Archive for the 'Election polling' Category

Oops, the polls did it again

Many people had trouble sleeping last night wondering if their candidate was going to be President. I couldn’t sleep because as the night wore on it was becoming clear that this wasn’t going to be a good night for the polls.

Four years ago on the day after the election I wrote about the “epic fail” of the 2016 polls. I couldn’t sleep last night because I realized I was going to have to write another post about another polling failure. While the final vote totals may not be in for some time, it is clear that the 2020 polls are going to be off on the national vote even more than the 2016 polls were.

Yesterday, on election day I received an email from a fellow market researcher and business owner. We are involved in a project together and he was lamenting how poor the data quality has been in his studies recently and was wondering if we were having the same problems.

In 2014 we wrote a blog post that cautioned our clients that we were detecting poor quality interviews that needed to be discarded about 10% of the time. We were having to throw away about 1 in 10 of the interviews we collected.

Six years later that percentage has moved to be between 33% and 45% and we tend to be conservative in the interviews we toss. It is fair to say that for most market research studies today, between a third and a half of the interviews being collected are, for a lack of a better term, junk.  

It has gotten so bad that new firms have sprung up that serve as a go-between from sample providers and online questionnaires in order to protect against junk interviews. They protect against bots, survey farms, duplicate interviews, etc. Just the fact that these firms and terms like “survey farms” exist should give researchers pause regarding data quality.

When I started in market research in the late 80s/early 90’s we had a spreadsheet program that was used to help us cost out projects. One parameter in this spreadsheet was “refusal rate” – the percent of respondents who would outright refuse to take part in a study. While the refusal rate varied by study, the beginning assumption in this program was 40%, meaning that on average we expected 60% of the time respondents would cooperate. 

According to Pew and AAPOR in 2018 the cooperation rate for telephone surveys was 6% and falling rapidly.

Cooperation rates in online surveys are much harder to calculate in a standardized way, but most estimates I have seen and my own experience suggest that typical cooperation rates are about 5%. That means for a 1,000-respondent study, at least 20,000 emails are sent, which is about four times the population of the town I live in.

This is all background to try to explain why the 2020 polls appear to be headed to a historic failure. Election polls are the public face of the market research industry. Relative to most research projects, they are very simple. The problems pollsters have faced in the last few cycles is emblematic of something those working in research know but rarely like to discuss: the quality of data collected for research and polls has been declining, and should be alarming to researchers.

I could go on about the causes of this. We’ve tortured our respondents for a long time. Despite claims to the contrary, we haven’t been able to generate anything close to a probability sample in years. Our methodologists have gotten cocky and feel like they can weight any sampling anomalies away. Clients are forcing us to conduct projects on timelines that make it impossible to guard against poor quality data. We focus on sampling error and ignore more consequential errors. The panels we use have become inbred and gather the same respondents across sources. Suppliers are happy to cash the check and move on to the next project.

This is the research conundrum of our times: in a world where we collect more data on people’s behavior and attitudes than ever before, the quality of the insights we glean from these data is in decline.

Post 2016 the polling industry brain trust rationalized and claimed that the polls actually did a good job, convened some conferences to discuss the polls, and made modest methodological changes. Almost all of these changes related to sampling and weighting. But, as it appears that the 2020 polling miss is going to be way beyond what can be explained by sampling (last night I remarked to my wife that “I bet the p-value of this being due to sampling is about 1 in 1,000”), I feel that pollsters have addressed the wrong problem.

None of the changes pollsters made addressed the long-term problems researchers face with data quality. When you have a response rate of 5% and up to half of those are interviews you need to throw away, errors that can arise are orders of magnitude greater than the errors that are generated by sampling and weighting mistakes.

I don’t want to sound like I have the answers.  Just a few days ago I posted that I thought that on balance there were more reasons to conclude that the polls would do a good job this time than to conclude that they would fail. When I look through my list of potential reasons the polls might fail, nothing leaps to me as an obvious cause, so perhaps the problem is multi-faceted.

What I do know is the market research industry has not done enough to address data quality issues. And every four years the polls seem to bring that into full view.

Will the polls be right this time?

The 2016 election was damaging to the market research industry. The popular perception has been that in 2016 the pollsters missed the mark and miscalled the winner. In reality, the 2016 polls were largely predictive of the national popular vote. But, 2016 was largely seen by non-researchers as disastrous. Pollsters and market researchers have a lot riding on the perceived accuracy of 2020 polls.

The 2016 polls did a good job of predicting the national vote total but in a large majority of cases final national polls were off in the direction of overpredicting the vote for Clinton and underpredicting the vote for Trump. That is pretty much a textbook definition of bias. Before the books are closed on the 2016 pollster’s performance, it is important to note that the 2012 polls were off even further and mostly in the direction of overpredicting the vote for Romney and underpredicting the vote for Obama. The “bias,” although small, has swung back and forth between parties.

Election Day 2020 is in a few days and we may not know the final results for a while. It won’t be possible to truly know how the polls did for some weeks or months.

That said, there are reasons to believe that the 2020 polls will do an excellent job of predicting voter behavior and there are reasons to believe they may miss the mark.  

There are specific reasons why it is reasonable to expect that the 2020 polls will be accurate. So, what is different in 2020? 

  • There have been fewer undecided voters at all stages of the process. Most voters have had their minds made up well in advance of election Tuesday. This makes things simpler from a pollster’s perspective. A polarized and engaged electorate is one whose behavior is predictable. Figuring out how to partition undecided voters moves polling more in a direction of “art” than “science.”
  • Perhaps because of this, polls have been remarkably stable for months. In 2016, there was movement in the polls throughout and particularly over the last two weeks of the campaign. This time, the polls look about like they did weeks and even months ago.
  • Turnout will be very high. The art in polling is in predicting who will turn out and a high turnout election is much easier to forecast than a low turnout election.
  • There has been considerable early voting. There is always less error in asking about what someone has recently done than what they intend to do in the future. Later polls could ask many respondents how they voted instead of how they intended to vote.
  • There have been more polls this time. As our sample size of polls increases so does the accuracy. Of course, there are also more bad polls out there this cycle as well.
  • There have been more and better polls in the swing states this time. The true problem pollsters had in 2016 was with state-level polls. There was less attention paid to them, and because the national pollsters and media didn’t invest much in them, the state-level polling is where it all went wrong. This time, there has been more investment in swing-state polling.
  • The media invested more in polls this time. A hidden secret in polling is that election polls rarely make money for the pollster. This keeps many excellent research organizations from getting involved in them or dedicating resources to them. The ones that do tend to do so solely for reputational reasons. An increased investment this time has helped to get more researchers involved in election polling.
  • Response rates are upslightly. 2020 is the first year where we have seen a long-term trend towards declining response rates on survey stabilize and even kick up a little. This is likely a minor factor in the success of the 2020 polls, but it is in the right direction.
  • The race isn’t as close as it was in 2016. This one might only be appreciated by statisticians. Since variability is maximized in a 50/50 distribution the further away from an even race it is the more accurate a poll will be. This is another small factor in the direction of the polls being accurate in 2020.
  • There has not been late breaking news that could influence voter behavior. In 2016, the FBI director’s decision to announce a probe into Clinton’s emails came late in the campaign. There haven’t been any similar bombshells this time.
  • Pollsters started setting quotas and weighting on education. In the past, pollsters would balance samples on characteristics known to correlate highly with voting behavior – characteristics like age, gender, political party affiliation, race/ethnicity, and past voting behavior. In 2016, pollsters learned the hard way that educational attainment had become an additional characteristic to consider when crafting samples because voter preferences vary by education level. The good polls fixed that this go round.
  • In a similar vein, there has been a tighter scrutiny of polling methodology. While the media can still be a cavalier about digging into methodology, this time they were more likely to insist that pollsters outline their methods. This is the first time I can remember seeing news stories where pollsters were asked questions about methodology.
  • The notion that there are Trump supporters who intentionally lie to pollsters has largely been disproven by studies from very credible sources, such as Yale and Pew. Much more relevant is the pollster’s ability to predict turnout from both sides.

There are a few things going on that give the polls some potential to lay an egg.

  • The election will be decided by a small number of swing states. Swing state polls are not as accurate and are often funded by local media and universities that don’t have the funding or the expertise to do them correctly. The polls are close and less stable in these states. There is some indication that swing state polls have been tightening, and Biden’s lead in many of them isn’t much different than Clinton’s lead in 2020.
  • Biden may be making the same mistake Clinton made. This is a political and not a research-related reason, but in 2016 Clinton failed to aggressively campaign in the key states late in the campaign while Trump went all in. History could be repeating itself. Field work for final polls is largely over now, so the polls will not reflect things that happen the last few days.
  • If there is a wild-card that will affect polling accuracy in 2020, it is likely to center around how people are voting. Pollsters have been predicting election day voting for decades. In this cycle votes have been coming in for weeks and the methods and rules around early voting vary widely by state. Pollsters just don’t have past experience with early voting.
  • There is really no way for pollsters to account for potential disqualifications for mail-in votes (improper signatures, late receipts, legal challenges, etc.) that may skew to one candidate or another.
  • Similarly, any systematic voter suppression would likely cause the polls to underpredict Trump. These voters are available to poll, but may not be able to cast a valid vote.
  • There has been little mention of third-party candidates in polling results. The Libertarian candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. The Green Party candidate is on the ballot in 31 states. Other parties have candidates on the ballot in some states but not others. These candidates aren’t expected to garner a lot of votes, but in a close election even a few percentage points could matter to the results. I have seen national polls from reputable organizations where they weren’t included.
  • While there is little credible data supporting that there are “shy” Trump voters that are intentionally lying to pollsters, there still might be a social desirability bias that would undercount Trump’s support. That social desirability bias could be larger than it was in 2016, and it is still likely in the direction of under predicting Trump’s vote count.
  • Polls (and research surveys) tend to underrepresent rural areas. Folks in rural areas are less likely to be in online panels and to cooperate on surveys. Few pollsters take this into account. (I have never seen a corporate research client correcting for this, and it has been a pet peeve of mine for years.) This is a sample coverage issue that will likely undercount the Trump vote.
  • Sampling has continued to get harder. Cell phone penetration has continued to grow, online panel quality has fallen, and our best option (ABS sampling) is still far from random and so expensive it is beyond the reach of most polls.
  • “Herding” is a rarely discussed, but very real polling problem. Herding refers to pollsters who conduct a poll that doesn’t conform to what other polls are finding. These polls tend to get scrutinized and reweighted until they fit to expectations, or even worse, buried and never released. Think about it – if you are a respected polling organization that conducted a recent poll that showed Trump would win the popular vote, you’d review this poll intensely before releasing it and you might choose not to release it at all because it might put your firm’s reputation at risk to release a poll that looks different than the others. The only polls I have seen that appear to be out of range are ones from smaller organizations who are likely willing to run the risk of being viewed as predicting against the tide or who clearly have a political bias to them.

Once the dust settles, we will compose a post that analyzes how the 2020 polls did. For now, we feel there are a more credible reasons to believe the polls will be seen as predictive than to feel that we are on the edge of a polling mistake.  From a researcher’s standpoint, the biggest worry is that the polls will indeed be accurate, but won’t match the vote totals because of technicalities in vote counting and legal challenges. That would reflect unfairly on the polling and research industries.

“Margin of error” sort of explained (+/-5%)

It is now September of an election year. Get ready for a two-month deluge of polls and commentary on them. One thing you can count on is reporters and pundits misinterpreting the meaning behind “margin of error.” This post is meant to simplify the concept.

Margin of error refers to sampling error and is present on every poll or market research survey. It can be mathematically calculated. All polls seek to figure out what everybody thinks by asking a small sample of people. There is always some degree of error in this.

The formula for margin of error is fairly simple and depends mostly on two things: how many people are surveyed and their variability of response. The more people you interview, the lower (better) the margin of error. The more the people you interview give the same response (lower variability), the better the margin of error. If a poll interviews a lot of people and they all seem to be saying the same thing, the margin of error of the poll is low. If the poll interviews a small number of people and they disagree a lot, the margin of error is high.

Most reporters understand that a poll with a lot of respondents is better than one with fewer respondents. But most don’t understand the variability component.

There is another assumption used in the calculation for sampling error as well: the confidence level desired. Almost every pollster will use a 95% confidence level, so for this explanation we don’t have to worry too much about that.

What does it mean to be within the margin of error on a poll? It simply means that the two percentages being compared can be deemed different from one another with 95% confidence. Put another way, if the poll was repeated a zillion times, we’d expect that at least 19 out of 20 times the two numbers would be different.

If Biden is leading Trump in a poll by 8 points and the margin of error is 5 points, we can be confident he is really ahead because this lead is outside the margin of error. Not perfectly confident, but more than 95% confident.

Here is where reporters and pundits mess it up.  Say they are reporting on a poll with a 5-point margin of error and Biden is leading Trump by 4 points. Because this lead is within the margin of error, they will often call it a “statistical dead heat” or say something that implies that the race is tied.

Neither is true. The only way for a poll to have a statistical dead heat is for the exact same number of people to choose each candidate. In this example the race isn’t tied at all, we just have a less than 95% confidence that Biden is leading. In this example, we might be 90% sure that Biden is leading Trump. So, why would anyone call that a statistical dead heat? It would be way better to be reporting the level of confidence that we have that Biden is winning, or the p-value of the result. I have never seen a reporter do that, but some of the election prediction websites do.

Pollsters themselves will misinterpret the concept. They will deem their poll “accurate” as long as the election result is within the margin of error. In close elections this isn’t helpful, as what really matters is making a correct prediction of what will happen.

Most of the 2016 final polls were accurate if you define being accurate as coming within the margin of error. But, since almost all of them predicted the wrong winner, I don’t think we will see future textbooks holding 2016 out there as a zenith of polling accuracy.

Another mistake reporters (and researchers make) is not recognizing that the margin of error only refers to sampling error which is just one of many errors that can occur on a poll. The poor performance of the 2016 presidential polls really had nothing to do with sampling error at all.

I’ve always questioned why there is so much emphasis on sampling error for a couple of reasons. First, the calculation of sampling error assumes you are working with a random sample which in today’s polling world is almost never the case. Second, there are many other types of errors in survey research that are likely more relevant to a poll’s accuracy than sampling error. The focus on sampling error is driven largely because it is the easiest error to mathematically calculate. Margin of error is useful to consider, but needs to be put in context of all the other types of errors that can happen in a poll.

Among college students, Bernie Sanders is the overwhelming choice for the Democratic nomination

Crux Research poll of college students shows Sanders at 23%, Biden at 16%, and all other candidates under 10%

ROCHESTER, NY – October 10, 2019 – Polling results released today by Crux Research show that if it was up to college students, Bernie Sanders would win the Democratic nomination the US Presidency. Sanders is the favored candidate for the nomination among 23% of college students compared to 16% for Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren is favored by 8% of college students followed by 7% support for Andrew Yang.

  • Bernie Sanders: 23%
  • Joe Biden: 16%
  • Elizabeth Warren: 8%
  • Andrew Yang: 7%
  • Kamala Harris: 6%
  • Beto O’Rourke: 5%
  • Pete Buttigieg: 4%
  • Tom Steyer: 3%
  • Cory Booker: 3%
  • Michael Bennet: 2%
  • Tulsi Gabbard: 2%
  • Amy Klobuchar: 2%
  • Julian Castro: 1%
  • None of these: 5%
  • Unsure: 10%
  • I won’t vote: 4%

The poll also presented five head-to-head match-ups. Each match-up suggests that the Democratic candidate currently has a strong edge over President Trump, with Sanders having the largest edge.

  • Sanders versus Trump: 61% Sanders; 17% Trump; 12% Someone Else; 7% Not Sure; 3% would not vote
  • Warren versus Trump: 53% Warren; 18% Trump; 15% Someone Else; 9% Not Sure; 5% would not vote
  • Biden versus Trump: 51% Biden; 18% Trump; 19% Someone Else; 8% Not Sure; 4% would not vote
  • Harris versus Trump: 48% Harris; 18% Trump; 20% Someone Else; 10% Not Sure; 4% would not vote
  • Buttigieg versus Trump: 44% Buttigieg; 18% Trump; 22% Someone Else; 11% Not Sure; 5% would not vote

The 2020 election could very well be determined on the voter turnout among young people, which has traditionally been much lower than among older age groups.

###

Methodology
This poll was conducted online between October 1 and October 8, 2019. The sample size was 555 US college students (aged 18 to 29). Quota sampling and weighting were employed to ensure that respondent proportions for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, and region matched their actual proportions in the US college student population.

This poll did not have a sponsor and was conducted and funded by Crux Research, an independent market research firm that is not in any way associated with political parties, candidates, or the media.

All surveys and polls are subject to many sources of error. The term “margin of error” is misleading for online polls, which are not based on a probability sample which is a requirement for margin of error calculations. If this study did use probability sampling, the margin of error would be +/-4%.

About Crux Research Inc.
Crux Research partners with clients to develop winning products and services, build powerful brands, create engaging marketing strategies, enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, improve products and services, and get the most out of their advertising.

Using quantitative and qualitative methods, Crux connects organizations with their customers in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, consumer goods, financial services, media and advertising, automotive, technology, retail, business-to-business, and non-profits.
Crux connects decision makers with customers, uses data to inspire new thinking, and assures clients they are being served by experienced, senior level researchers who set the standard for customer service from a survey research and polling consultant.

To learn more about Crux Research, visit http://www.cruxresearch.com.

How to be an intelligent consumer of political polls

As the days get shorter and the air gets cooler, we are on the edge of a cool, colorful season. We are not talking about autumn — instead, “polling season” is upon us! As the US Presidential race heats up, one thing we can count on is being inundated with polls and pundits spinning polling results.

Most market researchers are interested in polls. Political polling pre-dates the modern market research industry and most market research techniques used today have antecedents from the polling world. And, as we have stated in a previous post, polls can be as important as the election itself.

The polls themselves influence voting behavior which should place polling organizations in an ethical quandary. Our view is that polls, when properly done, are an important facet of modern democracy. Polls can inform our leaders as to what the electorate cares about and keep them accountable. This season, polls are determining which candidates get on the debate stage and are driving which issues candidates are discussing most prominently.

The sheer number of polls that we are about to see will be overwhelming. Some will be well-conducted, some will be shams, and many will be in between. To help, we thought we’d write this post on how be an intelligent consumer of polls and what to look out for when reading the polls or hearing about them in the media.

  • First, and this is harder than it sounds, you have to put your own biases aside. Maybe you are a staunch conservative or liberal or maybe you are in the middle. Whatever your leaning, your political views are likely going to get in the way of you becoming a good reader of the polls. It is hard to not have a confirmation bias when viewing polls, where you tend to accept a polling result that confirms what you believe or hope will happen and question a result that doesn’t fit with your map of the world. I have found the best way to do this is to first try to view the poll from the other side. Say you are a conservative. Start by thinking about how you would view the poll if you leaned left instead.
  • Next, always, and I mean ALWAYS, discover who paid for the poll. If it is an entity that has a vested interest in the results, such as a campaign, a PAC, and industry group or lobbyist, go no further. Don’t even look at the poll. In fact, if the sponsor of the poll isn’t clearly identified, move on and spend your time elsewhere. Good polls always disclose who paid for it.
  • Don’t just look to who released the poll, review which organization executed it. For the most part, polls executed by major polling organizations (Gallup, Harris, ORC, Pew, etc.) will be worth reviewing as will polls done by colleges with polling centers (Marist, Quinnipiac, Sienna, etc.). But there are some excellent polling firms out there you likely have never heard of. When in doubt, remember that Five Thirty Eight gives pollsters grades based on their past performances.  Despite what you may hear, polls done by major media organizations are sound. They have polling editors that understand all the nuances and have standards for how the polls are conducted. These organizations tend to partner with major polling organizations that likewise have the methodological muscle that is necessary.
  • Never, and I mean NEVER, trust a poll that comes from a campaign itself. At their best, campaigns will cherry pick results from well executed polls to make their candidate look better. At their worst, they will implement a biased poll intentionally. Why? Because much of the media, even established mainstream media, will cover these polls. (As an aside, if you are a researcher don’t trust the campaigns either. From my experience, you have about a 1 in 3 chance of being paid by a campaign for conducting their poll.)
  • Ignore any talk about the margin of error. The margin of error on a poll has become a meaningless statistic that is almost always misinterpreted by the media. A margin of error really only makes sense when a random or probability sample is being used. Without going into detail, there isn’t a single polling methodology in use today that can credibly claim to be using a probability sample. Regardless, being within the margin of error does not mean a race is too close to call anyway. It really just means it is too close to call with 95% certainty.
  • When reading stories on polls in the media, read beyond the headline. Remember, headlines are not written by reporters or pollsters. They are written by editors that in many ways have had their journalistic integrity questioned and have become “click hunters.” Their job is to get you to click on the story and not necessarily to accurately summarize the poll. Headlines are bound to be more sensational that the polling results merit.

All is not lost though. There are plenty of good polls out there worth looking at. Here is the routine I use when I have a few minutes and want to discover what the polls are saying.

  • First, I start at the Polling Report. This is an independent site that compiles credible polls. It has a long history. I remember reading it in the 90’s when it was a monthly mailed newsletter. I start here because it is nothing more than raw poll results with no spin whatsoever. Their Twitter feed shows the most recently submitted polls.
  • I sometimes will also look at Real Clear Politics. They also curate polls, but they also provide analysis. I tend to just stay on their poll page and ignore the analysis.
  • FiveThirtyEight doesn’t provide polling results in great detail, but usually draws longitudinal graphs on the probability of each candidate winning the nomination and the election. Their predictions have valid science behind them and the site is non-partisan. This is usually the first site I look at to discover how others are viewing the polls.
  • For fun, I take a peek at BetFair which is an UK online betting site that allows wagers on elections. It takes a little training to understand what the current prices mean, but in essence this site tells you which candidates people are putting their actual money on. Prediction markets fascinate me; using this site to predict who might win is fun and geeky.
  • I will often check out Pew’s politics site. Pew tends to poll more on issues than “horse race” matchups on who is winning. Pew is perhaps the most highly respected source within the research field.
  • Finally, I go to the media. I tend to start with major media sites that seem to be somewhat neutral (the BBC, NPR, USA TODAY). After reviewing these sites, I then look at Fox News and MSNBC’s website because it is interesting to see how their biases cause them to say very different things about the same polls. I stay away from the cable channels (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) just because I can’t stand hearing boomers argue back and forth for hours on end.

This is, admittedly, way harder than it used to be. We used to just be able to let Peter Jennings or Walter Cronkite tell us what the polls said. Now, there is so much out there that to truly get an objective handle on what is going on takes serious work. I truly think that if you can become an intelligent, unbiased consumer of polls it will make you a better market researcher. Reading polls objectively takes a skill that applies well to data analysis and insight generation, which is what market research is all about.

How Did Pollsters Do in the Midterm Elections?

Our most read blog post was posted the morning after the 2016 Presidential election. It is a post we are proud of because it was composed in the haze of a shocking election result. While many were celebrating their side’s victory or in shock over their side’s losses, we mused about what the election result meant for the market research industry.

We predicted pollsters would become defensive and try to convince everyone that the polls really weren’t all that bad. In fact, the 2016 polls really weren’t. Predictions of the popular vote tended to be within a percent and a half or so of the actual result which was better than for the previous Presidential election in 2012. However, the concern we had about the 2016 polls wasn’t related to how close they were to the result. The issue we had was one of bias: 22 of the 25 final polls we found made an inaccurate prediction and almost every poll was off in the same direction. That is the very definition of bias in market research.

Suppose that you had 25 people flip a coin 100 times. On average, you’d expect 50% of the flips to be “heads.” But, if say, 48% of them were “heads” you shouldn’t be all that worried as that can happen. But, if 22 of the 25 people all had less than 50% heads you should worry that there was something wrong with the coins or they way they were flipped. That is, in essence, what happened in the 2016 election with the polls.

Anyway, this post is being composed the aftermath of the 2018 midterm elections. How did the pollsters do this time?

Let’s start with FiveThirtyEight.com. We like this site because they place probabilities around their predictions. Of course, this gives them plausible deniability when their prediction is incorrect, as probabilities are never 0% or 100%. (In 2016 they gave Donald Trump a 17% chance of winning and then defended their prediction.) But this organization looks at statistics in the right way.

Below is their final forecast and the actual result. Some results are still pending, but at this moment, this is how it shapes up.

  • Prediction: Republicans having 52 seats in the Senate. Result: It looks like Republicans will have 53 seats.
  • Prediction: Democrats holding 234 and Republicans holding 231 House seats. Result: It looks like Democrats will have 235 or 236 seats.
  • Prediction: Republicans holding 26 and Democrats holding 24 Governorships. Result: Republicans now hold 26 and Democrats hold 24 Governorships.

It looks like FiveThirtyEight.com nailed this one. We also reviewed a prediction market and state-level polls, and it seems that this time around the polls did a much better job in terms of making accurate predictions. (We must say that on election night, FiveThirtyEight’s predictions were all over the place when they were reporting in real time. But, as results settled, their pre-election forecast looked very good.)

So, why did polls seem to do so much better in 2018 than 2016? One reason is the errors cancel out when you look at large numbers of races. Sure, the polls predicted Democrats would have 234 seats, and that is roughly what they achieved. But, in how many of the 435 races did the polls make the right prediction? That is the relevant question, as it could be the case that the polls made a lot of bad predictions that compensated for each other in the total.

That is a challenging analysis to do because some races had a lot of polling, others did not, and some polls are more credible than others. A cursory look at the polls suggests that 2018 was a comeback victory for the pollsters. We did sense a bit of an over-prediction favoring the Republican Senatorial candidates, but on the House side there does not seem to be a clear bias.

So, what did the pollsters do differently? Not much really. Online sampling continues to evolve and get better, and the 2016 result has caused polling firms to concentrate more carefully on their sampling. One of the issues that may have caused the 2016 problem is that pollsters are starting to almost exclusively use the top 2 or 3 panel companies. Since 2016, there has been a consolidation among sample suppliers, and as a result, we are seeing less variance in polls as pollsters are largely all using the same sample sources. The same few companies provide virtually all the sample used by pollsters.

Another key difference was that turnout in the midterms was historically high. Polls are more accurate in high turnout races, as polls almost always survey many people who do not end up showing up on election day, particularly young people. However, there are large and growing demographic differences (age, gender, race/ethnicity) in supporters of each party, and that greatly complicates polling accuracy. Some demographic subgroups are far more likely than others to take part in a poll.

Pollsters are starting to get online polling right. A lot of the legacy firms in this space are still entrenched in the telephone polling world, have been protective of their aging methodologies, and have been slow to change. After nearly 20 years of online polling the upstarts have finally forced the bigger polling firms to question their approaches and to move to a world where telephone polling just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Also, many of the old guard, telephone polling experts are now retired or have passed on, and they have largely led the resistance to online polling.

Gerrymandering helps the pollster as well. It still remains the case that relatively few districts are competitive. Pew suggests that only 1 in 7 districts was competitive. You don’t have to be a pollster to accurately predict how about 85% of the races will turn out. Only about 65 of the 435 house races were truly at stake. If you just flipped a coin in those races, in total your prediction of house seats would have been fairly close.

Of course, pollsters may have just gotten lucky. We view that as unlikely though, as there were too many races. Unlike in 2018 though, in 2016 we haven’t seen any evidence of bias (in a statistical sense) in the direction of polling errors.

So, this is a good comeback success for the polling industry and should give us greater confidence for 2020. It is important that the research industry broadcasts this success. When pollsters have a bad day, like they did in 2016, it affects market research as well. Our clients lose confidence in our ability to provide accurate information. When the pollsters get it right, it helps the research industry as well.

NEW POLL SHOWS THAT IF US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WERE HELD AGAIN, INCREASED TURNOUT WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN A CLINTON VICTORY

Crux Research poll shows 92% of Trump voters and 91% of Clinton voters would not change their vote

ROCHESTER, NY – MARCH 12, 2017 – Polling results released today by Crux Research show that if there were a “do over” and the election were held again tomorrow, Hillary Clinton would likely win the Presidency.  But, this would not happen as a result of voters changing their vote – rather voters who didn’t turn out in the fall would provide an edge to Clinton.

In 2016, the popular vote was 48.0% for Hillary Clinton and 45.9% for Donald Trump (a gap of 2.1)[1].  This new poll shows that if the election were held again among these two candidates, the popular vote would be estimated to be 52.9% Clinton and 47.1% Trump (a gap of 5.8).

Further, few Clinton or Trump supporters would change their voting behaviors:

  • 92% of those who voted for Trump in November would vote for him again tomorrow.
  • 91% of those who voted for Clinton in November would vote for her again tomorrow.

A new election would bring out additional voters.  57% of non-voters in 2016 would intend to vote. Their votes would split approximately 60% for Clinton and 40% for Trump.  So, increased turnout would likely provide a decisive edge to Clinton.

A closer look at swing states (the five states where the winner won by 2 percentage points or less[2]), shows that Clinton  would win these states by a gap of 9.3, likely enough to change the election result.

WHO WOULD WIN TOMORROW?
Suppose there was a “do over” and the US presidential election were held again tomorrow. 
Whom would you vote for?
Actual 2016 Election Result March 2017 Crux Research Poll*
Donald Trump 45.9% 47.1%
Hillary Clinton 48.0% 52.9%
Others 6.0%
*2017 Crux Research poll is among those who say they would vote if the election were held again tomorrow.
VOTE SWITCHING BEHAVIOR
Suppose there was a “do over” and the US presidential election were held again tomorrow. 
Whom would you vote for?
Voted for Trump in 2016 Voted for Clinton in 2016
Donald Trump 92% 1%
Hillary Clinton 1% 91%
Others 4% 7%
Wouldn’t vote 2% 1%
SWING STATES RESULTS
Suppose there was a “do over” and the US presidential election were held again tomorrow. 
Whom would you vote for?
Actual 2016 Election Result in Swing States Swing States March 2017 Crux Research Poll*
Donald Trump 48.0% 47.1%
Hillary Clinton 47.2% 52.9%
Others 4.8%
*2017 Crux Research poll is among those who say they would vote if the election were held again tomorrow.
** Swing states are five states where the election was decided by 2 percentage points or less (PA, MI, WI, FL, and NH).

###

Methodology

This poll was conducted online between March 6 and March 10, 2017. The sample size was 1,010 US adults (aged 18 and over). Quota sampling and weighting were employed to ensure that respondent proportions for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, and region matched their actual proportions in the population.  The poll was also balanced to reflect the actual proportion of voters who voted for each candidate in the 2016 election.

This poll did not have a sponsor and was conducted and funded by Crux Research, an independent market research firm that is not in any way associated with political parties, candidates, or the media.

All surveys and polls are subject to many sources of error.  The term “margin of error” is misleading for online polls, which are not based on a probability sample which is a requirement for margin of error calculations.  If this study did use probability sampling, the margin of error would be +/-3%.

About Crux Research Inc.

Crux Research partners with clients to develop winning products and services, build powerful brands, create engaging marketing strategies, enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, improve products and services, and get the most out of their advertising.

Using quantitative and qualitative methods, Crux connects organizations with their customers in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, consumer goods, financial services, media and advertising, automotive, technology, retail, business-to-business, and non-profits.

Crux connects decision makers with customers, uses data to inspire new thinking, and assures clients they are being served by experienced, senior level researchers who set the standard for customer service from a survey research and polling consultant.

To learn more about Crux Research, visit www.cruxresearch.com.

[1] http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

[2] PA, MI, WI, FL, and NH were decided by 2 percentage points or less.


Visit the Crux Research Website www.cruxresearch.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.