IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v31y2015i3p898-909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Origins of Presidential poll aggregation: A perspective from 2004 to 2012

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Samuel S.-H.

Abstract

US political reporting has become extraordinarily rich in polling data. However, this increase in information availability has not been matched by an improvement in the accuracy of poll-based news stories, which usually examine a single survey at a time, rather than providing an aggregated, more accurate view. In 2004, I developed a meta-analysis that reduced the polling noise for the Presidential race by reducing all available state polls to a snapshot at a single time, known as the Electoral Vote estimator. Assuming that Presidential pollsters are accurate in the aggregate, the snapshot has an accuracy equivalent to less than ±0.5% in the national popular-vote margin. The estimator outperforms both the aggregator FiveThirtyEight and the betting market InTrade. Complex models, which adjust individual polls and employ pre-campaign “fundamental” variables, improve the accuracy in individual states but provide little or no advantage in overall performance, while at the same time reducing transparency. A polls-only snapshot can also identify shifts in the race, with a time resolution of a single day, thus assisting in the identification of discrete events that influence a race. Finally, starting at around Memorial Day, variations in the polling snapshot over time are sufficient to enable the production of a high-quality, random-drift-based prediction without a need for the fundamentals that are traditionally used by political science models. In summary, the use of polls by themselves can capture the detailed dynamics of Presidential races and make predictions. Taken together, these qualities make the meta-analysis a sensitive indicator of the ups and downs of a national campaign—in short, a precise electoral thermometer.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Samuel S.-H., 2015. "Origins of Presidential poll aggregation: A perspective from 2004 to 2012," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 898-909.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:31:y:2015:i:3:p:898-909
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207015000060
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.01.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Strömberg, David, 2002. "Optimal Campaigning in Presidential Elections: The Probability of Being Florida," Seminar Papers 706, Stockholm University, Institute for International Economic Studies.
    2. Souren Soumbatiants & Henry Chappell & Eric Johnson, 2006. "Using state polls to forecast U.S. Presidential election outcomes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 207-223, April.
    3. Jones Jr., Randall J., 2008. "The state of presidential election forecasting: The 2004 experience," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 310-321.
    4. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Tien, Charles, 2008. "Forecasting presidential elections: When to change the model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 227-236.
    5. Drew A. Linzer, 2013. "Dynamic Bayesian Forecasting of Presidential Elections in the States," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 108(501), pages 124-134, March.
    6. Gelman, Andrew & King, Gary, 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 409-451, October.
    7. Abramowitz, Alan I., 2008. "It's about time: Forecasting the 2008 presidential election with the time-for-change model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 209-217.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jannett Highfill & Kevin M. O’Brien, 2018. "eBay Memorabilia Auctions vis-à -vis Predictions for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(1), pages 71-78, March.
    2. Eva Regnier, 2018. "Probability Forecasts Made at Multiple Lead Times," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2407-2426, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Linzer, Drew, 2015. "Under-performing, over-performing, or just performing? The limitations of fundamentals-based presidential election forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 965-979.
    2. Jonathan R. Cervas & Bernard Grofman, 2017. "Why noncompetitive states are so important for understanding the outcomes of competitive elections: the Electoral College 1868–2016," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 251-265, December.
    3. Montalvo, José G. & Papaspiliopoulos, Omiros & Stumpf-Fétizon, Timothée, 2019. "Bayesian forecasting of electoral outcomes with new parties’ competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 52-70.
    4. Mongrain, Philippe & Nadeau, Richard & Jérôme, Bruno, 2021. "Playing the synthesizer with Canadian data: Adding polls to a structural forecasting model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 289-301.
    5. José Garcia Montalvo & Omiros Papaspiliopoulos & Timothée Stumpf-Fétizon, 2018. "Bayesian forecasting of electoral outcomes with new parties' competition," Economics Working Papers 1624, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Quinlan, Stephen & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 2021. "Forecasting government support in Irish general elections: Opinion polls and structural models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1654-1665.
    7. José García-Montalvo & Omiros Papaspiliopoulos & Timothée Stumpf-Fétizon, 2018. "Bayesian Forecasting of Electoral Outcomes with new Parties' Competition," Working Papers 1065, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. Munzert, Simon, 2017. "Forecasting elections at the constituency level: A correction–combination procedure," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 467-481.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:863-880 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Andrew Gelman & Jessica Hullman & Christopher Wlezien & George Elliott Morris, 2020. "Information, incentives, and goals in election forecasts," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 863-880, September.
    11. Wiśniowski, Arkadiusz & Bijak, Jakub & Forster, Jonathan J. & Smith, Peter W.F., 2019. "Hierarchical model for forecasting the outcomes of binary referenda," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 90-103.
    12. Jones Jr., Randall J., 2008. "The state of presidential election forecasting: The 2004 experience," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 310-321.
    13. Isakov, Michael & Kuriwaki, Shiro, 2020. "Towards Principled Unskewing: Viewing 2020 Election Polls Through a Corrective Lens from 2016," OSF Preprints 29pvm, Center for Open Science.
    14. Montgomery, Jacob M. & Hollenbach, Florian M. & Ward, Michael D., 2015. "Calibrating ensemble forecasting models with sparse data in the social sciences," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 930-942.
    15. Rothschild, David, 2015. "Combining forecasts for elections: Accurate, relevant, and timely," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 952-964.
    16. David A. M. Peterson, 2009. "Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 445-460, April.
    17. Wang, Wei & Rothschild, David & Goel, Sharad & Gelman, Andrew, 2015. "Forecasting elections with non-representative polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 980-991.
    18. Aldashev, Gani, 2010. "Political Information Acquisition for Social Exchange," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, April.
    19. Ray C. Fair, 2006. "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Presidential Elections," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000427, UCLA Department of Economics.
    20. Ray C. Fair, 2006. "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1579, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2007.
    21. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:31:y:2015:i:3:p:898-909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.