Opinion - Looking back at election forecasts
Predicting future events is difficult. The Babylonians discovered this nearly 2,700 years ago, when they began trying to predict the weather. We have been working to improve those forecasts ever since. Lives, crops and more depended on them.
It took until 1859 for a country (Britain) to offer its first official weather forecast (for shipping, the lifeblood of the maritime empire).
After millennia of refinement, just how accurate are weather forecasts? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tells us that five-day forecasts are accurate nearly 90 percent of the time. Ten-day forecasts and longer are only correct about half the time.
When it comes to where hurricanes will make landfall, even a 48-hour forecast has a margin of error around 50 nautical miles.
Humans can be even less predictable than weather patterns. Yet here, too, the stakes can be sky-high.
Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake in economic forecasts. Corporations, stock market investors and even the Federal Reserve rely on them to make consequential decisions.
Two Berkeley business school researchers analyzed responses to the Survey of Professional Forecasters, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 1968. They found forecasters were correct a mere 23 percent of the time.
To take just one recent example, economists predicted U.S. gross domestic product would grow by 1.3 percent in 2024. In fact, the growth rate was more than twice the forecast.
A dear friend who spent a few years working at a prominent econometric forecasting firm decades ago, reported their staff motto was 'we predicted 10 of the last three recessions.'
Election forecasting has a shorter history. It is both more difficult and less consequential, since the forecasts have no effect on the real world. But it has grown into a cottage industry.
Given the difficulties, it is surprising just how accurate these forecasts have proven to be, especially when they employ data collected many months prior to the event itself.
The American Political Science Association recently published a journal with a dozen forecasts all completed well before the election, each of which used somewhat different data and varying methodologies. Most of them foresaw the close popular vote finish. The high-end prediction for then-Vice President Kamala Harris's share of the popular vote was 54.5 percent and the low-end was 45 percent — the first based on online betting data, the second on the expectations of ordinary people, techniques that I would caution against. Still, most of the predictions clustered within a few points of the actual results.
Of the 11 entrants who forecast the popular vote, five foresaw victory for President Trump and six a win for Harris. Five predicted an Electoral College victory for Trump, whereas three wrongly anticipated that Harris would win the electoral vote.
As regular readers would expect, the predictions based on fundamentals (the economy, partisanship, presidential approval) tended to be the most accurate. As I have described before, Ray Fair's model, the longest running such forecast (but not included in the American Political Science Association collection), and based largely on hard economic indicators, was within a quarter point of the actual result.
Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck added presidential approval to a smaller array of economic variables, producing a forecast also less than a point off the mark.
Models employing poll data tended to be slightly farther off.
I have previously quoted statistician George Box saying that 'all models are wrong. Some are useful.' Models are (over-) simplifications of the world. To be wholly right, they'd have to be as rich, complex, and confusing as the world itself.
But these simplifications can tell us something about the 'whys' of this and other presidential elections.
For example, despite the conventional wisdom asserting elections are about the future, most of the accurate models use retrospective information about the past, not data about future expectations.
None of these models use information about the candidates' personalities, abilities or issue positions. Which is to say, the 2024 election was destined to be close, but any Democrat would have had a difficult time winning it. The situational deck was stacked against us, and neither candidate had a secret formula for greatly exceeding expectations. An exceptional candidate backed by an exceptional campaign may have been able to overcome the odds, but that's exactly what would have been required — beating the odds.
Would a different candidate, or one who had faced a primary, have done better? We have no way of knowing, but there is no evidence or suggestion Harris blew a race that was hers to lose.
Would former President Biden have done better or worse? Again, we cannot know, though one of the American Political Science Association modelers claims evidence that Biden himself would have done slightly worse than Harris did.
It is no longer fashionable to quote Karl Marx, but he was right in saying that individual people 'make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.'
Psychology teaches us that humans put too much weight on personal factors while underrating the power of circumstances and situations in shaping behavior.
These models remind us that circumstances count for a lot and that the new science of presidential election forecasting stacks up pretty well, as predictions go.
Mark Mellman is president of The Mellman Group a consultancy that has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. He served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 30 years and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants' Hall of Fame.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
13 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major U.S. banks poised for massive shift in approach toward cryptocurrency: 'Defend your right to buy'
Despite the instability of cryptocurrency, major U.S. banks are considering a move toward supporting these emerging currencies, Reuters reported. However, they are being rightfully cautious given the shifting legal landscape and how easy it would be to run afoul of laws designed to keep our financial systems honest. Reuters spoke to industry executives about the possibility and revealed that internal discussions are already happening regarding the potential change. However, no bank wants to make the first move. "When I look at the bitcoin universe, the leverage in the system, the misuse in the system, the money laundering issues, trafficking, I'm not a fan of it," said Jamie Dimon, CEO of the largest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, per Reuters. "We're going to allow you to buy it, we're not going to custody it. ... I don't think you should smoke, but I defend your right to smoke. I defend your right to buy bitcoin." It's not surprising that banks have their eye on this move. President Trump has courted cryptocurrency enthusiasts with promises to create a federal cryptocurrency reserve and make other investments as president. However, it's also not surprising that they're hanging back. The risk is high, and anti-money laundering rules and other regulations could sharply limit their activities, with no guarantees yet as to how those rules may change. When banks do enter the game, it will likely be in small ways, as partners to existing organizations. They may also want to create a stablecoin of their own. It's in the best interests of the American public for legal protections regarding cryptocurrency to be strengthened and for banks to be cautious. All the computing power needed is bad for the environment, at least until we switch to a more eco-friendly cryptocurrency. In the meantime, until banking regulators speak up, we're unlikely to see much change in crypto banking. Do you think the federal government should give us tax breaks to improve our homes? Definitely Only for certain upgrades Let each state decide instead No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Sign in to access your portfolio
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
