Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:33:27.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Comeback Kid: Donald Trump on Election Day in 2016

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

Seth C. McKee
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Daniel A. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Florida
M. V. (Trey) Hood III
Affiliation:
University of Georgia

Abstract

The surprise outcome of the 2016 presidential election continues to raise more questions as experts grapple with the evidence for why most prognosticators considered a Hillary Clinton victory almost certain. This article uses the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to show that a primary explanation for why the election of Donald Trump was difficult to predict is that the bulk of his support did not materialize until Election Day, in the battleground states that he had to carry to win the Electoral College.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Burden, Barry C., Canon, David T., Mayer, Kenneth R., and Moynihan, Donald P.. 2017. “The Complicated Partisan Effects of State Election Laws.” Political Research Quarterly 70 (3): 564–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Nate. 2017. “A 2016 Review: Why Key State Polls Were Wrong about Trump.” New York Times, May 31. Available at www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upshot/a-2016-review-why-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.html. Accessed July 1, 2017.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Kaufmann, Karen M., and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2007. “Battleground States versus Blackout States: The Behavioral Implications of Modern Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 786–97.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00575.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronke, Paul. 2012. “Early Voting: The Quiet Revolution in American Elections.” In Law and Election Politics: The Rules of the Game, ed. Streb, Matthew J., 134–48. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., and Ozan Kalkan, Kerem. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent-Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 263–77.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00602.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahtesian, Charlie. 2016. “What Are the Swing States in 2016?” Politico, June 15. Available at www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/06/what-are-the-swing-states-in-2016-list-224327. Accessed July 30, 2018.Google Scholar
McKee, Seth C. 2018. “The 2016 Presidential Nomination Process.” In The Future Ain’t What It Used To Be: The 2016 Presidential Election in the South, eds. DuBose Kapeluck, Branwell and Buchanan, Scott E., 2340. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press.10.2307/j.ctt201mpvp.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, Marc, and Malhotra, Neil. 2011. “Convenience Voting Can Affect Election Outcomes.” Election Law Journal 10 (3): 227–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scala, Dante J. 2003. “Re-reading the Tea Leaves: New Hampshire as a Barometer of Presidential Primary Success.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (2): 187–92.Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. 2017. “The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton the Election.” FiveThirtyEight, May 3. Available at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election. Accessed June 12, 2017.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., McKee, Seth C., and Hood, M. V. III. 2017–2018. “Election Daze: Voting Modes and Voter Preferences in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Florida Political Chronicle 25 (2): 123–41.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert M. 1998. “Early Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62 (1): 5769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

McKee et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download McKee et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 284.3 KB