… As it turned out, however, the political science models – looked at in the aggregate, (which is how I typically made my prediction every four years) – were spot on in 2016. As of today, with votes still coming in, Clinton has won about 50.2% of the popular vote – or almost exactly what the political science median forecast predicted.
How, then, to explain those polls showing that Clinton was in the lead? Early in the campaign season, I told my audiences that, assuming Trump and Clinton ran effective campaigns – that is, that they made effective use of the fundamentals in crafting their respective messages, the polling gap between the two should close. Indeed, there is extensive evidence from previous elections, as documented by Erickson and Wlezien, that as the campaign progresses, partisans come home to roost in a way that tends to lead to a tightening in the polls. However, as the election droned on, it became increasingly clear that in my talks I had to address the 800-pound hairdo in the room: Trump was not closing the gap with Clinton nearly as quickly as I anticipated. CONT.
Matthew Dickinson, Middlebury