly 60:91–99.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2013. “Two Paradigms of Presidential Nominations.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (2): 377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2015. A Citizen’s Guide to Presidential Nominations: The Competition for Leadership. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2016. “Conditional Arbiters: The Limits of Political Party Influence in Presidential Nominations.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49:709–15.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P., Dowdle, Andrew J., and Adkins, Randall E.. 2012. “Why Are Presidential Nomination Forecasts Difficult to Predict?” In The Making of Presidential Candidates, 2012, ed. Mayer, William G. and Bernstein, Jonathan, 1–22. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wendland, Jay. 2019. “Rallying Votes? A Multilevel Approach to Understanding Voter Decision Making in the 2016 Presidential Nominating Contests.” Journal of Political Marketing 18:92–118.Google Scholar