The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Evaluation of the 2016 Election Polls in the United States
Abstract
The 2016 presidential election was a jarring event for polling in the United States. Preelection polls fueled high-profile predictions that Hillary Clinton’s likelihood of winning the presidency was about 90 percent, with estimates ranging from 71 to over 99 percent. When Donald Trump was declared the winner of the presidency, there was a widespread perception that the polls failed. But did the polls fail? And if so, why? Those are among the central questions addressed by an American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) ad hoc committee. This paper presents the committee’s analysis of the performance of preelection polls in 2016, how that performance compares to polling in prior elections, and the extent to which performance varied by poll design. In addition, the committee examined several theories as to why many polls, particularly in the Upper Midwest, underestimated support for Trump. The explanations for which the most evidence exists are a late swing in vote preference toward Trump and a pervasive failure to adjust for overrepresentation of college graduates (who favored Clinton). In addition, there is clear evidence that voter turnout changed from 2012 to 2016 in ways that favored Trump, though there is only mixed evidence that misspecified likely voter models were a major cause of the systematic polling error. Finally, there is little evidence that socially desirable (Shy Trump) responding was an important contributor to poll error.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x · Cited by 2,352
The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis
Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfn011 · Cited by 1,441
National Surveys Via Rdd Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfp075 · Cited by 956
Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M. A., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfl035 · Cited by 902
Self-citationComputing Response Metrics for Online Panels
Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfn065 · Cited by 516
Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies
Burden, B. C. (2000) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029823 · Cited by 235
White Reactions to Black Candidates: When Does Race Matter?
Citrin, J., GREEN, D. P., & Sears, D. O. (1990) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269185 · Cited by 222
Link, M., Battaglia, M. P., Frankel, M. R., Osborn, L., & Mokdad, A. H. (2008) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfn003 · Cited by 207
Race-of-Interviewer Effects in a Preelection Poll: Virginia 1989
Finkel, S. E., Guterbock, T. M., & Borg, M. J. (1991) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269264 · Cited by 161
The Timeline of Presidential Elections
Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. B. (2012) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226922164.001.0001 · Cited by 156
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 2016, Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys
- Barnes, 2016, “Reality Check: Should We Give Up on Election Polling?”
- Blake, 2016, “How America Decided, at the Last Moment, to Elect Donald Trump.”
- Byers, 2016, “How Politicians, Pollsters and Media Missed Trump’s Groundswell.”
- Cassino, 2016, “How Today’s Political Polling Works.”
- Cillizza, 2016, “Winners and Losers from the 2016 Election.”
- Cohn, 2014, “Two Polls That Highlight the Challenges of Polling.”
- Cohn, 2016, “There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.”
- Collins, 2016, “Poll: Clinton, Trump Most Unfavorable Candidates Ever.”
- Crespi, 1988, Sources of Accuracy and Error in Pre-Election Polling
- Easley, 2016, “Pollsters Suffer Huge Embarrassment.”
- Enten, 2012, “The Other 2012 Election Contest: Which Pollster and Polling Method Will Win?”
- Enten, 2016, “Shy’ Voters Probably Aren’t Why the Polls Missed Trump.”
- File, 2017, “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election.”
- Jackson, 2016, “Here’s Why HuffPost Is Dropping Polls That Rely Only on Landlines.”
- Jacobs, 2016, “Trump Says He Expected to Lose Election Because of Poll Results.”
- Katz, 2016, “Who Will Be President?”
- Merkle, 2002, Nonresponse in Exit Polls: A Comprehensive Analysis, 243
- Pew Research Center, 2012, “Assessing the Representativeness of Public Opinion Surveys.”
- Shepard, 2016, “How Could the Polling Be So Wrong?”
- Silver, 2016, “Pollsters Probably Didn’t Talk to Enough White Voters Without College Degrees.”
- Silver, 2017, “Why Early Voting Was Overhyped.”
- Silver, 2017, “The Real Story of 2016: What Reporters—and Lots of Data Geeks, Too—Missed about the Election, and What They’re Still Getting Wrong.”
- Smith, Andrew . 2016. “UNH 2016 Election Polls.” Paper presented at the New England AAPOR Chapter Election Postmortem.
- Trende, 2016, “It Wasn’t the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits.”
- Yourish, 2016, “Clinton and Trump Have Terrible Approval Ratings. Does It Matter?”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190057886.001.0001 · Cited by 570
Unrepresentative big surveys significantly overestimated US vaccine uptake
Bradley, V. C., Kuriwaki, S., Isakov, M., Sejdinovic, D., Meng, X.-L., & Flaxman, S. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04198-4 · Cited by 248
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models
Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B., & Larson, J. M. (2024) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2024.5 · Cited by 209
Self-citationThe Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes
Edwards, G. S., & Rushin, S. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3102652 · Cited by 206
The Twilight of the Polls? A Review of Trends in Polling Accuracy and the Causes of Polling Misses
Prosser, C., & Mellon, J. (2018) · Government and Opposition · doi:10.1017/gov.2018.7 · Cited by 69
Validating Self-Reported Turnout by Linking Public Opinion Surveys with Administrative Records
Enamorado, T., & Imai, K. (2018) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfz051 · Cited by 64
The wealth paradox: Prosperity and opposition to immigration
Jetten, J. (2019) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2552 · Cited by 58
Enns, P. K., & Jardina, A. E. (2021) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfab040 · Cited by 59
All the Best Polls Agree with Me: Bias in Evaluations of Political Polling
Madson, G., & Hillygus, D. S. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09532-1 · Cited by 60
An Assessment of the Causes of the Errors in the 2015 UK Gseneral Election Opinion Polls
Sturgis, P., Kuha, J., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, S. D., Green, J., Jennings, W., Lauderdale, B. E., & Smith, P. (2017) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/rssa.12329 · Cited by 53
Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Polls: The Importance of Hidden Trump Supporters
Enns, P. K., Lagodny, J., & Schuldt, J. P. (2017) · Statistics Politics and Policy · doi:10.1515/spp-2017-0003 · Cited by 51
Target Estimation and Adjustment Weighting for Survey Nonresponse and Sampling Bias
Caughey, D., Berinsky, A. J., Chatfield, S., Hartman, E., Schickler, E., & Sekhon, J. S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108879217 · Cited by 46
A high-speed world with fake news: brand managers take warning
Peterson, M. (2019) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-12-2018-2163 · Cited by 48
Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK
Lauderdale, B. E., Bailey, D., Blumenau, J., & Rivers, D. (2019) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.05.012 · Cited by 40
Self-citationSynthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models
Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B., & Larson, J. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/5ecfa · Cited by 213
Self-citationAndrianova, E., Golovin, S. A., Zykov, S. V., Lesko, S. A., & Михайловна, Ч. Е. (2020) · Russian Technological Journal · doi:10.32362/2500-316x-2020-8-4-7-45 · Cited by 33
Information, incentives, and goals in election forecasts
Gelman, A., Hullman, J. R., Wlezien, C. B., & Morris, G. E. (2020) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500007981 · Cited by 30
Self-citationWhy polls fail to predict elections
Zhou, Z., Serafino, M., Cohan, L., Caldarelli, G., & Makse, H. A. (2021) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-021-00525-8 · Cited by 31
Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences
Lang, C., & Pearson‐Merkowitz, S. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102604 · Cited by 31
Election forecasting: Too far out?
Jennings, W., Lewis‐Beck, M. S., & Wlezien, C. B. (2020) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.12.002 · Cited by 29
Self-citationMultilevel Calibration Weighting for Survey Data
Ben‐Michael, E., Feller, A., & Hartman, E. (2023) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2023.9 · Cited by 26
Mongrain, P. (2023) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129231166679 · Cited by 25
Aklin, M. (2018) · Business and Politics · doi:10.1017/bap.2018.15 · Cited by 24
Sensitivity Analysis for Survey Weights
Hartman, E., & Huang, M. (2023) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2023.12 · Cited by 23
Wright, F. A., & Wright, A. A. (2018) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2018.05.001 · Cited by 23
Konitzer, T., Rothschild, D. M., Hill, S., & Wilbur, K. C. (2018) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1467985 · Cited by 22
Voting for the Underdog or Jumping on the Bandwagon? Evidence from India's Exit Poll Ban
Chatterjee, S., & Kamal, J. (2019) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-020-00837-y · Cited by 22
Quebec 2018: A Failure of the Polls?
Durand, C., & Blais, A. (2019) · Canadian Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0008423919000787 · Cited by 19
Self-citationMedia Coverage, Public Interest, and Support in the 2016 Republican Invisible Primary
Reuning, K., & Dietrich, N. (2018) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592718003274 · Cited by 19
Catholics in Contemporary Britain
Clements, B., & Bullivant, S. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192856609.001.0001 · Cited by 18
Values disclosures and trust in science: A replication study
Hicks, D., & Lobato, E. J. C. (2022) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2022.1017362 · Cited by 18
An active opinion dynamics model: the gap between the voting result and group opinion
Jiao, Y., & Li, Y. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2020.08.009 · Cited by 18
Demonstrations of the Potential of AI-based Political Issue Polling
Sanders, N. E., Ulinich, A., & Schneier, B. (2023) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.1d3cf75d · Cited by 43
Voting intentions on social media and political opinion polls
Pekar, V., Najafi, H., Binner, J. M., Swanson, R. K., Rickard, C., & Fry, J. M. (2021) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101658 · Cited by 18
The Diplomacy of Whataboutism and US Foreign Policy Attitudes
Chow, W., & Levin, D. H. (2024) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s002081832400002x · Cited by 16
Wozniak, K. H., Calfano, B., & Drakulich, K. (2019) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/ssqu.12622 · Cited by 16
Polls and Elections Accuracy and Bias in the 2020 U.S. General Election Polls
Panagopoulos, C. (2021) · Presidential Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/psq.12710 · Cited by 16
Preelection poll accuracy and bias in the 2016 U.S. general elections
Panagopoulos, C., Endres, K., & Weinschenk, A. C. (2018) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2018.1441850 · Cited by 16
Women’s Rights and Misperceived Gender Norms Under Authoritarianism
Barnett, C. L. (2023) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/00104140231193010 · Cited by 15
Towards Principled Unskewing: Viewing 2020 Election Polls Through a Corrective Lens from 2016
Isakov, M., & Kuriwaki, S. (2020) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.86a46f38 · Cited by 14
Vote overreporting in national election surveys: a 55-nation exploratory study
McAllister, I., & Quinlan, S. (2021) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/s41269-021-00207-6 · Cited by 17
Biases of Online Political Polls: Who Participates?
Hargittai, E., & Karaoglu, G. (2018) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/2378023118791080 · Cited by 17
Fossen, B. L., Kim, D., Schweidel, D. A., & Thomadsen, R. (2022) · Quantitative Marketing and Economics · doi:10.1007/s11129-021-09246-x · Cited by 14
Pandemic and prejudice: Results from a national survey experiment
Kaushal, N., Lu, Y., & Huang, X. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265437 · Cited by 12
Introduction to Forecasting the 2020 US Elections
Dassonneville, R. C., & Tien, C. P. (2020) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s104909652000147x · Cited by 12
Roy, J., Singh, S. P., & Fournier, P. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108877428 · Cited by 16
Brito, K. D. S., Filho, R. L. C. S., & Adeodato, P. J. L. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2023.101899 · Cited by 15
Austermuehl, F. (2020) · Social Semiotics · doi:10.1080/10350330.2020.1766205 · Cited by 11
Graphical Causal Models for Survey Inference
Schuessler, J., & Selb, P. (2023) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241231176851 · Cited by 10
Mass Media and Electoral Preferences During the 2016 US Presidential Race
Wlezien, C. B., & Soroka, S. (2018) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9478-0 · Cited by 12
Self-citationRentsch, A., Schaffner, B. F., & Gross, J. H. (2019) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfz052 · Cited by 10
Gong, Z., Cai, T., Thill, J., Hale, S. A., & Graham, M. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233660 · Cited by 11
I like, I share, I vote: Mapping the dynamic system of political marketing
Kübler, R. V., Kai, M.-K., & Pauwels, K. (2025) · Journal of business research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115014 · Cited by 11
Raynauld, V., & Turcotte, A. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86559-7_3 · Cited by 9
The Effect of Firm Lobbying on High-Skilled Visa Adjudication
Liao, S. (2023) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/723984 · Cited by 9
Durand, C., & Johnson, T. P. (2021) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfab006 · Cited by 9
Self-citationEvaluating Pre-election Polling Estimates Using a New Measure of Non-ignorable Selection Bias
West, B. T., & Andridge, R. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad018 · Cited by 9
Misleading Polls in the Media: Does Survey Clickbait Have Social Consequences?
GRAHAM, M. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Trexler, A. (2024) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfae009 · Cited by 8
An analysis of Twitter users’ long term political view migration using cross-account data mining
Sosnkowski, A., Fung, C., & Ramkumar, S. (2021) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100177 · Cited by 8
Theory of (Un)Planned Behavior? How our behavioral predictions suffer from “unplanned” actions
Чернозуб, О. Л. (2022) · Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review · doi:10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-82-105 · Cited by 8
Blame it on turnout? Citizens’ participation and polls’ accuracy
Daoust, J. (2021) · The British Journal of Politics and International Relations · doi:10.1177/1369148120986092 · Cited by 7
The Paradox of Public Trust Shaping Local Climate Change Adaptation
Termini, O., & Kalafatis, S. E. (2021) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos12020241 · Cited by 11
How Errors Cumulate: Two Examples
Tourangeau, R. (2019) · Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology · doi:10.1093/jssam/smz019 · Cited by 6
A multi-agent system to predict the outcome of a two-round election
Charcon, D. Y., & Monteiro, L. H. A. (2020) · Applied Mathematics and Computation · doi:10.1016/j.amc.2020.125481 · Cited by 7
How good are the polls? Australian election predictions, 1993–2019
Goot, M. (2020) · Australian Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1080/10361146.2020.1825616 · Cited by 7
Johnson, T. P. (2018) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfy029 · Cited by 7
Polarizing the middle: internet exposure and public opinion
Bryson, B. P. (2020) · International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · doi:10.1108/ijssp-09-2019-0181 · Cited by 6
Camatarri, S., Luartz, L. A., & Gallina, M. (2023) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edad025 · Cited by 6
Online Surveys in Nondemocratic Contexts: Evidence from Russia
Korsunava, V., & Соколов, Б. О. (2025) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edaf030 · Cited by 6
Mitchell, K. J., Turner, H. A., Gewirtz‐Meydan, A., & Jones, L. M. (2022) · International Journal on Child Maltreatment Research Policy and Practice · doi:10.1007/s42448-022-00112-1 · Cited by 6
Assessing Candidate Preference through Web Browsing History
Comarela, G., Durairajan, R., Barford, P., Christenson, D. P., & Crovella, M. E. (2018) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3219819.3219884 · Cited by 6
Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
Richie, R., Oestericher, B., Otis, D., & Seitz-Brown, J. (2021) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960 · Cited by 6
Yan, A. N., Kalla, J., & Broockman, D. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3136245 · Cited by 6
Combining survey questions with a Bayesian bootstrap method improves election forecastsPreprint
Olsson, H., de Bruin, W. B., Galešić, M., & Prelec, D. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/nqcgs · Cited by 6
Graphical Causal Models for Survey InferencePreprint
Schuessler, J., & Selb, P. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/hbg3m · Cited by 6
Thurner, P. W., Kunz, F., Miclut, A., Mauerer, I. D., Klima, A., & Küchenhoff, H. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-33582-3_11 · Cited by 5
Reducing Item Nonresponse to Vote-Choice Questions: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Mexico
Cohen, M. J., & Cassell, K. J. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad002 · Cited by 5
Muddying the Waters: How Perceived Foreign Interference Affects Public Opinion on Protest Movements
Chow, W., & Levin, D. H. (2024) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055424000327 · Cited by 8
Graphic associative test of attitudes as a convenient implicit measurement tool for mass polls
Чернозуб, О. Л. (2023) · Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Социология · doi:10.22363/2313-2272-2023-23-1-122-141 · Cited by 5
Bias and Variance in Multiparty Election Polls
Selb, P., Chen, S., Körtner, J., & Bosch, P. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad046 · Cited by 5
Knockout Blows or the Status Quo? Momentum in the 2016 Primaries
Clinton, J. D., Engelhardt, A., & Trussler, M. J. (2019) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/703383 · Cited by 4
Self-citationThe Power of Polls?: A Cross-National Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Campaign Polls
Roy, J., Singh, S. P., & Fournier, P. (2021) · Cited by 4
Yörük, E., Atsızelti, Ş., KINA, M. F., Duruşan, F., Gürerk, O., Yardı, M. C., Hürriyetoğlu, A., Mutlu, O., Etgü, T., Koyuncu, M., et al. (2024) · The Developing Economies · doi:10.1111/deve.12424 · Cited by 4
The 2024 US Presidential Election PoSSUM Poll
Cerina, R., & Duch, R. M. (2024) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096524000982 · Cited by 4
The democratic ethics of artificially intelligent polling
Cerina, R., & Rouméas, É. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02150-4 · Cited by 6
Negative public opinion and minority-driven social change in hypergraphs
Gong, L., Huang, C., & Jiang, L.-L. (2025) · Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · doi:10.1063/5.0257900 · Cited by 4
Goode, E. J. K., & Bull, P. E. (2020) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v8i1.953 · Cited by 4
Building a Framework for Mode Effect Estimation in United States Presidential Election Polls
Smalley, H. K., & Wolf, C. (2022) · Statistics Politics and Policy · doi:10.1515/spp-2021-0024 · Cited by 4
Opinion Change or Differential Turnout: Austin’s Budget Feedback Exercise and the Police Department
Gelauff, L., & Goel, A. (2022) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3551624.3555295 · Cited by 4
Social media and electoral prediction: ten years after
Gayo-Avello, D., Jungherr, A. M., & Rivero, G. (2025) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781802207309.00040 · Cited by 3
Rethinking the Debate Over Recent Polling Failures
Toff, B. (2018) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1440908 · Cited by 4
Zeedan, R. (2019) · J — Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal · doi:10.3390/j2010007 · Cited by 4
Are public opinion polls doomed?
Keeter, S. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0330-7 · Cited by 4
Are political-opinion pollsters missing ambivalence: “I love Trump”… “I hate Trump”
Camparo, J. C., & Camparo, L. B. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247580 · Cited by 4
Assessing the Reliability of Probabilistic US Presidential Election Forecasts May Take DecadesPreprint
Grimmer, J., Knox, D., & Westwood, S. J. (2024) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/6g5zq · Cited by 6
kpop : a kernel balancing approach for reducing specification assumptions in survey weighting
Hartman, E., Hazlett, C. J., & Sterbenz, C. (2024) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1093/jrsssa/qnae082 · Cited by 3
Roseman, I. J. (2025) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2025.1570686 · Cited by 4
Saville, C. W. N., Mann, R., Lockard, A. S., Bark-Connell, A., Gabuljah, S. G., Young, A. M., & Thomas, D. R. (2024) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117022 · Cited by 3
Lu, Y., Kaushal, N., Huang, X., Gaddis, S. M., & Schachter, A. (2024) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v11.a28 · Cited by 3
What makes things catch on? Understanding consumer engagement with video content on social media
Kim, R. Y. (2024) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-024-09926-2 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Kennedy, C., Blumenthal, M., Clement, S., Clinton, J. D., Durand, C., Franklin, C., McGeeney, K., Miringoff, L., Olson, K., Rivers, D., Saad, L., Witt, G. E., & Wlezien, C.
- Affiliations
- Pew Research Center (US)
- Marquette University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kennedy, Courtney
- ORCID
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-33
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2793769061
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16
- FWCI
- 89.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Keywords
- 2016 US presidential election, election polls, polling accuracy, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Upper Midwest, voter turnout, social desirability bias, polling error
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
