Putcha, Rackaway, Rutledge, Sloboda

  (2020) No 8, Issue 1   


An Analysis of the Results from the 2016 US Presidential Election

Chandra PUTCHA  ǀ  Chapman RACKAWAY  ǀ  Paul RUTLEDGE  ǀ  Brian W. SLOBODA

Pages: 5-30



This paper presents a model for state-level presidential outcomes for the popular vote and the Electoral College votes for the 2016 Presidential election in the United States of America. The input for the statistical model in this paper used a variety of polls from each state to estimate the winner of each state by the popular vote and the Electoral College votes. The first part of the paper presents an overview of a variety of models used to predict outcomes in past Presidential elections as well as the 2016 election. The final results of the 2016 election revealed that the polls were not accurate. But is that true? We carefully investigate those polls and compare our results to other results. Then, the final part of the paper explores the plausible reasons for the unexpected results and how these results may translate into the results of future Presidential elections.


Presidential elections, state polls, behavioural differences in voters





Abramowitz, A. (2012) Forecasting in a Polarized Era: The Time for Change Model and the 2012 Presidential Election.  PS: Political Science & Politics 45(4): 618-19.

Abramowitz, A. I. (2018) The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press.

Abramowitz, Alan. (2016) Will Time for Change Mean Time for Trump? PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 659-660.

Bitecofer, R. (2017) The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election. Springer.

Campbell, J. E. (2016) The Trial-Heat and Seats-in-Trouble Forecasts of the 2016 Presidential and Congressional Elections. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 664–68.

Campbell, J. E., Norpoth, H., Abramowitz, A. I., Lewis-Beck, M. S., Tien, C., Erikson, R. S., Wlezien, C., Lockerbie, B., Holbrook, T. M., Jerôme, B., Jerôme-Speziari, V., Graefe, A., Armstrong, J. S., Jones, R. J., and Cuzán, A. G. (2017). A Recap of the 2016 Election Forecasts.  PS: Political Science & Politics 50(2): 331-38.

Cook, C.  (2016) What the 2016 Elections Taught Us About Uncertainty.  Cook Political Report. Available at: https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/what-2016-elections-taught-us-about-uncertainty (accessed on 30 May 2020).

Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (2016) Forecasting the Presidential Vote with Leading Economic Indicators and the Polls. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 669-672.

Fisher, P. I. (2016) Definitely Not Moralistic: State Political Culture and Support for Donald Trump in the Race for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 743-747.

Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Repub­licans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford University Press.

Hetherington, M., & Suhay, E. (2011) Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror. American Journal of Political Science 55(3): 546-560.

Holbrook, T. M. (2016) National Conditions, Trial-heat Polls, and the 2016 Election. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 677-679.

Irwin, N., & Katz, J. (2016) The Geography of Trumpism. The New York Times, 12 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-trump­ism.html (accessed on 30 May 2020).

Jerôme, B., & Jerôme-Speziari, V. (2016) State-Level Forecasts for the 2016 US Presi­dential Elec­tions: Political Economy Model Predicts Hillary Clinton Vic­tory. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 680-686.

Katz, J. (2016) Who Will Be President? New York Times. Available at: https://www.ny­times.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html (accessed on 30 May 2020).

Lewis-Beck, M., & Tien, C. (2016) The Political Economy Model: 2016 US Election Fore­casts. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 661-663.

Lockerbie, B. (2012) Economic Expectations and Election Outcomes: The Presidency and the House in 2012.  PS: Political Science & Politics 45(4): 644-647.

Lockerbie, B. (2016) Economic Pessimism and Political Punishment. PS: Political Sci­ence & Poli­tics 49(4): 673-676.

MacWilliams, M. C. (2016) Who Decides When the Party Doesn’t? Authoritarian Voters and the Rise of Donald Trump. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 716-721.

Norpoth, H. (2016) Primary Model Predicts Trump Victory.  PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 655-658.

Predictwise (2016) Election Day.  Available at: https://blog.predictwise.com/2016/11/election-day-2016/ (accessed on 30 May 2020).

Putcha, C. (2010) Methods of Forecasting American Election Outcomes: Studies in Strategies of Prediction. Edwin Mellen Press.

Putcha, C., & Doti, J. (2012) A Mathematical Model Used for Predicting Correctly the Winner in 2012 American Presidential Elections. European Journal of Scientific Research 107(2): 195-209.

Sabato, L. J., Kondik, K., & Skelley, G. (2016) Our Final 2016 Picks. Available at: http://www.cen­terforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/our-final-2016-picks/ (accessed on 30 May 2020).

Sharkansky, I. (1969) The Utility of Elazar’s Political Culture: A Research Note. Polity 2(1): 66-83.

Silver, N. (2016) Final Election Update: There’s a Wide Range of Outcomes, and Most of them Come Up Clinton. Available at: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-up­date-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clin­ton/?ex_cid=2016-forecast (accessed on 30 May 2020).

Streb, M. J., Burrell, B., Frederick, B., & Genovese, M. A. (2007) Social Desirability Effects and Sup­port for a Female American President. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(1): 76-89.

Valentino, N. A., King, J.  L., & Hill, W. W. (2017) Polling and prediction in the 2016 presidential election. Computer 50(5): 110-115.

Wang, S. (2016) Final Projections 2016. Available at: http://elec­tion.princeton.edu/2016/11/08/final-mode-projections-clinton-323-ev-51-di-senate-seats-gop-house/comment-page-1/ (accessed on 30 May 2020).






Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.