IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/h87vq_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are all Polls Equal? Analyzing the Polls of the US2020 election, a new Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Durand, Claire

    (Université de Montréal)

Abstract

At the dawn of the 2024 American presidential campaign, it is not pointless to reassess what happened during the 2020 campaign. In that election, the polls have been the least accurate since 1996, with a notable disparity in results depending on the poll's mode of administration and sampling frame or source. Based on their methodology, the 222 national-level campaign polls were categorized as mixed-mode (16%), single-mode quasi-random polls (25%), and web opt-in polls (59%). Using local regression and multilevel analysis, the study revealed differences in campaign trends across categories. All the polls using random or quasi-random sampling indicated an initial rise in voting intention for Joe Biden followed by a decline until election day, while web opt-in polls showed his support as stable. Notably, mixed-mode polls provided an almost perfect election forecast. The poll estimates of the last ten days support these findings, showing higher accuracy within the mixed-mode and single-mode quasi-random polls compared to web opt-in polls. The study suggests that different modes and sources capture varying segments of the population, leading to more accurate polling. The results stress the need for academia, media, and pollsters to closely monitor the methodological diversification introduced in the 2020 election.

Suggested Citation

  • Durand, Claire, 2024. "Are all Polls Equal? Analyzing the Polls of the US2020 election, a new Perspective," OSF Preprints h87vq_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:h87vq_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/h87vq_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/65f0aa30e5e51c0e67bc593f/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/h87vq_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, James E. & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 2008. "US presidential election forecasting: An introduction," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 189-192.
    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. Dassonneville, Ruth & Hooghe, Marc, 2012. "Election forecasting under opaque conditions: A model for Francophone Belgium, 1981–2010," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 777-788.
    2. Nadeau, Richard & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 2020. "Election forecasts: Cracking the Danish case," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 892-898.
    3. repec:ulb:ulbcvp:p0015 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Renaud Foucart & Marjorie Gassner & Emilie Van Haute, 2012. "Une typologie des résultats électoraux basée sur le comportement des électeurs volatiles en Belgique," CEVIPOL Working Papers 3, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Ray C. Fair, 2009. "Presidential and Congressional Vote‐Share Equations," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 55-72, January.
    6. Toros, Emre, 2011. "Forecasting elections in Turkey," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1248-1258, October.
    7. Liu, Yezheng & Ye, Chang & Sun, Jianshan & Jiang, Yuanchun & Wang, Hai, 2021. "Modeling undecided voters to forecast elections: From bandwagon behavior and the spiral of silence perspective," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 461-483.
    8. Paul Collier & Anke Hoeffler, 2009. "Democracy's Achilles Heel or, How to Win an Election without Really Trying," Economics Series Working Papers CSAE WPS/2009-08, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

    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:osf:osfxxx:h87vq_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.