Predicting the Incumbent Party’s Vote Some “Standard” Models

Forecast Model 2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 1992

Abramowitz 50.6 45.7 53.7 53.2 56.8 46.7

Campbell 51.3 52.71 53.8 52.8 58.1 47.1

Cuzan (and Bundrick) 46.93 48.0

Erikson and Welzien 52.6 47.8 51.7 55.2 56.0 46.8

Hibbs 47.5

Holbrook 47.9 44.3 55.8 60.3 57.2

Lewis-Beck and Tien4 48.22 43.42 49.9 55.4 54.8 51.5

Lockerbie 53.8 41.8 60.3 57.6

Norpoth and Bednarczuk 53.2 49.9 54.7 55.0 57.1

Montgomery, Hollenbach & Ward 50.3

Expected incumbent vote 50.2 47.5 54.9 56.0 56.8 48.0

Actual vote ??? 45.7 51.2 50.4 54.7 46.5

Deviation -2.6 -1.8 -3.7 -5.6 -2.1 -1.5

1. Campbell had two estimates for 2008. His alternative was 52.2, which is included in the calculation of the average. He also has two estimates for 2012, 51.3 and 52.0. 2. Lewis-Beck and Tien have a second estimate of 49.9 for 2008 and 52.7 for 2012. 3. Cuzan (alone) has a second estimate of 45.4 for 2012. 4. Lewis-Beck has various collaborators on the models. Tom Rice was the collaborator in 1992.

Congressional and Senate Elections in Missouri

Congressional Elections

• Underlying dynamics– MO no longer a bellwether in presidential

elections (?)– reapportionment and redistricting

• potential openings for challengers– especially in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

• but MCs pick voters before voters pick MCs

– From Obscurity to Oblivion• large (751,000), inorganic districts

Redistricting

• 2002-2010 • 2012-2020

http://

Candidate Match UpsMissouri U.S. House Races

2012

District Incumbent (or incumbent party) Mean % Vote

Challenger Experience

1 Lacy Clay (D) 75.6 Robyn Hamlin no elective experience

2 Ann Wagner (R) (63.0) Glenn Koenen no elective experience

3 Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) 63.7 Eric Mayer no elective experience

4 Vicky Hartzler (R) 50.4 Teresa Hensley Raymore City Council (1988)

5 Emanuel Cleaver (D) 59.28 Jacob Turk no elective experience

6 Sam Graves (R) 61.3 Kyle Yarber Gladstone City Planning Commission

7 Billy Long (R) 63.4 Jim Evans no elective experience

8 Jo Ann Emerson (R) 66.5 Jack Rushin no elective experience

x = 62.9

FundraisingMissouri U.S. House Races

Fundraising as of Late June 2012

District Incumbent (or incumbent party)

$ Raised Challenger $ Raised

1 Lacy Clay (D) $618,000 Robyn Hamlin $0

2 Ann Wagner (R) $1,950,000 Glenn Koenen $9,820

3 Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) $742,000 Eric Mayer $0

4 Vicky Hartzler (R) $1,100,000 Teresa Hensley $492,000

5 Emanuel Cleaver (D) $890,000 Jacob Turk $207,000

6 Sam Graves (R) $1,000,000 Kyle Yarber $41,000

7 Billy Long (R) $695,000 Jim Evans $4,300

8 Jo Ann Emerson (R) $1,100,000 Jack Rushin $13,000

$1,000,000 $92,000

National Congressional Picture

• very few competitive seats– RCP: 26 toss ups

• 19 lean Democrat, 16 lean GOP

– NYT: 22 toss ups• 28 lean Democrat, 33 lean GOP

– Sabato: 14 toss ups• 20 lean Democrat, 23 lean GOP

MO Senate RaceClaire McCaskill

• MO House (1983-1988)• Jackson Co. prosecutor

(1993-1998)• MO Auditor (1999-2007)• 2004 candidate for

governor• 2006 defeated Jim Talent

– 49.6% to 47.3%

Todd Akin

• U. S. Army; Master of Divinity

• MO House (1989-2000)• U. S. House (2001-2012)

– 63% of vote on average

• won 6-way GOP primary– Akin: 36% ($2.2 million)– Brunner 30% ($7.4 million)– Steelman 29.2% ($1.4 million)

A Competitive Environment

• MO leans GOP at presidential level– GOP holds 6/8 House seats– GOP has large majorities in both state legislative

chambers• but …

– popular incumbent Democrat in governor’s mansion– McCaskill is incumbent

• $3.5 million on hand v. $531,600 (mid June)

– MO Senate races tend to be competitive• 53.7% since 1990

Once having given a pig an enema

• “legitimate rape” comment (8/19/12)• Akin had led in 8 previous public polls (RCP)

– +5%– McCaskill hadn’t led since 2011

• “most vulnerable senator” (USNWR)

• McCaskill has led in 7/8 polls since (RCP)– +4.6– “likely Democrat” (Cook Report)

What Next?

• McCaskill has:– significant monetary advantage

• and growing: $5.8 million in second quarter

– hard-hitting ads• “what will he say next”

• Akin has:– stared down GOP establishment– new endorsements

• Newt, Santorum, DeMint, Bond, Blunt, Talent

State Elections, 2012

Missouri Gubernatorial RacePollster Dates Sample Nixon Spence Undecided Margin

PPP (D) 10/ 1 – 10/ 3 700 LV 54 35 12 Nixon +19

Chilenski Strategies/ Missouri Scout

9/ 20 - 9/ 20 817 LV 55 38 7 Nixon +17

PPP (D) 8/ 20 - 8/ 20 500 LV 46 37 16 Nixon +9

SurveyUSA 8/ 9 - 8/ 12 585 LV 51 37 6 Nixon +14

Chilenski Strategies 8/ 8 - 8/ 8 663 LV 53 39 9 Nixon +14

Mason-Dixon 7/ 23 - 7/ 25 625 LV 48 39 13 Nixon +9

PPP (D) 5/ 24 - 5/ 27 602 RV 45 34 21 Nixon +11

PPP (D) 1/ 27 - 1/ 29 582 LV 47 27 26 Nixon +20

Missouri Gubernatorial Race

As of the end of September:• Nixon had $6.3 million cash on hand• Spence had $1.45 million cash on hand

Party Composition of the Missouri Senate, 2001-2011

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

Democrats Republicans

Num

ber o

f Sea

ts

Party Composition of the Missouri House, 2001-2011

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 20110

20

40

60

80

100

120

Democrats Republicans

Num

ber o

f Sea

ts

Why It is Unlikely Control of the Missouri General Assembly Will Change

Chamber Number of Seats

Number of Seats Where the Majority Party Averaged Less than 55% of the Vote from 2002 to 2010

Percentage of Seats Where the Majority Party Averaged Less than 55% of the Vote from 2002 to 2010

Senate 34 7 21House 163 41 25

Uncontested Seats in the Missouri General Assembly, 2012

Chamber Number of Seats being

Elected

Republicans Uncontested

Republicans only

Contested by Minor

Party

Democrats Uncontested

Democrats only

Contested by Minor

Party

Total Uncontested

Races

Senate 17 5 4 9(52.9%)

House 163 47 6 28 1 82(50.3%)

Uncontested Seats in the Missouri Senate, 2012

• 2002-2010 majority party vote in 2012 uncontested Senate seats: Mean 68.9%, Median 66.4%, Minimum 56.3%, Maximum 89.0%

• Number of uncontested seats that are competitive (majority party has less that 55% of vote based on elections from 2002 to 2010): 0

Uncontested Seats in the Missouri House, 2012

• 2002-2010 majority party vote in 2012 uncontested House seats: Mean 68.7%, Median 65.4%, Minimum 52.5%, Maximum 96.8%

• Number of uncontested seats that are competitive (majority party has less that 55% of vote based on elections from 2002 to 2010): 8 (5 Republican seats, 3 Democratic seats)

• Additional figures:

• - partyid and the vote by election• - partyid and the vote, the range• - turnout• - gender gap• - decision time• - normal vote•

The 2012 Presidential Vote Forecasts (as of 9/11/12).

Forecaster Name of Model(s)

Predicted 2-Party Popular Vote for

Obama

Days Before

Election

Certainty of an Obama Plurality

National Forecasts Abramowitz Time for Change Model 50.6 69 67 Campbell Trial-Heat Model and Convention Bump Model (52.0) 51.3 57 67 Cuzán Fiscal Model 46.9 (45.5) 97 11 Erikson & Wlezien Leading Economic Indicators and the Polls 52.6 99 80 Hibbs Bread and Peace Model 47.5 102 10 Holbrook National Conditions and Incumbency 47.9 67 27 Lewis-Beck & Tien Jobs Model and the Proxy Model 48.2 (52.7) 69 23 Lockerbie Expectations Model 53.8 130 57 Montgomery, Hollenbach, Ward Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging (EMBA) 50.3 57 60 Norpoth & Bednarczuk Primary Model 53.2 299 88 State Forecasts Berry and Bickers State Level Economic Model 47.1 111 23 Jerôme & Jerôme-Speziari State Level Political Economy Model 51.6 142 64 Klarner State Level Presidential Forecast Model 51.2 114 57

Short-term Forces and Changes in the Vote

Percent expected to vote Democratic when the

Short-term Force favors the: Vote

Swing Party Identification Republicans Neither Democrats

Strong Democrats 79 87 91 12 Weak Democrats 58 70 80 22 Leaning to Democrats 57 70 80 23 Independents 37 51 59 18 Leaning to Republicans 21 28 37 16 Weak Republicans 19 26 35 16 Strong Republicans 12 15 24 12

Note: “Vote swing” is the effect of the short-term force. See the text for a full explanation