Author:
Enns Peter K.,Lagodny Julius,Schuldt Jonathon P.
Abstract
AbstractFollowing Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 US presidential election, the American Association for Public Opinion Research announced that “the polls clearly got it wrong” and noted that talk of a “crisis in polling” was already emerging. Although the national polls ended up being accurate, surveys just weeks before the election substantially over-stated Clinton’s lead and state polls showed systematic bias in favor of Clinton. Different explanations have been offered for these results, including non-response bias and late deciders. We argue, however, that these explanations cannot fully account for Trump’s underperformance in October surveys. Utilizing data from two national polls that we conducted in October of 2016 (
Reference74 articles.
1. Google-Wide Association Studies;Princeton Election Consortium,2016
2. 18 Real Things Donald Trump Has Actually Said About Women, Huffington Post, August 19;sec. Women,2015
3. Democrats Burned by Polling Blind Spot;Politico,2017
4. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys;Public Opinion Quarterly,2006
5. Predicting the Vote: Implicit Attitudes as Predictors of the Future Behavior of Decided and Undecided Voters;Political Psychology,2008
Cited by
37 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Second phase: The activation stage;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
2. First phase: The latency equilibrium;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
3. Reported vote: An observational measure of political stigma;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
4. Dedication;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
5. Additional materials and analyses;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02