My accurate election forecast model for Florida…and why I lied about it.

st_20161110_vn1213a_2731023As many of you know, I like to forecast. Many of the forecasts that I have done are trial and error. You come up with a hypothesis, test it, see if it holds, and are either happy with joy for being right or depressed that you were totally wrong. Last election, I tried predicting Florida legislative elections using top-of-the-ticket support, party composition, and money spent by candidates. Guess what, I was WAY off on some seats (though I think the model can be saved using different approaches).

This year, I created a model to forecast the upcoming presidential election. My model was based on pre-Election Day vote totals to determine partisan enthusiasm for presidential candidates (since most people are voting for president first and foremost).

Before I get into the “why I lied about it” part of the title, I first need to explain my model and show my results. So let’s start!

Prediction of the Election

Are voters in a state favoring one party over another? This is what I am trying to determine here. Luckily in the State of Florida, voters register by political parties, thus each voter has a partisan identification. However, simply looking at party registration does not tell us if the state is favoring one party over another.

So, how do I determine in a particular election year that Florida is actually making a shift? Since everyone is registered by party, we can see which voters are turning out to vote. Since Florida does have a large early vote and vote-by-mail turnout rate, we can compare the composition of those are registered and and have actually voted. Therefore, to determine partisan enthusiasm, we must first see how each major party performed by starting with the following:

% Major Party Turnout – % Registered Major Party = Major Party Partisan Enthusiasm

In Florida, the percentage of registered Democrats was 37.92%. However, the composition of the pre-Election Day vote that was Democratic was 40.29%. This is a difference of 2.37% for Democrats. As for the Republicans, their percentage of registered voters was 35.37%. As for the pre-Election Day composition, Republicans were 38.23%. This gives us a difference of 2.85%. Since I was looking at major party swing, NPA/Other voters are not examined (and in many case simply mirror partisan voters, according to Shaw (in Kenneth F. Warren’s Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1; 2008). In order to figure out the the actual swing of the state, I simply subtract the two percentages, so:

Democratic Enthusiasm – Republican Enthusiasm = Major Party Swing

Using this equation, in the State of Florida, we see a .48% swing to the Republicans. This indicates a favorable election result for Republicans, if only slightly. To determine how this will impact the 2016 Election, we simply do the following:

2012 Obama Percentage + Major Party Swing = 2016 Clinton Party Percentage

The above can give us an idea of how voter enthusiasm looks in comparison to the previous election. In 2012, President Obama received 50.44% of the major party vote. If we subtract the .48% rate for enthusiasm for the Republicans, we see what the projection shows Clinton with 49.96% of the major party vote, which shows a very slight loss for Clinton. When comparing this to the actual election results, with Clinton only receiving 49.34%, the model is only off by .62%.

Of course, one might say that this model assumes that Election Day partisan composition would mirror pre-Election Day partisan composition. Still, I will take that risk.

Why did I lie about my model?

Simply, I couldn’t live with the result. I couldn’t live with the fact of a Trump presidency. And with that, I broke a major rule of political science research…letting your emotions take over and not listening to the data.

In all fairness, I did not make any scientific prediction of Florida. I just had a “gut feeling” and based my numbers off of those feelings. However, whenever I looked at my model, I never saw Clinton take the lead. As each day passed, it become disheartening. Therefore, I switched tactics.

If you remember in my first few articles about pre-Election Day polling in Florida, I constantly mentioned that the swing was benefiting Republicans. Even in my last article (Oct 29th), I said that the Republicans had a 3.02% swing. Because of this, I started making excuses…party ID is not an indication of vote choice (which is still true), Democrats are increasing their number in early vote totals (which was true). Eventually, I would tweet that Democrats had overtaken Republicans, and treated this aggregate total like a victory for Democrats. However, even when the Democrats took the lead, that swing number still favored the Republicans. I was fully in my “it can’t be true” mode, and refused to listen to my own numbers.

In the end, the numbers were correct.

Why mention this?

Over the last few days, I have heard a number of people in the media talk about how the numbers were “wrong”. And in many cases, I am sure they were. But if you create a theory based on hard numbers, and know how those numbers might cause shifts in voting behavior and voter turnout, the numbers can be spot on! In this case, my numbers were spot on….I just refused to except the results.

I’ve learned my lesson…I won’t do that again!

Working the Equations above

Major party swing (Dem)+(Rep)

(37.92-40.29) + (35.37-38.23) = -.48

2016 Clinton Party Percentage

50.44+ (-.48) = 49.96% (actual 49.34%)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s