2100 total) as well as 14 state-level polls from October, we find consistent evidence for the existence of “hidden” Trump supporters who were included in the surveys but did not openly express their intention to vote for Trump. Most notably, when we account for these hidden Trump supporters in our October survey data, both national and state-level analyses foreshadow Trump’s Election Day support. These results suggest that late-breaking campaign events may have had less influence than previously thought and the findings hold important implications for how scholars, media, and campaigns analyze future election surveys."> 2100 total) as well as 14 state-level polls from October, we find consistent evidence for the existence of “hidden” Trump supporters who were included in the surveys but did not openly express their intention to vote for Trump. Most notably, when we account for these hidden Trump supporters in our October survey data, both national and state-level analyses foreshadow Trump’s Election Day support. These results suggest that late-breaking campaign events may have had less influence than previously thought and the findings hold important implications for how scholars, media, and campaigns analyze future election surveys.">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/statpp/v8y2017i1p41-63n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Polls: The Importance of Hidden Trump Supporters

Author

Listed:
  • Enns Peter K.

    (Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA)

  • Lagodny Julius

    (Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA)

  • Schuldt Jonathon P.

    (Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA)

Abstract
Following Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 US presidential election, the American Association for Public Opinion Research announced that “the polls clearly got it wrong” and noted that talk of a “crisis in polling” was already emerging. Although the national polls ended up being accurate, surveys just weeks before the election substantially over-stated Clinton’s lead and state polls showed systematic bias in favor of Clinton. Different explanations have been offered for these results, including non-response bias and late deciders. We argue, however, that these explanations cannot fully account for Trump’s underperformance in October surveys. Utilizing data from two national polls that we conducted in October of 2016 (n>2100 total) as well as 14 state-level polls from October, we find consistent evidence for the existence of “hidden” Trump supporters who were included in the surveys but did not openly express their intention to vote for Trump. Most notably, when we account for these hidden Trump supporters in our October survey data, both national and state-level analyses foreshadow Trump’s Election Day support. These results suggest that late-breaking campaign events may have had less influence than previously thought and the findings hold important implications for how scholars, media, and campaigns analyze future election surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Enns Peter K. & Lagodny Julius & Schuldt Jonathon P., 2017. "Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Polls: The Importance of Hidden Trump Supporters," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 41-63, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:41-63:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/spp-2017-0003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2017-0003
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/spp-2017-0003?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. Jeffrey R. Lax & Justin H. Phillips, 2009. "How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in The States?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 107-121, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christopher Muller & Daniel Schrage, 2014. "Mass Imprisonment and Trust in the Law," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 651(1), pages 139-158, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Bailey, Delia & Blumenau, Jack & Rivers, Douglas, 2020. "Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 399-413.
    4. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2023. "Extreme Points of First-Order Stochastic Dominance Intervals: Theory and Applications," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2355, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    5. Margaret Weden & Christine Peterson & Jeremy Miles & Regina Shih, 2015. "Evaluating Linearly Interpolated Intercensal Estimates of Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of U.S. Counties and Census Tracts 2001–2009," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(4), pages 541-559, August.
    6. Jessica L Espenshade & James D Murdoch & Therese M Donovan & Robert E Manning & Charles A Bettigole & John Austin, 2018. "Public acceptability of development in the Northern Forest of Vermont, USA—The influence of wildlife information, recreation involvement, and demographic characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Facchini, Giovanni & Hatton, Timothy J. & Steinhardt, Max F., 2024. "Opening Heaven’s Door: Public Opinion and Congressional Votes on the 1965 Immigration Act," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 232-270, March.
    8. Gary Mucciaroni & Kathleen Ferraiolo & Meghan E. Rubado, 2019. "Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 171-189, June.
    9. Caldarulo, Mattia & Mossberger, Karen & Howell, Anthony, 2023. "Community-wide broadband adoption and student academic achievement," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1).
    10. Christopher Claassen & Richard Traunmüller, 2020. "Improving and Validating Survey Estimates of Religious Demography Using Bayesian Multilevel Models and Poststratification," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(3), pages 603-636, August.
    11. Skinner, Benjamin T. & Doyle, William R., 2024. "Predicting postsecondary attendance by family income in the United States using multilevel regression with poststratification," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Laura C. Dawkins & Daniel B. Williamson & Stewart W. Barr & Sally R. Lampkin, 2020. "‘What drives commuter behaviour?': a Bayesian clustering approach for understanding opposing behaviours in social surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 251-280, January.
    13. Stefanie Heidrich, 2017. "Intergenerational mobility in Sweden: a regional perspective," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1241-1280, October.
    14. Roberto Cerina & Raymond Duch, 2021. "Polling India via regression and post-stratification of non-probability online samples," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-34, November.
    15. Jinan N. Allan & Joseph T. Ripberger & Wesley Wehde & Makenzie Krocak & Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 2020. "Geographic Distributions of Extreme Weather Risk Perceptions in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2498-2508, December.
    16. Matto Mildenberger & Jennifer R. Marlon & Peter D. Howe & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2017. "The spatial distribution of Republican and Democratic climate opinions at state and local scales," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 539-548, December.
    17. Elise Grieg, 2021. "Public opinion and special interests in American environmental politics," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/349, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    18. Heidrich, Stefanie, 2015. "Intergenerational Mobility in Sweden: a Regional Perspective," Umeå Economic Studies 916, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    19. Marina Christofoletti & Tânia R. B. Benedetti & Felipe G. Mendes & Humberto M. Carvalho, 2021. "Using Multilevel Regression and Poststratification to Estimate Physical Activity Levels from Health Surveys," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Matto Mildenberger & Peter Howe & Erick Lachapelle & Leah Stokes & Jennifer Marlon & Timothy Gravelle, 2016. "The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bpj:statpp:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:41-63:n:5. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.