The Generic Ballot Model and the 2022 Midterm Election

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Polity Pub Date : 2023-05-23 DOI:10.1086/725239
A. Abramowitz
{"title":"The Generic Ballot Model and the 2022 Midterm Election","authors":"A. Abramowitz","doi":"10.1086/725239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By the final weeks of the 2022 election campaign, there was a clear consensus among pundits and political analysts that Democrats were likely to experience a shellacking in the midterm elections, especially in the House of Representatives. Republican leaders and strategists were confident that a “red wave” or even a “red tsunami” was approaching. Even more objective observers such as Chuck Todd and Mark Murray of NBC News believed that a number of indicators were clearly pointing toward large GOP gains in the House, the most prominent being President Biden’s poor approval rating, which had been stuck in the low-forties for months. While many political observers expected Joe Biden’s poor approval rating to result in big Republican gains in the 2022 election, historically, presidential approval has not been a very accurate predictor of midterm seat swing. For the nineteen midterm elections between 1946 and 2018, the correlation of net presidential approval (approval-disapproval) with House seat swing was a rather modest .66 while the correlation with Senate seat swing was a very weak .36. Presidential approval explained only 44% of the variation in House seat swing and only 13% of the variation in Senate seat swing. One indicator that has been shown to produce more accurate forecasts of both House and Senate seat swing than presidential approval is the generic ballot—a question in which voters are asked which party they plan to vote for without providing names of individual House or Senate candidates. By combining the results of generic ballot polling with the number of House or Senate seats that the president’s","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polity","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725239","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

By the final weeks of the 2022 election campaign, there was a clear consensus among pundits and political analysts that Democrats were likely to experience a shellacking in the midterm elections, especially in the House of Representatives. Republican leaders and strategists were confident that a “red wave” or even a “red tsunami” was approaching. Even more objective observers such as Chuck Todd and Mark Murray of NBC News believed that a number of indicators were clearly pointing toward large GOP gains in the House, the most prominent being President Biden’s poor approval rating, which had been stuck in the low-forties for months. While many political observers expected Joe Biden’s poor approval rating to result in big Republican gains in the 2022 election, historically, presidential approval has not been a very accurate predictor of midterm seat swing. For the nineteen midterm elections between 1946 and 2018, the correlation of net presidential approval (approval-disapproval) with House seat swing was a rather modest .66 while the correlation with Senate seat swing was a very weak .36. Presidential approval explained only 44% of the variation in House seat swing and only 13% of the variation in Senate seat swing. One indicator that has been shown to produce more accurate forecasts of both House and Senate seat swing than presidential approval is the generic ballot—a question in which voters are asked which party they plan to vote for without providing names of individual House or Senate candidates. By combining the results of generic ballot polling with the number of House or Senate seats that the president’s
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通用选票模型与2022年中期选举
到2022年竞选活动的最后几周,专家和政治分析人士达成了明确的共识,认为民主党人可能会在中期选举中遭遇惨败,尤其是在众议院。共和党领导人和战略家们确信,“红色浪潮”甚至“红色海啸”正在逼近。甚至更客观的观察者,如NBC新闻的Chuck Todd和Mark Murray,也认为许多指标清楚地表明共和党在众议院取得了巨大的胜利,最突出的是拜登总统的支持率很低,几个月来一直保持在40岁以下。尽管许多政治观察家预计乔·拜登糟糕的支持率将导致共和党在2022年大选中大幅获胜,但从历史上看,总统的支持率并不是中期席位摇摆的准确预测指标。在1946年至2018年的19次中期选举中,总统净批准(批准-不批准)与众议院席位摇摆的相关性相当小。66而与参议院席位摇摆的关联非常弱。36。总统的批准仅解释了众议院席位变动的44%,参议院席位变动的13%。与总统批准相比,一个对参众两院席位变动做出更准确预测的指标是普通投票——在这个问题上,选民被问及他们计划投票给哪个政党,而不提供参众两院候选人的姓名。通过将普通投票的结果与总统的众议院或参议院席位数量相结合
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Polity
Polity POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1968, Polity has been committed to the publication of scholarship reflecting the full variety of approaches to the study of politics. As journals have become more specialized and less accessible to many within the discipline of political science, Polity has remained ecumenical. The editor and editorial board welcome articles intended to be of interest to an entire field (e.g., political theory or international politics) within political science, to the discipline as a whole, and to scholars in related disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. Scholarship of this type promises to be highly "productive" - that is, to stimulate other scholars to ask fresh questions and reconsider conventional assumptions.
期刊最新文献
Does Size Matter in the Context of the Global South? Theorizing the Smallest States The Unique and the Universal in International Studies Theories from the Global South Ideas from the Global South: Dependency and Decoloniality Incorporating Global South Perspectives in the Study of International Relations: Reflections on the Field Long Day’s Journey Into Night
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1