CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 200Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques

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

Kennedy, Courtney, Blumenthal, Mark, Clement, Scott, Clinton, Joshua D, Durand, Claire, Franklin, Charles, McGeeney, Kyley, Miringoff, Lee, Olson, Kristen, Rivers, Douglas, Saad, Lydia, Witt, G Evans, Wlezien, Christopher·2018·Public Opinion Quarterly
DOI 10.1093/poq/nfx047
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfx047

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 2016, Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys
  2. Barnes, 2016, “Reality Check: Should We Give Up on Election Polling?”
  3. Blake, 2016, “How America Decided, at the Last Moment, to Elect Donald Trump.”
  4. Byers, 2016, “How Politicians, Pollsters and Media Missed Trump’s Groundswell.”
  5. Cassino, 2016, “How Today’s Political Polling Works.”
  6. Cillizza, 2016, “Winners and Losers from the 2016 Election.”
  7. Cohn, 2014, “Two Polls That Highlight the Challenges of Polling.”
  8. Cohn, 2016, “There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.”
  9. Collins, 2016, “Poll: Clinton, Trump Most Unfavorable Candidates Ever.”
  10. Crespi, 1988, Sources of Accuracy and Error in Pre-Election Polling
  11. Easley, 2016, “Pollsters Suffer Huge Embarrassment.”
  12. Enten, 2012, “The Other 2012 Election Contest: Which Pollster and Polling Method Will Win?”
  13. Enten, 2016, “Shy’ Voters Probably Aren’t Why the Polls Missed Trump.”
  14. File, 2017, “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election.”
  15. Jackson, 2016, “Here’s Why HuffPost Is Dropping Polls That Rely Only on Landlines.”
  16. Jacobs, 2016, “Trump Says He Expected to Lose Election Because of Poll Results.”
  17. Katz, 2016, “Who Will Be President?”
  18. Merkle, 2002, Nonresponse in Exit Polls: A Comprehensive Analysis, 243
  19. Pew Research Center, 2012, “Assessing the Representativeness of Public Opinion Surveys.”
  20. Shepard, 2016, “How Could the Polling Be So Wrong?”
  21. Silver, 2016, “Pollsters Probably Didn’t Talk to Enough White Voters Without College Degrees.”
  22. Silver, 2017, “Why Early Voting Was Overhyped.”
  23. 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.”
  24. Smith, Andrew . 2016. “UNH 2016 Election Polls.” Paper presented at the New England AAPOR Chapter Election Postmortem.
  25. Trende, 2016, “It Wasn’t the Polls That Missed, It Was the Pundits.”
  26. Yourish, 2016, “Clinton and Trump Have Terrible Approval Ratings. Does It Matter?”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 200

Related

See all

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
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfx047
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