How they lost the presidency

David A. Walker

Applied Economics, 2018, vol. 50, issue 38, 4113-4121

Abstract: For the second time in this century and the fifth time in US history, the 2016 presidential popular vote winner was not elected president. One day before the election, the author predicted (https://finpolicy.georgetown.edu) Secretary Hillary Clinton would receive between 50.49 and 51.78 percent of the two-party popular vote. She received 51.11 percent. The difference between the popular vote winner and Electoral College outcome inspired the author, ex ante, to develop a state-by-state, cross-section probit model to understand Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory, based on economic, racial and educational characteristics. Trump won the US presidency by winning some of the largest states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin with 17 percent of the necessary electoral votes) by small margins, particularly states with modest per capita incomes and economic growth, and losing the minority vote by less than expected.

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2018.1441514 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:applec:v:50:y:2018:i:38:p:4113-4121

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEC20

DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2018.1441514

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Economics is currently edited by Anita Phillips

More articles in Applied Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().