Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-pvkqz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T06:49:19.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Andrew J. Dowdle ,
Randall E. Adkins ,
Karen Sebold  and
Jarred Cuellar
Andrew J. Dowdle
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas
Randall E. Adkins
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Karen Sebold
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas
Jarred Cuellar
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of scholars successfully modeled and predicted presidential nomination outcomes from 1996–2008. However, dramatic changes occurred in subsequent years that would seem to make replicating these results challenging at best. Building on those earlier studies, we utilize a series of OLS models that included measures of preprimary resources and early campaign successes or failures to forecast that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations in 2016. This outcome suggests that some fundamental factors governing nomination outcomes have not changed despite the conventional wisdom.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 691 - 695
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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 (2): 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, Randall E. and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2001a. “How Important Are Iowa and New Hampshire to Winning Post-Reform Presidential Nominations?” Political Research Quarterly 54 (2): 431–444.Google Scholar
Adkins, Randall E. and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2001b. “Is the Exhibition Season Becoming More Important to Forecasting Presidential Nominations?” American Politics Research 29 (3): 283–288.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 (2): 256–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, Randall E. and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2005. “Do Early Birds Get the Worm? Improving Timeliness of Presidential Nomination Forecasts.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (4): 646–660.Google Scholar
Adkins, Randall E. and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2008. “Continuity and Change in the Presidential Money Primary.” American Review of Politics 28 (Winter): 319–341.Google Scholar
Barilleaux, Ryan J. and Adkins, Randall E.. 1993. “The Nomination: Process and Patterns.” In The Elections of 1992, ed. Nelson, Michael. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 21–56.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Buell, Emmett H. Jr. 2000. “The Changing Face of the New Hampshire Primary.” In In Pursuit of the White House, ed. Mayer, William G.. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 85–144.Google Scholar
Campbell, James. 2012. “Forecasting the 2012 American National Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (4): 610–613.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. and Smidt, Corwin D.. 2012. “Still Part of the Conservation: Iowa and New Hampshire’s Say within the Invisible Primary.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42 (3): 597–621.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans and Zaller, John. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Dwyre, Diana and Braz, Evelyn. 2015. “Super PAC Spending Strategies and Goals.” The Forum, 13 (2): 245–267.Google Scholar
Hull, Christopher. 2008. Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University 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.. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 44–71.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P. 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 P. 2002. “A Quarter Century of Network News Coverage of Candidates in Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” Journal of Political Marketing 1 (1): 91–116.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P. 2007. “Who Wins Nominations and Why?” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 91–99.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P. 2008. “Forecasting the Presidential Primary Vote: Viability, Ideology and Momentum.” International Journal of Forecasting 24 (2): 193–208.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P. 2015. A Citizen’s Guide to Presidential Nominations: The Competition for Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, Wayne P., Dowdle, Andrew J. and Adkins, Randall E.. 2004. “The New Hampshire Effect in Presidential Primaries.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 375–390.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, eds. Mayer, William G. and Bernstein, Jonathan. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1–22.Google Scholar