Presidential Statewide Polling-A Substandard Performance

This study implements a statistical accuracy ( SA) measurement for assessing preelection poll accuracy by comparing Mosteller (1949) Method 5 (absolute difference between poll results and election results) with the poll's margin of error (MOE) or credibility interval. The expectation is that 95% of poll results would be SA by falling between the poll's margin of error or credibility interval and the actual margin of victory. The new measurement is described and then applied to the statewide preelection polls from the 2012 Presidential ( n = 331) and 2016 Presidential ( n = 539) races using n = 182 polling organizations in the last 21 days of each election cycle. This analysis finds statewide preelection polling in 2012 had a 94% SA and was not statistically different from the expected 95%, while the statewide polling in 2016 had a 77% SA and a binomial test found the distribution differs significantly from the expected 95%. There is a significant difference in SA between the two election cycles, χ2(1, N = 870) = 45.24, p < .000. The 2012 biased polls favored the Republican candidate 68% of the time; however, a binomial test found this distribution did not differ significantly from the expected 50/50 distribution, .50, p = .167 (two-tailed), suggesting this was caused by random error. In 2016, biased polls favored the Democratic candidate 90% of the time, a binomial test indicated that the proportion was higher than the expected .50, p < .000 (two- tailed), suggesting a systemic bias

Credibility · Econometrics · Political science · Politics · Polling · Presidential election · Presidential system · Sociology · Statistics · Test (biology) · Computer Science · Demography · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Mathematics · Psychology

• Stop trying to predict elections only with twitter – There are other data sources and technical issues to be improved

  Open Access•Kellyton Brito, Rogério Luiz Cardoso Silva Filho et al.•Government Information Quarterly•2023

  Añadir item

• Voting intentions on social media and political opinion polls

  Open Access•Viktor Pekar, Hossein Najafi et al.•Government Information Quarterly•2021

  Añadir item

• Analyzing the Effect of Regional Modality in Polling Surveys

  Open Access•Eric Levy, Eric P Levy et al.•American Behavioral Scientist•2023

  Añadir item

• A Review and Proposal for a New Measure of Poll Accuracy

  Elliot A Martin•Public Opinion Quarterly•2005

  Añadir item

• Robo-Polls

  Open Access•Joshua D Clinton, Steven Rogers•PS Political Science & Politics•2013

  Añadir item

• Polls and Elections

  Open Access•Costas Panagopoulos•Presidential Studies Quarterly•2009

  Añadir item

• A Review

  Dietmar Vo, D Stephen Voss et al.•Public Opinion Quarterly•1995

  Añadir item

• The Bradley Effect

  Open Access•J Gregory Payne•American Behavioral Scientist•2010

  Añadir item

• The Accuracy of the National Preelection Polls in the 2004 Presidential Election

  Michael W Traugott•Public Opinion Quarterly•2005

  Añadir item

• An Analysis of the Accuracy of "Trial Heat" Polls During the 1992 Presidential Election

  Richard R Lau•Public Opinion Quarterly•1994

  Añadir item

• Assessing Poll Performance in the 2000 Campaign

  Michael W Traugott•Public Opinion Quarterly•2001

  Añadir item

• Campaigns, Polls, and the States

  Jay A Desart, Jay Desart et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2003

  Añadir item

• The Pre-Election Polls of 1948

  J E Bachelder, Frederick Mosteller et al.•American Sociological Review•1950

  Añadir item

• Survey Research in the United States

  Seymour Sudman, Jean M Converse•Social Forces•1988

  Añadir item