IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v24y2008i2p272-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Campaign trial heats as election forecasts: Measurement error and bias in 2004 presidential campaign polls

Author

Listed:
  • Pickup, Mark
  • Johnston, Richard

Abstract

If late-campaign polls are to be used as forecasts, it is important to ask, how well do the polls do and why are some polls better forecasts than others? We analytically compare alternative methods for estimating the systematic bias in the election trial heat polls of the individual polling houses and of the polling industry as a whole. We put each technique to the test using data from the 2004 US Presidential election. From the collection of evidence we are able to identify the approach that produces the most efficient unbiased estimates and answer the question of how the polls did in 2004. A third of the houses exhibited large and significant biases, but the industry as a whole converged on the truth.

Suggested Citation

  • Pickup, Mark & Johnston, Richard, 2008. "Campaign trial heats as election forecasts: Measurement error and bias in 2004 presidential campaign polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 272-284.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:24:y:2008:i:2:p:272-284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-2070(08)00030-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Robert Worcester, 1996. "Political Polling: 95% Expertise and 5% Luck," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 159(1), pages 5-20, January.
    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. Evans, Jocelyn & Ivaldi, Gilles, 2010. "Comparing forecast models of Radical Right voting in four European countries (1973-2008)," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 82-97, January.

    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.

      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:eee:intfor:v:24:y:2008:i:2:p:272-284. 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.