2016 US Presidential Election Why Are Polls So Wrong?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HAWKES LEARNING SYSTEMS math courseware specialists Copyright © 2010 by Hawkes Learning Systems/Quant Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 1 Statistics.
Advertisements

ELECTIONS 1992 through 2012 ©2012, TESCCC U.S. History Unit 13, Lesson 2.
The U.S. Presidential Election of 2012.
2012 Election Overview The National Association of Business Political Action Committees 2012 NABPAC POST-ELECTION CONFERENCE PRESENTED BY: Hans Kaiser.
Philosophy 104 Polls (8.2 Notes). What went wrong?
How to Read Literature Ms. Kintz 7 th Grade Language Arts.
Key Insights on the Rust Belt and Mid-Atlantic Democratic Primaries April 14, 2016 Producer: Justin C. Brown Edited by: Katharine Conlon Director: Afzal.
Check it out! : Estimating with Confidence.
Daniel Palazzolo Professor of Political Science University of Richmond “Presidential Politics and the US Economy” VRMCA Fall Conference October 3, 2016.
Election 2016: What Happened?
Polling Performance and Campaign Coverage in the
Election Day.
America’s Current Politics: The Consumer’s Perspective
General election- is an election in which voters make final decisions about the candidates and issues.
How the Electoral College Works
How the Electoral College Works
[ 10.3 ] Voting Trends.
Predicting Elections adapted and updated from a feature on ABC News’ Nightline.
How The Mountain West States Voted in 2016:
Map Activity and Formative Assessment/Study Activity
What happened in Election 2016?
Political Socialization and Polling
ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Electoral College.
Some men see things as they are and say why?
Predicting Presidential Elections
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
PUBLIC OPINION, THE MEDIA, AND INTEREST GROUPS
Journal Topic: Opinion Poll Cartoon
US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Presidential Election What You Need to Know
How the Electoral College Works
What are the odds of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election? In four weeks today, we will know the outcome of one of the most unconventional.
The election of 2000 By Brooke Russell.
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
The Electoral Process.
7th Grade Social Studies Name____________________
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Electoral College Simulation
Hot Hand: Better than Chance
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Minor Parties Political Parties.
Campaign Season Belief & Behaviors.
Public Opinion Belief & Behaviors.
Public Opinion Polls.
Why Did Clinton Lose? Why Did Trump Win?
Electoral College.
How should a president get elected?
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Electoral College Mass Media.
The Electoral College.
Lies, Damn Lies, and the Election of 2000
How the Electoral College Works
Presidential Elections
How the Electoral College Works STEPS TO BECOMING A PRESIDENT
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Public Opinion Abbreviated Lecture.
How is the President Elected?
Who Gets to Be President?
Why 25% of Voter Polls are Wrong
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Presidential Debate #2 Write a paragraph for each of the following prompts in complete sentences How would you describe the performance of Donald Trump?
The Electoral College.
The Electoral College.
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Statistically-Significant Correlations
The Electoral College Political Science Module Developed by PQE
Because presidential elections aren’t won by the popular vote...
Presentation transcript:

2016 US Presidential Election Why Are Polls So Wrong? Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 2016 US Presidential Election Why Are Polls So Wrong? Milo Schield Augsburg College Minneapolis Critical Thinking Club Copy of these slides at: www.StatLit.org/pdf/2016-Schield-CTC1-Slides.pdf 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 1 1

Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 2 2016 Aug 12 Trump 12% Nate Silver 538 . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 2 2

Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 3 2015 Oct 22 Trump 14% Nate Silver 538 . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 3 3

2016 Nov 5 Trump 35% Nate Silver 538 . 4 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 4 2016 Nov 5 Trump 35% Nate Silver 538 . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 4 4

Final Tally . 5 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 5 Final Tally . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 5 5

How Far Off? . 6 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 6 How Far Off? . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 6 6

Blame the Polls . 7 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 7 Blame the Polls . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 7 7

Why the anti-Trump bias? Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 8 Why the anti-Trump bias? Some Plausible Explanations: Pollsters are liberals or have a liberal bias. Ignored statistical margin of error (plus/minus 3 points) Ignored correlation between state margins. Big “Undecided” up to election day. [Allocated 50/50] Ignored time. Predicted using static analysis. Actual election-prediction error Selection bias by everyone. 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 8 8

1. Liberal Bias . 9 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 9 1. Liberal Bias . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 9 9

2a Not Statistically Significant Popular Vote: 11/05 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 10 2a Not Statistically Significant Popular Vote: 11/05 . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 10 10

2b Not Statistically Significant Electoral Votes: 11/05 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 11 2b Not Statistically Significant Electoral Votes: 11/05 . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 11 11

3. State Margins: Correlated Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 12 3. State Margins: Correlated OH-MI: 0.90 OH-WI: 0.86 MI-WI: 0.86 IA-WI: 0.84 IA-OH: 0.84 IA-MI: 0.83 MN-OH: 0.81 MN-WI: 0.80 MN-MI: 0.79 PA-MN: 0.72 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 12 12

4. Undecided: Twice as big Schield ICOTS Analyzing Numbers in the News 15 May 2008 2014 13 4. Undecided: Twice as big . Polls normally split undecided 50-50 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 13 13

4. Undecided… Already Decided for Trump Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 14 4. Undecided… Already Decided for Trump Some "undecided" voters had already decided in favor of Trump, but didn't want to admit it. Some polls showed Trump getting 0% of the black vote in Pennsylvania and Ohio. In exit polls, Trump got about 8% of the black vote. . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 14 14

Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 15 4. Last-Week Deciders Voters who said they were “undecided” until the election (last-week deciders) typically voted for Trump. And they did so – by big margins! . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 15 15

5. Late-Breaking “Change” Ignored time Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 16 5. Late-Breaking “Change” Ignored time Should have “predicted” next week for each state. 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 16 16

6. Average of all Polls Is Not Very Accurate Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 17 6. Average of all Polls Is Not Very Accurate . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 17 17

6. Average of all National Polls Is Not Very Accurate Schield ICOTS Analyzing Numbers in the News 15 May 2008 2014 18 6. Average of all National Polls Is Not Very Accurate . 95% Margin of Error: 3.6 Points 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 18 18

6. State Error is Typically More than National Error Schield ICOTS Analyzing Numbers in the News 15 May 2008 2014 19 6. State Error is Typically More than National Error . 95% Margin of Error: 4.8 Points 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 19 19

6. Election Polls are more ‘Art” than ‘Science” Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 20 6. Election Polls are more ‘Art” than ‘Science” We gave some good pollsters the same data. They gave very different results!!! 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 20 20

7. Selection Bias. National Polls were OK Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 21 7. Selection Bias. National Polls were OK Nate Silver (11/08) predicted a 3.6 point margin for Hillary: Clinton: 48.5% Johnson 5.0% Trump: 44.9% Other: 0.6% http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo In fact, Hillary “won” by at least a 1.3 point margin: Clinton: 48.0% Other: 5.3% Trump: 46.7% http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174 Readers are guilty of selection bias; Inferring Electoral-College win from Popular-Vote win. 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 21 21

Conclusion Surveys report! Election polls predict. Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 22 Conclusion Election polls are closer to fortune telling to facts. Election polls are different (very different) from surveys! Surveys report! Election polls predict. Surveys never (almost) adjust. Election polls always adjust Polls have to adjust to match the profile of those that will vote. for (how to allocate) the undecided. the non-response bias. 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 22 22

Conclusion . 23 Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 23 Conclusion . 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 23 23

Best Predictor? Halloween Mask Sales Analyzing Numbers in the News Schield ICOTS 15 May 2008 2014 24 Best Predictor? Halloween Mask Sales www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-10-13/can-halloween-masks-predict-the-winner-of-the-election. 2008SchieldNNN6up.pdf 2014-Schield-ICOTS-6up 24 24