Incumbents often do better than final polls
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:30:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Incumbents often do better than final polls
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Incumbents often do better than final polls  (Read 862 times)
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 27, 2012, 01:18:14 PM »

I know there has been discussion in the past of this "hypothesis" that people who are undecided to the end break for the challenger or that the incumbent needs to be over 50% etc... I work in public opinion research and I have been looking at a lot of elections across the western world - and the one thing that stands out to me is how over and over and over again...the incumbent candidate or party seems to do a bit better than the final polls indicate.

I'm Canadian so bear with me while i go through some Canadian examples:

1.In the '04 and '06 federal elections the incumbent Liberals surprised even themselves by getting about 3% more on election day than the average of the final polls (its true that they lost to the Conservatives in 2006 but the polls projected a double digit Conservative lead and they only won by 6%). Then in the '08 and '11 federal elections the shoe was on the other foot and the Conservatives were the incumbent and it was there turn to get about 3% more on e-day than the final polls predicted.

2. This past year we have had a series of provincial election where the incumbent was projected to get crushed at the polls and in the case of Alberta the ruling PCs were projected to lose by about 7% - instead they won by 10%. In Quebec, some polls had the incumbent Liberal party falling into third place and facing annhilation, instead they lost the popular vote by less than 1% and and got about 4% more than any poll projected.

3. In the UK election of 2010, Labour was supposed to get demolished and get wiped off the map and likely come in third behind the LibDems - instead they got 30% (3% more than any poll projected) and held the Tories to a minority. Let's not forget UK 1992 when all the polls said Labour would win and the Tories under Major won another majority.

4. In France all the polls said Sarkozy would lose and he did BUT the polls also said he would lose by 6 or 7 points and instead he lost by 3.5 points.

5. In Germany in 2005, Schroeder and the SPD was supposed to lose by 7% and the CDU was supposed to win  easily - instead the popular was almost dead even and Merkel got in by the skin of her teeth.

6. In the US the best examples are 2000 where Gore was the quasi-incumbent as VP. I still remember how all the polls pointed to Bush winning by 4-6 points and any poll showing it dead even was dismissed as an outlier (as we all know Gore ended up actually winning the popular vote!). In 2004 many polls had it dead even between Bush and Kerry, Bush ended up winning by 3%.

I am not saying that Obama as the incumbent will necessarily get an "incumbent ballot box bonus" on Nov. 6 but I am just saying that more often then not - to the extent that polls are "non-predictive" they usually underestimate support for incumbents.

There are many hypotheses as to WHY polls often underestimate incumbent support. I have two: 1) I think that a lot of "late deciders" who are low information ":marginal voters" will often "stick with the devil they know" 2) In this age of very low response rates on surveys, I think that the people who are more likely to take part in a survey are the people who are angrier and more riled up and have stronger emotions - in most cases that describes people who are supporting the whoever is the challenger.

Anyways, juyst my two cents worth
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2012, 01:23:02 PM »

Bill Clinton did worse than expected in 1996, right?
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2012, 01:27:12 PM »

Bill Clinton did worse than expected in 1996, right?

I said there are always exceptions...another pattern i have noticed is that independent of who is the incumbent and who is the challenger - anytime the final polls suggest a massive landslide for anyone (as the polls suggested in 1996) - the results are almost always a bit closer (probably because people go back to their natural political home at the last minute - so in 1996 some Republicans who flirted with voting for Clinton in the clutch they stayed loyal to the GOP and so Dole didn't get quite as totally blown out of the water as some expected)
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2012, 01:38:05 PM »

Bill Clinton did worse than expected in 1996, right?

Indeed -- he underperformed by 4%, and lost Colorado, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, and Virginia, all of which he was expected to win. Not that it mattered.

In any case, yes, frequently polls underrate incumbents; just as frequently sometimes they overrate them. It's easy to find examples of both effects. This can be summarized more succinctly as, 'polls are sometimes wrong' -- and we all knew that.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2012, 01:39:21 PM »

That's how Carter got re-elected wasn't it?  Good point!
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2012, 01:41:40 PM »

Its true there are examples on each side - but in recent years - there has been a very consistent pattern of polls underestimating support for incumbents. To find examples of polls overestimating support for incumbents you typically have to go back 15 years or more. (back in the days when response rates to polls were as high as 30% and not the 2 or 3% it is now)
Logged
technical support
thrillr1111
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 309
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2012, 01:51:12 PM »

That's how Carter got re-elected wasn't it?  Good point!



that was 30 years ago times have changed
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2012, 02:06:11 PM »

2000 is a strange case because it was revealed right before the election that Bush got a DUI. That may have influenced a lot of last-minute changes who people voted for.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2012, 02:21:22 PM »

Yeah, the key point is that this isn't a rule, but a tendency. But these tendencies are predictive more often than they're not; apparent surges by (supposedly) anti-politics-as-usual centrist parties/candidates that are more or less entirely unreflected in election results would be another.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2012, 02:35:26 PM »

The most obvious and memorable UK example is 1992. Most final polls had Labour ahead, but the Tories ended up winning the popular vote by over 7%. Although, actually, the exit poll hinted at a stronger-than-expected Tory performance - it projected them as (just) the largest party in seats.
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2012, 07:29:45 PM »

2000 is a strange case because it was revealed right before the election that Bush got a DUI. That may have influenced a lot of last-minute changes who people voted for.

That may have been one factor, but another thing that happened in 2000 was that the Gore GOTV was very strong and very underestimated and polls of "likely voters" tended to exclude a lot of people who ended up voting for Gore
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2012, 07:33:58 PM »

There are definitely some examples, FDR 1936, Truman 1948, Bennet and Reid 2010, Lisa Murkowski both times.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2012, 07:34:24 PM »

1996 and 2000 were both examples where national and state polling were telling very different stories, but the state polls were closer to the mark. Which is what we're probably seeing now.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2012, 07:40:54 PM »

The most obvious and memorable UK example is 1992. Most final polls had Labour ahead, but the Tories ended up winning the popular vote by over 7%. Although, actually, the exit poll hinted at a stronger-than-expected Tory performance - it projected them as (just) the largest party in seats.

Even in 1997, a lot of campaign polls showed Labour above 50% and the exit poll over-egged the nevertheless massive pudding.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2012, 07:53:32 PM »

Bill Clinton did worse than expected in 1996, right?

Right, and Gore led in the final Gallup. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2012, 07:54:18 PM »

1996 and 2000 were both examples where national and state polling were telling very different stories, but the state polls were closer to the mark. Which is what we're probably seeing now.

State polling had Clinton ahead in Montana, Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado.  He lost all of them. 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2012, 08:04:50 PM »

There are definitely some examples, FDR 1936, Truman 1948, Bennet and Reid 2010, Lisa Murkowski both times.

I wouldn't use 1936, where it was one poll, done by mail and that had sample problems, and 1948, when everyone stopped polling a few weeks prior to the election. 

Gallup actually correctly called 1936. 
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2012, 10:34:15 PM »

There are definitely some examples, FDR 1936, Truman 1948, Bennet and Reid 2010, Lisa Murkowski both times.

I wouldn't use 1936, where it was one poll, done by mail and that had sample problems, and 1948, when everyone stopped polling a few weeks prior to the election.  

Gallup actually correctly called 1936.  

Gallup was way too pro-Landon, even though it was much better than Literary Digest.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.