Pollsters got it wrong in the 2016 election. Now they want another shot

According to RealClearPolitics, every single one of more than 30 polls in Wisconsin in the months leading to the election had Clinton winning the state by margins ranging from 2 to 16 points. [...]polling problems in one state were correlated with mistakes in other, similar states. [...]prediction a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inMIT Technology Review.com
Main Author Arthur, Rob
Format Newspaper Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Cambridge Technology Review, Inc 14.02.2020
Subjects
Algorithms
Clinton, Hillary Rodham
Economic statistics
Elections
Political campaigns
Polls & surveys
Trump, Donald J
Voters
United States > US
Wisconsin
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:According to RealClearPolitics, every single one of more than 30 polls in Wisconsin in the months leading to the election had Clinton winning the state by margins ranging from 2 to 16 points. [...]polling problems in one state were correlated with mistakes in other, similar states. [...]prediction algorithms failed to register the record number of undecided voters as a warning sign. Because so many voters were on the fence right up to Election Day—and would end up breaking strongly for Trump—Clinton’s margins were much less safe than they appeared. The demographic makeup of a state can also be used to predict the outcome—for example, white, non-college-educated voters tended to vote for Trump in 2016, so states with lots of them are more likely to go his way in 2020 as well. Because these factors are relatively stable, reliable fundamentals predictions can be made much earlier than most other types of forecast.
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
ObjectType-News-1
content type line 21