Who Correctly Predicted the Outcome of the Election?: A Report Card

On the afternoon of the election it appeared, based on exit polls published by Jack Shafer at Slate.com, that the academics who study elections were about to be proven wrong. The polls showed John Kerry leading. The academics, using sophisticated models, had predicted George Bush would win. But then the election vindicated the academics.

Historian Allan Lichtman had predicted months ago on his blog at HNN that Bush would win in a close election. Lichtman based his conclusion on a system he devised in the 1980s that takes into account incumbency, charisma, the economy, and foreign policy, among other critical factors. Of the thirteen "keys to the presidency," Lichtman declared, Bush had nine--more than enough to win. Even if the public judged Iraq to be a failure, Bush would win. His wife, a social activist, shared her sympathy with liberals' horror at her husband's conclusions in a remarkable piece published at HNN just days before the election, but explained, "The Keys to the White House is a system for predicting Presidential elections, based on a mathematical model for predicting earthquakes," it "is not an endorsement [of Bush's re-election]." Lichtman himself had suggested that Kerry might beat the odds, which suggested either a pleasing openeness about the limits of semi-deterministic models or the expression of a febrile hope. Lichtman's Scorecard Rating: Excellent.

Yale economist Ray Fair consistently argued during the campaign that based on his economic model Kerry never had a chance. Fair's model correctly accounted for the victories of every president since 1960 except for Bill Clinton's in 1992. Just days before the polls opened Fair updated his website to include a final revised prediction based on the latest economic statistics. He indicated that Bush would win 57 percent of the popular vote. Fair got the victory correct but obviously inflated Bush's win considerably. Fair's Scorecard Rating: Fair to Good.

In September seven academics delivered papers at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association that caught national headlines. Every one of them predicted that Bush would win the popular vote. Six of the seven, according to an account in the Chronicle of Higher Education, indicated he would win a clear majority of the popular vote, some saying it would be as high as 57 percent. One said Bush would win with 49.9 percent while another, Christopher Wlezien of the University of Oxford, using a model that places an emphasis on per-capita income, presciently said 51.7 percent. Scorecard: Fair to Excellent.

Along with the economic models there were the theories rooted in simple historical extrapolations, which led pundits to conclude:

Bush would win ...

• Because ... Incumbents usually have an advantage. In the last century ten incumbents won a second term while just five lost.
• Because ... Americans have never turned out of office a president in the middle of a war. (This explanation conveniently overlooks the fact that two presidents declined to run for re-election in the middle of wars that were going badly: Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson; both faced the prospect of certain defeat.)
• Because ... In a crisis Americans rally around their president and Americans remain so fearful of terrorism that they were willing to continue rallying around President Bush.
• Because ... Only two sitting senators have ever been elected president (Warren Harding and John Kennedy).

Kerry would win ...

• Because ... The tallest candidate usually wins. Only a few presidents have been shorter than the average height of their fellow citizens--and since William McKinley not one has.
• Because ... Minority presidents (those elected with less than 50 percent of the vote in their first election) rarely win re-election. Until 2004, only three minority presidents won re-election: Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.
• Because ... No president has won re-election when their approval ratings were under 50 percent going into the fall campaign.
• Because ... Elections are referendums on the incumbent and Bush had faced a string of reversals in he prior six months.
• Because ... No president has served two full terms following another two-term president since the administration of James Monroe.
• Because ... Incumbents usually either win or lose by large margins and no one expected President Bush to win by a large margin.
• Because ... As John Zogby stated, undecideds tend to vote for the challenger and enough voters remain undecided going into the election that Bush's re-election was in doubt.
• Because ... President Bush was perceived to have lost the presidential debates and no president who had generally been perceived as the debate loser ever won the general election.

And then there were the predictions based on sheer coincidence. The Kerry campaign's favorite? “In every presidential election since 1936, the Washington Redskins' last home game before the election has accurately predicted the winner. If they win, the incumbent president's party wins; if they lose, the challenger wins.” The weekend before the 2004 election they lost.