Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Presidential Primary 2008 Polls: What Went Wrong

Date:
March 30, 2009
Source:
University of Michigan
Summary:
Survey experts working with the American Association for Public Opinion Research have identified several reasons polls picked the wrong winners in the 2008 presidential primary.

University of Michigan survey experts working with the American Association for Public Opinion Research have identified several reasons polls picked the wrong winners in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

The study is believed to be the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted of presidential primary polls.

"The most jarring element of the presidential primary polling was that polls picked the wrong winner in New Hampshire," said U-M polling expert Michael Traugott, who chaired the AAPOR committee composed of leading academic and private sector experts in public opinion and survey research. "We wanted to find out why."

The results of the committee's analysis show that a handful of methodological missteps and miscalculations combined to undermine the accuracy of predictions about presidential primary winners in New Hampshire and three other states.

One source of error the researchers were able to eliminate was the so-called 'Bradley Effect,' in which people say they support a Black candidate in order to appear unbiased, but then cast their ballots for a white candidate in the privacy of the voting booth.

"Many New Hampshire polls predicted Barack Obama would beat Hillary Clinton in that state," said Traugott. "So when Clinton won, some people pointed to latent racism as the reason. But in the data we have from a wide variety of New Hampshire pre-election and exit polls, we found no evidence that whites over-represented their support for Obama."

For the report, supported in part by a grant from the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR), Traugott and colleagues analyzed individual, household-level response data provided by seven polling organizations. They also compared information on question wording, weighting, interviewer characteristics, sampling frames, and other methodological issues from up to 19 other firms, in many cases relying on publicly available information gleaned from the Internet.

"This analysis suggests some important explanations for the errors in the 2008 New Hampshire Presidential Primary and raises significant questions about pre-election polling methods," said Richard Kulka, AAPOR president.

"The materials we received from polling organizations showed that there was much more variation in the methodology of pre-election polls than I ever imagined there would be," Traugott said.

The committee analyzed poll performance in four primary states: Wisconsin, South Carolina, California, and New Hampshire. Although the limited data they received made it impossible to conduct definitive tests of all likely sources of different poll performance, the following factors were identified as the most likely reasons the polls got it wrong:

  • The New Hampshire primaries occurred only five days after the Iowa caucuses, truncating the polling period in New Hampshire.
  • Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Clinton. Instead of reworking their initial samples to reach these hard-to-contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who typically supported Obama.
  • Non-response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre-election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups that supported Clinton---such as union members and those with less education---were under-represented in pre-election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
  • The order of candidate names on state primary ballots likely contributed to increased support for Clinton in New Hampshire, where her name appeared near the top of a long list of names and Obama's appeared near the bottom.

Traugott noted that the analysis also revealed wide variation in the primary question respondents are asked---the so-called trial heat question about which candidate they prefer in the coming election. In New Hampshire, there were 11 different question wordings used in the Democratic primary, and 10 different wordings used in the Republic primary. In some versions, the candidates' names were not mentioned at all. In others, only the "major" candidates were named. Some polls randomized the candidates' names.

"We also learned that some polling firms are buying lists of registered voters with phone numbers, and then they are contacting people with interactive voice response technology---basically computerized calls---and that they're taking information from the person who answers the phone which may or may not be the person identified in the sample," Traugott said. "This should be a focus of further research." Another firm interviewed any registered voter in the household.

ISR survey research expert Robert Groves was a member of the AAPOR committee.

The full report is available on the AAPOR website at http://www.aapor.org.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Michigan. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Cite This Page:

University of Michigan. "Presidential Primary 2008 Polls: What Went Wrong." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 30 March 2009. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330123221.htm>.
University of Michigan. (2009, March 30). Presidential Primary 2008 Polls: What Went Wrong. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 22, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330123221.htm
University of Michigan. "Presidential Primary 2008 Polls: What Went Wrong." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330123221.htm (accessed August 22, 2014).

Share This




More Science & Society News

Friday, August 22, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Bank of America's $17 Bln Settlement

Bank of America's $17 Bln Settlement

Reuters - Business Video Online (Aug. 21, 2014) Bank of America's settlement is by far the largest amount paid by big banks facing mortgage securities probes. Fred Katayama reports. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
Former TSA X-Ray Scanners Easily Tricked To Miss Weapons

Former TSA X-Ray Scanners Easily Tricked To Miss Weapons

Newsy (Aug. 21, 2014) Researchers found the scanners could be duped simply by placing a weapon off to the side of the body or encasing it under a plastic shield. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Cadavers, a Teen, and a Medical School Dream

Cadavers, a Teen, and a Medical School Dream

AP (Aug. 21, 2014) Contains graphic content. He's only 17. But Johntrell Bowles has wanted to be a doctor from a young age, despite the odds against him. He was recently the youngest participant in a cadaver program at the Indiana University NW medical school. (Aug. 21) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Families Can Now Ask Twitter To Remove Photos Of Deceased

Families Can Now Ask Twitter To Remove Photos Of Deceased

Newsy (Aug. 20, 2014) In the wake of a high-profile harassment case, Twitter says family members can ask for photos of dying or dead relatives to be taken down. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins