Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(58,770 posts)
Wed Nov 2, 2016, 03:27 AM Nov 2016

Beware the phantom swings: why dramatic bounces in the polls aren't always what they seem

Most telephone polls use independent samples, so the respondents in one week’s poll are different from those in another week’s. This makes it impossible to distinguish change in individual vote intentions from changes in sample composition from week to week. It is possible that five percent of the electorate switched from Clinton to Trump over the past week (decreasing Clinton’s lead by 10 points). But it’s also possible that nobody switched and apparent swings are due to differences in sample composition.

YouGov draws its samples from a large panel of respondents. In most of our polls, there is little overlap from one sample to another. However, sometimes the same respondents are recontacted to see whether their opinions have changed. For example, after the first presidential debate in September, we reinterviewed 2,132 people who had told us their vote intentions a month before. 95 percent of the September Clinton supporters said they intended to vote for her. None of them said they intended to vote for Donald Trump, but five percent said they were now undecided, would vote for a third party candidate, or would not vote. Of the Trump supporters, only 91 percent said they were still planning on voting for Trump. Five percent moved to undecided, one percent to Clinton, and the rest to third party candidates or not voting. The net effect was to increase Clinton’s lead by almost four points. That was real change, though significantly less that the ten point change to Clinton’s lead seen in some polls.

Other events, however, have not had any detectable impact on voting intentions. We did not see any shifts after the release of the Access Hollywood video, the second or third presidential debates, or the reopening of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails. When the same people were reinterviewed, almost all said they were supporting the same candidate they had told us they were supporting in prior interviews. The small number who did change their voting intentions shifted about evenly toward Clinton and Trump so the net real change was close to zero.

Although we didn’t find much vote switching, we did notice a different type of change: the willingness of Clinton and Trump supporters to participate in our polls varied by a significant amount depending upon what was happening at the time of the poll: when things are going badly for a candidate, their supporters tend to stop participating in polls. For example, after the release of the Access Hollywood video, Trump supporters were four percent less likely than Clinton supporters to participate in our poll. The same phenomenon occurred this weekend for Clinton supporters after the announcement of the FBI investigation: Clinton supporters responded at a three percent lower rate than Trump supporters (who could finally take a survey about a subject they liked).


https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/11/01/beware-phantom-swings-why-dramatic-swings-in-the-p/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Beware the phantom swings: why dramatic bounces in the polls aren't always what they seem (Original Post) RandySF Nov 2016 OP
"when things are going badly for a candidate" BumRushDaShow Nov 2016 #1
General rule: Ignore dramatic swings altogether. Hortensis Nov 2016 #2
I've been saying this for years titaniumsalute Nov 2016 #3

BumRushDaShow

(128,844 posts)
1. "when things are going badly for a candidate"
Wed Nov 2, 2016, 06:34 AM
Nov 2016

This is an interesting phenomena. Am not sure how much of an impact this has in polls with larger samples, but it might be a factor when analysts claim that a certain poll "over-sampled" those with a certain party affiliation (assuming the sampling was based on a pretty much "fixed" number of people, regardless of affiliation, and an apparent over-sample occurs due to who is willing to respond).

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
2. General rule: Ignore dramatic swings altogether.
Wed Nov 2, 2016, 07:44 AM
Nov 2016

Political scientists say reality is most people are very consistent politically, regardless of what they may say/be willing to admit on the spur of the moment.

titaniumsalute

(4,742 posts)
3. I've been saying this for years
Wed Nov 2, 2016, 07:52 AM
Nov 2016

We ponder this shit to death on DU (and those in the media.) Why? Because the numbers are there and hey, why not? I've worked in media measurement (ratings) for years. Every quarter radio stations receive new ratings data. I bounces from survey to survey. But as ratings go up and down, I always caution that remember the people surveyed also change. Over time you can get a reliable snapshot of the ratings by combining surveys (more sample.) But each week new people are surveyed thus the possibility of statistical bounce.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Beware the phantom swings...