Midterm Elections POLS 125: Political Parties & Elections.

MidtermMidterm Elections ElectionsPOLS 125: Political Parties & ElectionsPOLS 125: Political Parties & Elections

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-6-2006/daily-show-rock----mid-term-elections

Voters are apathetic, Voters are apathetic, turnout is lowturnout is low

A rigged and corrupt A rigged and corrupt system ensures the system ensures the reelection of reelection of incumbentsincumbents

Midterm elections Midterm elections don’t matterdon’t matter

Losses by the President's Party in Losses by the President's Party in Midterm Elections, 1862-2010Midterm Elections, 1862-2010

1862

1866

1870

1874

1978

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1960

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

-100

-50

0

-100

-50

00

Number of seats

President's party gain/loss of seats in House President's party gain/loss of seats in Senate

The president’s party tends to lose seats in midterm

elections. Period. 

Theories of Midterm LossTheories of Midterm Loss

“Surge-and-decline” focuses on shifts in voter turnout

“Referendum” theories focus on the president’s popularity and performance (e.g., national security, economic conditions)

Erikson’s Theories on Erikson’s Theories on Midterm LossMidterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Turnout in Presidential and Turnout in Presidential and Mid-Term Elections, 1980-2010Mid-Term Elections, 1980-2010

1980-1982

1984-1986

1988-1990

1992-1994

1996-1998

2000-2002

2004-2006

2008-2010

0

25

50

75

Percentage of voting eligible population

Presidental elections Midterm elections

41.3%

Erikson’s Theories on Erikson’s Theories on Midterm LossMidterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Tufte ModelTufte Model

Tufte ModelTufte Model

Fair’s ModelFair’s Model

VOTECC = 48.53 - .482*INFLATIONCC + .710*(15/7)*GOODNEWSCC

VOTECC = Democratic share of the two-party House vote in 2014.

INFLATIONCC = The growth rate of the GDP deflator in the first 7 quarters of the second Obama administration, 2013:1-2014:3, at an annual rate.

GOODNEWSCC = The number of quarters in the first 7 quarters of the Obama administration in which the growth rate of real per capita GDP is greater than 3.2 percent at an annual rate.

These values lead to a predicted Democratic vote share of 50.85

percent

“The economy elects presidents. Presidents elect Congress.” 

— Lynn Vavreck, political scientist

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/exzp4a/democalypse-2014---it-s-all-about-that-base

Erikson’s Theories on Erikson’s Theories on Midterm LossMidterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

“We rely on statistical models for many decisions every single day, including, crucially: weather, medicine, and pretty much any complex system in which there’s an element of uncertainty to the outcome. In fact, these are the same methods by which scientists could tell Hurricane Sandy was about to hit the United States many days in advance.

Dismissing predictive methods is not only incorrect; in the case of electoral politics, it’s politically harmful.”

— Zeynep Tufekci, “In Defense of Nate Silver, Election Pollsters, and Statistical Predictions”