Who Will Win the Presidential Election in 2016?

By Miles Williams

B.A. (History & Political Science; Philosophy), Greenville College

Political Science Graduate Student, Eastern Illinois University

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several months, you ought to know that there is a presidential election just more than a year away—and don’t we have quite the lineup! If you’ve been privy to the media’s reporting on the 2016 race, you no doubt are aware of the wild and crazy horserace afoot. However, is it really a wild and crazy horserace? The media would have us think so, but the media also have to put on a show to keep the public’s attention. The reality is, much of the drama unfolding on screen means nothing in the long-term. What Trump said, Carson said, Bernie said, Hillary said, etc., makes for interesting television drama but little else. Moreover, the polls we see in the media tell us nothing of long-term value—polls don’t even start becoming accurate predictors until 100 days out from the election (Wlezien and Erikson 2002). Just a few factors determine who wins elections, and these factors have to do with national conditions; not campaigns.

What the Literature Says
Let me be clear about one thing: campaigns can matter (i.e., debates, conventions, etc.); but they impact the final election results substantially less than national conditions (Holbrook 1994). In order for campaigns to exert major influence, either one candidate would have to totally botch their campaign, or the other would have to be exceptionally appealing. Campaigns could also make a difference if the presidential race is close (Abramowitz 2015). Nevertheless, the majority of extant research on this topic argues in favor of the significant and powerful effect of national conditions in comparison to campaign events.

National Conditions and Presidential Election Winners
What do I mean by “national conditions?” I’m referring to three primary factors: consumer confidence, presidential approval, and the current president in office. These variables have the most pronounced impact on which party takes the White House.
              Consumer Confidence: Consumer confidence is measured by the Consumer Confidence Index (The Conference Board).  I’ll keep things simple: when the Consumer Confidence Index is > 100, the party of the current president usually retains the White House. This pattern has held true 9 out of 11 times since 1968—10 out of 11 times if you ignore the fact that in 2000 the Confidence Index was 143 but Bush II, and thus the Republicans, took the presidency. For that election, Al Gore, and thus the Democrats, won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote.

Table Source: Yun 2001.

              Now, the results from the 2012 election present another notable exception to the rule. Consumer confidence during this year was below the 100 threshold, yet Obama was reelected. I think one explanation for this discrepancy is the 2008 recession. The recession undoubtedly had a negative impact on consumer confidence, but, by the time the 2012 election came around, consumer confidence had improved. Many in the electorate probably gave Obama the benefit of the doubt given the horrible state of the economy when he took office. In fact, Gallup poll data from October to November 2012 reveal that Obama’s approval rating was between 50-52% (Gallup)—I’ll cover presidential approval in greater depth soon.
              Where does the Consumer Confidence Index stand as of now? Most recently, in September this year the index was at 103—up from 101.3 in August (The Conference Board). And Consumer Confidence is only expected to improve over the long term. In fact, US Consumer Sentiment—a similar, though not identical measure to Consumer Confidence—has steadily been on the rise since 2010:

Chart Source: Trading Economics.

Given the improvement seen in US Consumer Sentiment and the Consumer Confidence Index since 2012, I suspect that the Democrats will be sitting pretty in 2016.
              Presidential Approval: Data from 1952 to 2008 suggest that when presidential approval ratings are > 50%, the party of the president leaving office has won the presidency every time (Abramowitz 2015). Where does Obama’s approval rating stand as of now? The most recent numbers from Gallup indicate his approval rating is at 46%. However, before all of you Republicans out there start whooping and hollering in excitement, be aware that we have more than a year to go before the 2016 election. Also note that until September in 2012, Obama’s approval ratings looked rather similar to what they do now (actually, in October 2011—the year prior to the 2012 election—his approval rating ranged from 40-43%, which is worse than his approval rating as of this October, the year prior to the 2016 election). Unless the economy absolutely tanks in the next year, I suspect that when September rolls around in 2016, we likely will observe an improvement in Obama’s approval ratings such that they surpass 50% by next November.
              President Currently in Office: Need I really say more? The party of the president currently in the White House determines in whose favor—Republican or Democrat—consumer confidence and presidential approval lie.

Who Will Win the Presidency in 2016?
If you buy any of what I’ve said above, then you should have guessed by now that national conditions favor whoever runs for the Democrats. However, outside of which party is likely to take the presidency, which candidate in particular is likely to win? The quick answer is Hillary Clinton. Why? Despite all the hoopla depicted by the media, public opinion polls following televised debates are not accurate predictors of who wins presidential primaries. Among one of the best predictors is endorsements (see The Party Decides by Cohen, Karol, Noel, and Zaller 2008). Why endorsements? Let me quote FiveThirtyEight writer Aaron Bycoffe:

“Before any votes are cast, presidential candidates compete for the support of influential members of their party, especially elected officials like U.S. representatives, senators and governors. During the period known as the ‘invisible primary,’ these ‘party elites’ seek to coalesce around the candidates they find most acceptable as their party’s nominee. Over the past few decades, when these elites have reached a consensus on the best candidate, rank-and-file voters have usually followed.”

In other words, the candidates for each party who end up winning in the primaries are also the candidates who rack up the most endorsements from party elites (these include governors, and US representatives and senators). As of this writing, Hillary leads the Democrats by a whopping 370 elite endorsements—Bernie as a measly 2, and O’Malley only 1. On the Republican side, Bush (or Jeb!) has the lead; however, it is not as substantial as Hillary’s—which is understandable given the number of Republicans making a bid for the White House. Bush, who stands at 36 elite endorsements is followed by Christie at 25. Trump has none (I’ll leave it at that). For a more in depth look at the “endorsement primary” see this FiveThirtyEight article.
              Just for fun, other surprisingly good—though also very illegal—predictors of who has a good chance at winning the presidency are election betting sites. One such site—PredictIt—shows most people betting money (literally) on either Bush or Rubio running for the Republicans, Clinton running for the Democrats, and the Democrats winning the presidency.

Conclusion
Online betting aside, chances favor the Democrats in November 2016 and more specifically Hillary Clinton. Of course, this is not an irrefutable prediction. Anything could happen between now and election day, and there is indeed a reason we base who wins and who loses on election results and not on predicted election results. Nevertheless, I’d bet money on Hillary taking the White House in 2016 (though not real money, because that’s illegal…).