Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why are public opinion polls failing?

By Russell Grenning - posted Wednesday, 4 October 2017


Then AAPOR gets to the real nitty-gritty. "There are a number of reasons as to why polls under-estimated support for Trump" with the three main reasons – excuses – being:

Real change in vote preference during the final week or so of the campaign, adjusting for over-representation of college graduates was critical, but many polls did not do it and some Trump voters who participated in pre-election polls did not reveal themselves as Trump voters until after the election, and they outnumbered late-revealing Clinton voters.

In its heroic defence of its members' failures, AAPOR states:

Advertisement

A spotty year for election polls is not an indictment of all survey research or even all polling.

Describing monumental failures as spotty is certainly creative. I'm surprised AAPOR didn't publish a poll "proving" that 97.93% of Americans thought that public opinion polls were God's honest revealed truth.

And, again addressing another key nitty-gritty question:

About those polls that Clinton was 90 percent likely to win AAPOR bravely asserts. However well-intentioned these predictions may have been, they helped crystallize the belief that Clinton was a shoo-in for president, with unknown consequences for turnout.

It's as close to an admission that pollsters shot themselves in the foot that AAPOR will come.

AAPOR still struggles with the fact that Trump won asserting "Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election came as a shock to pollsters, political analysts, reporters and pundits". Well, yes it certainly did come as a shock to the overwhelming majority of these people whose natural inclination was for Clinton. They could not – or would not – countenance the idea that they might be wrong. This admission by AAPOR inadvertently reveals a deep-seated hostility to Trump and a sublime belief in their own particular prejudices. None of this lot would have been among those voters dismissed and denigrated by Clinton as deplorables.

Advertisement

The media doesn't escape criticism: for example, "The pattern in early voting in key states were described in numerous, high profile news stories as favorable for Clinton, particularly in Florida and North Carolina. Trump won both states". So sloppy, unprofessional journalism is to blame as well, right? The AAPOR is silent on whether or not this media bias towards Clinton so aggravated likely Trump supporters that they flocked to vote late in the day.

In what could point to some possible outcomes in Australia both for the same sex postal ballot and the possible appeal of One Nation and other minor parties, the report determined that voters with higher levels of formal education tended to be Clinton supporters and that these elites were more likely to respond to surveys than people with lower levels of education. Post election, this was called the "shy Trump" factor. The fact is however low their level of education these deplorables as Clinton disparaged them know when they are being told what to think and what to do by those who consider themselves their betters.

Recent years have not been all that wonderful for polling organisations around the world.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Russell Grenning is a retired political adviser and journalist who began his career at the ABC in 1968 and subsequently worked for the then Brisbane afternoon daily, The Telegraph and later as a columnist for The Courier Mail and The Australian.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Russell Grenning

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy