Doug “bread and peace” Hibbs gives Obama 47.5% of the two-party vote

Hibbs writes:

The article also includes some fun bashing of other people’s models. I love that sort of thing!

Hibbs concludes with a warning:

Unless I’m missing something, Hibbs’s model does not include an incumbency advantage (which would give Obama a boost because he is running for reelection); that could make the difference between his model and most others that call the election as being closer to 50/50.

7 Responses to Doug “bread and peace” Hibbs gives Obama 47.5% of the two-party vote

  1. Nadia Hassan August 16, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Professor Gelman, incumbency might contribute, but another factor is the RDI measure has fared particularly poorly, especially over the past 4 years. Larry Bartels did have a model with RDI that was somewhat more optimistic for Obama, but it negatively weighted early growth. I think John and Lynn Vavreck found that Obama had a close to 50% chance with incumbency, approval and RDI. That improved pretty dramatically when using other measures like change in unemployment and GDP. Nate also noted that incomes were among the weakest economic series that he analyzes in his composite measure.

    The lack of inclusion of political factors might also contribute, though Obama’s approval is mixed.

  2. DrJim August 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

    From page 4

    “where: Vote is the percentage share of the two-party vote received by the incumbent party’s candidate.”

    • Andrew Gelman August 17, 2012 at 4:42 pm #


      Hibbs has a model of incumbent party vote share. That is not the same thing as including incumbency in the model.

      • rici August 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

        For what it’s worth, I recoloured Hibbs’ graphic to indicate the type of incumbency. Light green dots represent incumbent presidents running for their second term; darker green dots represent incumbent vice-presidents (including the two cases in which the incumbent was a vice-president promoted to president.) Image is here.

      • Jessica December 21, 2012 at 7:49 am #

        I wonder why Missouri City and other Fort Bend County towns don’t just cdniolsoate and absorb their MUDs like Sugar Land has done with most of theirs. It really is a lot cheaper on the residents and reduces the tax burden. Naturally if some of those towns are carrying a high debt load it would seem to make it less desirable over the short-term but it would be a good long range plan for lifting some of the burden off the shoulders of so many small businesses and homeowners.

  3. Bill Harshaw August 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Hibbs’ website seems to be having problems.

  4. Rich August 19, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    So, with his caveat: too close to call, and then some normal stuff breaks (like the Ryan decision that the Dems can milk forever) and anyone can win. I’ll stick with Politico this campaign season; at least the gossip is juicy.