Demographics and the Electorate

[muon2]

Is there a compelling hypothesis as to *why* LV screens might be doing particularly poorly this time?  If a demographic group is being systematically over or under-estimated as LVs, then why is that more of an issue this year than other years?  Are NCWs so psyched by Trump that they're more likely to tell pollsters that they're enthusiastic about voting, or what?

And I know that each individual pollster doesn't like to divulge this kind of info, but has anyone written a good article that describes the most common methods that pollsters use to rate respondents as LVs?

I don't think it's about LV screens being a problem this time. It's about LV screens being a problem. The polling in 2012 was off, especially for the Romney campaign. Gallup and others looked at the problem and concluded that LV screens were overreliant on behavior from 2008 that didn't apply to 2012.

The behavior of the population towards voting was for a long time fairly consistent. That meant you could ask questions that could predict whether someone would actually vote. In the last decade that behavior has become inconsistent, so that questions designed from one cycle aren't very predictive in the next.

The screens for 2016 were designed from 2012 results in light of how they performed in 2008. If the inconsistency is still applicable this year (and I think it is) then the pollsters are going to be spread all over with their responses based on the last two cycles.

[Mr. Morden]

Is there a compelling hypothesis as to *why* LV screens might be doing particularly poorly this time?  If a demographic group is being systematically over or under-estimated as LVs, then why is that more of an issue this year than other years?  Are NCWs so psyched by Trump that they're more likely to tell pollsters that they're enthusiastic about voting, or what?

And I know that each individual pollster doesn't like to divulge this kind of info, but has anyone written a good article that describes the most common methods that pollsters use to rate respondents as LVs?

I don't think it's about LV screens being a problem this time. It's about LV screens being a problem. The polling in 2012 was off, especially for the Romney campaign. Gallup and others looked at the problem and concluded that LV screens were overreliant on behavior from 2008 that didn't apply to 2012.

HuffPo has all the LV national polls leading up to election day in 2012, and it has an Obama lead of 1.5%:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama

Obama won by, what?  3.9%?  So that's a 2.4% "error" in the margin between the two candidates.  Nothing too unusual, if memory serves.  I thought the whole premise of this thread is that people are questioning whether the LV screens might be off by a lot more than 2.4% this time?  In the first page of the discussion, there's talk about how Clinton's lead "should be" in the double digits if the demographics are what they're expecting, when it's actually about 1 or 2% at the moment.

[Mr. Morden]

Well for example if we take the Bloomberg poll, they don't even provide demographic breakdowns at all. Monmouth gives me that, but not raw numbers to calculate turnout and so on. A few polls give what they assume the makeup of the electorate is, but not differential turnout. Indeed some of them appear to be doing exactly what they did in 2012 with respect to weighting.

If they give you what % of the electorate is white, black, young, old etc. in their poll release, then can't you work out the *relative* turnout of those groups from that?  Not an absolute number, but just relative turnout of the groups compared to each other, using the 2012 exit poll to compare to.

Or is the whole idea that we want absolute turnout more than relative turnout?  I've lost the thread as to what the original question being asked was. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

I think the original question being asked was where Trump is making up ground in the polls relative to what we'd expect from demographics. Is white turnout being driven up like crazy relative to non-white turnout? Is college white turnout depressed? Is male turnout up relative to female turnout? Demographics may not be destiny, but some explanation is in order when the demographics from last time, combined with what the polling tells us of the demographics now, give us such a starkly different result from the polls.

[afleitch]

I think the original question being asked was where Trump is making up ground in the polls relative to what we'd expect from demographics. Is white turnout being driven up like crazy relative to non-white turnout? Is college white turnout depressed? Is male turnout up relative to female turnout? Demographics may not be destiny, but some explanation is in order when the demographics from last time, combined with what the polling tells us of the demographics now, give us such a starkly different result from the polls.

I think pollsters are thinking 'Trump f-ck yeah' is a stronger sentiment than 'Hillary, if I have to', when it may actually bring voters out to the polls in equal measure. There was even a sense of that in 2012, which threw off the LV model.

[elcorazon]

I just came to this thread and didn't go through the whole thing, but my biggest takeaway to the original post is that perhaps some of the assumptions are erroneous. It is not written in stone that each group will vote exactly as the OP has suggested. Perhaps, Trump has gained a bit in each category, especially the Hispanic vote, but possibly also the the highly educated or even the non college-grads, and even the black vote - a few points in each category would of course be a few points overall. I'm not sure this would completely eliminate the analysis and I agree it's a great post and thread, but I do think you have to realize all of the original numbers in this post are fluid as well.

[Mr. Morden]

I think the original question being asked was where Trump is making up ground in the polls relative to what we'd expect from demographics. Is white turnout being driven up like crazy relative to non-white turnout? Is college white turnout depressed? Is male turnout up relative to female turnout? Demographics may not be destiny, but some explanation is in order when the demographics from last time, combined with what the polling tells us of the demographics now, give us such a starkly different result from the polls.

Well, there are two different sets of parameters, right?  1) What %age of the vote does each demographic make up?  and 2) Within that demographic group, what %age of them are voting for Clinton, Trump, or someone else?

If a pollster tells you in their poll release what %age they have for whites, blacks, etc., and they tell you how each of those demos is voting, then you can use that info to figure out what demos are most out of whack with your a priori expectations, no?  Or am I missing something?

[Erc]

I just came to this thread and didn't go through the whole thing, but my biggest takeaway to the original post is that perhaps some of the assumptions are erroneous. It is not written in stone that each group will vote exactly as the OP has suggested. Perhaps, Trump has gained a bit in each category, especially the Hispanic vote, but possibly also the the highly educated or even the non college-grads, and even the black vote - a few points in each category would of course be a few points overall. I'm not sure this would completely eliminate the analysis and I agree it's a great post and thread, but I do think you have to realize all of the original numbers in this post are fluid as well.

Oh, of course, both the turnout and vote share numbers within each group are fluid.

But the basic story to me seems to be (after a few pages):

1) Clinton is (even after the last few weeks) leading with white college-educated voters, in addition to her still huge leads with non-white voters.

2) Trump obviously has a large lead with white non-college-educated voters (up from Romney 2012, and up from August), but if turnout were to stay at 2012 levels within each group, it wouldn't nearly be enough.

3) In order to get the national poll results we're seeing (narrow, as opposed to huge, Clinton leads), you have to assume that turnout is way up among white non-college-educated voters and way down among white college-educated voters, to the point where the more education you have, the less likely you are to vote, period (and for a major party in particular), among white registered voters.

This last point seems, to me, to go against pretty much everything we know about elections.  Of course, 2016 is a weird year with weird candidates.  It's possible that this is indeed the case, and presumably that is what Likely Voter screens are showing.  But I've got a pretty large Bayesian prior against that, and personally I'm more willing to believe that the Likely Voter screens are wrong than that the bolded point above is true.

If it turns out I'm wrong, we'll find out pretty early on election night.  And I'll be pretty disappointed in my white college-educated brethren for not turning up; we don't have an excuse for not knowing better.

[Mr. Morden]

This last point seems, to me, to go against pretty much everything we know about elections.  Of course, 2016 is a weird year with weird candidates.  It's possible that this is indeed the case, and presumably that is what Likely Voter screens are showing.  But I've got a pretty large Bayesian prior against that, and personally I'm more willing to believe that the Likely Voter screens are wrong than that the bolded point above is true.

OK, but that goes back to my earlier question: Why are they wrong?  What are the LV screens selecting on that makes them pick up more uneducateds this time?

And also, going back to my last post, aren't there some poll releases that actually tell you what % of the electorate they have for college-educated whites, non-college-educated whites, etc.?  Can we look at them to see what they're showing, and if the fraction of the electorate for each group is indeed ridiculous?

[afleitch]

Pew did a good piece on party ID trends. Data here:

http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/party-identification-trends-1992-2016.

Pew (who IIRC did well in 2012) Have 70% of the 2016 electorate as white, down from 73% in 2012 and 74% in 2008.

[Erc]

This last point seems, to me, to go against pretty much everything we know about elections.  Of course, 2016 is a weird year with weird candidates.  It's possible that this is indeed the case, and presumably that is what Likely Voter screens are showing.  But I've got a pretty large Bayesian prior against that, and personally I'm more willing to believe that the Likely Voter screens are wrong than that the bolded point above is true.

OK, but that goes back to my earlier question: Why are they wrong?  What are the LV screens selecting on that makes them pick up more uneducateds this time?

And also, going back to my last post, aren't there some poll releases that actually tell you what % of the electorate they have for college-educated whites, non-college-educated whites, etc.?  Can we look at them to see what they're showing, and if the fraction of the electorate for each group is indeed ridiculous?

Here's an example from the latest Bloomberg / Selzer poll.  Likely Voters are those who say they will "definitely vote" or have already voted.

The latest Bloomberg / Selzer poll had 62 non-college - 38 college in their latest poll, very similarly to ABC/WaPo. Again, this is a huge difference from the 2012 exits (53 - 47).  

Though it should be noted that it's less of a departure from previous years (56 - 44 in 2008 and 58-42 in 2004, and I believe 58-42 in 2000).

Of course, census data shows different results (see e.g. this US Census report on the 2000 election), though I'm more inclined to believe exit polling (where you know you got voters) rather than retrospective polling where people may say they voted when they did not.  That isn't to say exit polling doesn't have its own issues, however.

To compare apples-to-apples, it might be better to compare polls now to their equivalents in 2012.

[Mr. Morden]

Of course, census data shows different results (see e.g. this US Census report on the 2000 election), though I'm more inclined to believe exit polling (where you know you got voters) rather than retrospective polling where people may say they voted when they did not.  That isn't to say exit polling doesn't have its own issues, however.

With exit polls, you know you've got voters, but do you know that people are telling the truth about their education levels?  Isn't it pretty widely assumed that there's some lying going on when people are asked about their educational attainment in polls, inflating the number of those with college degrees above what we realistically think it must be?  I don't suppose there's any reason why people might be lying about their educational level less now than they were a few years ago?  Maybe Trump's made it cool to be "uneducated"? 

[Virginiá]

The latest Bloomberg / Selzer poll had 62 non-college - 38 college in their latest poll, very similarly to ABC/WaPo. Again, this is a huge difference from the 2012 exits (53 - 47).  

Though it should be noted that it's less of a departure from previous years (56 - 44 in 2008 and 58-42 in 2004, and I believe 58-42 in 2000).

...

Must say, 62% non-college sounds incredibly unlikely, especially when considering that the number of non-college voters is decreasing by the year. To see those numbers, like you said, would require a huge drop in college-educated voters, which would be a massive reversal of reliable voting trends.

I just don't get why college educated voters would be expected to stay home en masse even when we've had elections in the past where the choice of candidates was not well-received, like 1996. Further, I'd expect college educated voters to better understand what is at stake here, and thus show up.

I don't know. These assumptions about massive non-college white voter surges sounds highly implausible. A spike in turnout? Sure. But not like this. I suspect some polling firms might have a lot of soul-searching to do after this cycle is finished.

[SirMuxALot]

Just thinking about the overall turnout thing...

Whenever it comes up in conversation, I'm always surprised by how many people don't know that you can "cast a blank vote" for President while filling in the rest of the ballot.  Everyone who doesn't know that almost universally replies with, "but they throw out your entire ballot, don't they?"

Combine that with what is likely to be a large number of true undecideds on election morning.  Think of all the people who can't stand either HRC or DJT.  We'll never know for sure, but we could have a record high number of people who wake up on election day not knowing for sure who they would vote for.

And that might make it all that easier for these people to not get around to voting at all on their busy Tuesday.

Nothing hard to back that up, just a thought on why turnout could surprise us to the downside this year.

TL;DR summary: Universally hated candidates at the top will make it easy to just skip the hassle of voting.

[Erc]

Of course, census data shows different results (see e.g. this US Census report on the 2000 election), though I'm more inclined to believe exit polling (where you know you got voters) rather than retrospective polling where people may say they voted when they did not.  That isn't to say exit polling doesn't have its own issues, however.

With exit polls, you know you've got voters, but do you know that people are telling the truth about their education levels?  Isn't it pretty widely assumed that there's some lying going on when people are asked about their educational attainment in polls, inflating the number of those with college degrees above what we realistically think it must be?  I don't suppose there's any reason why people might be lying about their educational level less now than they were a few years ago?  Maybe Trump's made it cool to be "uneducated"? 

Very good point, though it's still a poll both times.  As you said, there could have been a change in how often people lie (although I would think it would be in the opposite direction, as Trump's made it cool to be a liar ), or people could lie more often in person than over the phone.

[Erc]

In all seriousness, there likely is a gap in self-reported likelihood to vote.  But in the end, I think I'd bet on the historical trend (better educated people are more likely to vote) rather than self-reporting.

(There's a danger for Clinton here if the gap is due to college-educated Republicans not voting who ultimately decide to come home to Trump, but I don't see evidence for this.)

Of course, this just explains self-reported likelihood LV screens; I'm not exactly sure what other pollsters use.  If you just use "did you vote in 2012" (for those 25 and older), you shouldn't have these sorts of issues (though that's not a great LV screen and you may have other sampling problems).

[SirMuxALot]

(There's a danger for Clinton here if the gap is due to college-educated Republicans not voting who ultimately decide to come home to Trump, but I don't see evidence for this.)

Yes, that is an unknown.

I'd have to think if there if a Shy Trump Voter group, it's going to be those people right there.

[jaichind]

Gallup poll seems to indicate that

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195806/americans-less-sure-vote-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

Turnout this year will be below 2012 which is a surprise.

[muon2]

Gallup poll seems to indicate that

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195806/americans-less-sure-vote-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

Turnout this year will be below 2012 which is a surprise.

I based my conclusion for lower turnout on my active involvement in campaigns for over 20 years and my analysis of the factors that drive voters. I'm not surprised to see Gallup picking up the same sentiment in their polls, too.

[Virginiá]

Gallup poll seems to indicate that

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195806/americans-less-sure-vote-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles

Turnout this year will be below 2012 which is a surprise.

Do they have numbers from other months as well? The data I had posted above was from Pew and the results for interest levels was considerably higher than this (for some of the questions). However, that was from June, and it's possible that people were a lot more interested then than they are now.

Given the Gallup data, it doesn't look good for Democrats, given how much support they derive from Millennials. Old people are very interested, as usual, and that's fantastic for Republicans. But, finally, I think worth mentioning at least is the the disparity between Republicans/Democrats on "will definitely vote" is not that much greater than in 2012. Republicans have +2 more points on this right now.

[Gustaf]

LV screens can get thrown when circumstances are weird. If people are disillusioned maybe they drop out of the screens?

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

This year will probably have a electorate around 70% white, 13% black, 11% Hispanic, 3% asian, 1% native American.

Based on the early voting taking place this year it appears to be anything but low turn out.

[Gustaf]

https://morningconsultintelligence.com/public/mc/160915_topline_Topicals_LIKELY_VOTERS_v3_AP.pdf

This is the type of crosstab I'm talking about. Quote: " All statistics are calculated
with demographic post-stratification weights applied."

In this poll, Clinton leads by 3% and if I read it correctly the white vote share is 75%.

[Erc]

https://morningconsultintelligence.com/public/mc/160915_topline_Topicals_LIKELY_VOTERS_v3_AP.pdf

This is the type of crosstab I'm talking about. Quote: " All statistics are calculated
with demographic post-stratification weights applied."

In this poll, Clinton leads by 3% and if I read it correctly the white vote share is 75%.

Are the figures in the "Respondent Demographics Summary" raw figures, or the results after the weights are applied?

If the latter, the poll has 64% of its (weighted) respondents having less than a bachelor's degree.

EDIT: That seems just way too high for me (as does the white vote share, to a lesser extent); based on past elections somewhere in the 51-58% range seems reasonable.  I could be proven wrong in November, of course.

EDIT 2: A difference between 64% and 56%, say, may not seem to be that much.  But digging into the figures, since they're assuming a modest decrease in non-white turnout, this is entirely being driven by an increase in white non-college educated turnout.  Assuming nothing drastic is happening among the college-educated non-white vote (roughly 10% of the electorate), to replicate a 64% share of the electorate not having bachelors degrees means that turnout among white non-college-educated voters is roughly 20 points higher than turnout among white college-educated voters (and that's even including people voting third party, this time).

Maybe Trump really is having that much of an effect on increasing (or decreasing) turnout, but that just seems preposterous to me.

Let's take two really basic assumptions:
1) Turnout among whites with bachelor's degrees will be at least as high as among whites without bachelor's degrees.
2) The white share of the electorate will be at least 70%.  (Any poll in which this isn't true isn't going to be Trump-friendly, anyway.)

Under those assumptions, the absolute highest you can crank the share of the electorate without bachelor's degrees is 58%.  Any poll that has a figure higher than that is implicitly violating one of these assumptions (most likely the first).

[Mr. Morden]

This last point seems, to me, to go against pretty much everything we know about elections.  Of course, 2016 is a weird year with weird candidates.  It's possible that this is indeed the case, and presumably that is what Likely Voter screens are showing.  But I've got a pretty large Bayesian prior against that, and personally I'm more willing to believe that the Likely Voter screens are wrong than that the bolded point above is true.

OK, but that goes back to my earlier question: Why are they wrong?  What are the LV screens selecting on that makes them pick up more uneducateds this time?

And also, going back to my last post, aren't there some poll releases that actually tell you what % of the electorate they have for college-educated whites, non-college-educated whites, etc.?  Can we look at them to see what they're showing, and if the fraction of the electorate for each group is indeed ridiculous?

Here's an example from the latest Bloomberg / Selzer poll.  Likely Voters are those who say they will "definitely vote" or have already voted.

The latest Bloomberg / Selzer poll had 62 non-college - 38 college in their latest poll, very similarly to ABC/WaPo. Again, this is a huge difference from the 2012 exits (53 - 47).  

Though it should be noted that it's less of a departure from previous years (56 - 44 in 2008 and 58-42 in 2004, and I believe 58-42 in 2000).

I don't suppose anyone with a lot of time on their hands would be willing to go through all the national polls one by one to see if they have crosstab info on the %age of the sample with college degrees, and then we could look at whether there's really a systematic deviation from what we would expect?  Also could see if there's a strong correlation between the %age of the sample that has college degrees and the overall support for Clinton.