Logo image
Back
Jobs and the Job of President: A Forecast for 2004
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Jobs and the Job of President: A Forecast for 2004

Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien
PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol.37(4), pp.753-758
10/2004
DOI: 10.1017/S104909650404507X
pdf
Jobs and the Job of President: A Forecast for 2004105.56 kBDownloadView
Published (Version of record) Open Access
url
https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909650404507XView
Published (Version of record)PS: Political Science & Politics, 37:4 (2004) pp. 344-345.

Abstract

During spring 2000, we released to the press a preliminary forecast of a Gore victory. Indeed, one of us, in a widely-read quotation, declared, “It's not even going to be close” (Washington Post, May 26, 2000, p. 1). We were wrong, as were all of our fellow modelers. Indeed, among “five of the best forecasters” identified by Robert Kaiser (Washington Post, May 26, 2000, p. 1), the Gore projection ranged from 53% to 60% of the two-party popular vote, pointing to a Democratic landslide. Such gross error raises the question: Should the models be junked? Some journalists, pundits, and scholars have suggested the answer is “yes.” We disagree. Remember that forecasters of all stripes—modelers, pollsters, marketers, campaign experts—failed to call 2000. (See the review of 49 forecasts, from multiple and international sources, in Lafay and Lewis-Beck 2000). The virtually total inability to predict the Bush-Gore result also reminds us that no model will ever be perfect, that electoral behavior can never be fully determined. Still, while falling short of perfection, we believe that modeling can be improved.
 Political Science

Details

Metrics

390 File views/ downloads
25 Record Views
Logo image