Links
Data Sites
- American Research Group
- Annenberg Public Policy Center
- Cold Hearted Truth
- Computational Politics
- Cook Political Report
- CQ Politics
- D.C.s Political Report
- Election Futures Market
- Election Prediction
- Election Projection
- Electoral-vote.com
- Field Poll (California)
- Five Thirty Eight
- Forum Journal - Applied Research in Contemporary Politics
- Gallup Research
- Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
- Harris Interactive
- Hedgehog Report
- House Race Tracker
- Intrade Prediction market
- ISPOS News Center
- Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball
- Mason-Dixon Polls
- Majority Watch 06 House Polls
- Pew Research Center
- Political Arithmetik
- Polling Report
- Pollster.com (Mystery Pollster)
- Professor Pollkatz
- Princeton Election Consortium
- Quinnipiac
- Presidential Electoral College Predictions
- Race 2004 State Polls
- Rasmussen Reports
- Roper Organization
- Rothenberg Political Report
- Survey USA
- Statistical Modeling (Andrew Gelmen Blog)
- Swing State Project
- TPM Cafe Election Central
- 270 to win
- United States Election Project
- U.S. Election Atlas
- World Election Data
- Zogby International
My Favorite Blogs (Left to Right)
- Atrios
- Open Left
- My DD
- Daily Kos
- Talking Points Memo
- Political Wire
- Andrew Sullivan
- Real Clear Politics
- Red State
Archives
The application of statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, game theory and other quantitative scientific methods to explore political phenomena.
Monday, November 08, 2004
What's coming up at Polimetrics?
I am currently working on compiling a county list of all votes in 2004 to compare them to the 2000 election. Of particular interest to me are:
1. Why were the exit polls so wrong on this election?
Earlier I posted on a possible explanation as to the reason (Voters who are more afraid of terrorism were more likely to vote for Bush and also more likely to avoid exit polls) but I admit there are other possibilities:
a. Bush voters are less likely to talk to pollsters than Bush voters in 2000. This would be a major change from 2000 where the margins of error were random.
b. Kerry voters were more motivated to talk to exit pollsters than Gore voters were. Again, this would be a first.
c. The sample precincts used by exit pollsters to cluster sample have changed radically from 2000. Based on some counties I have already looked at, this seems unlikely - but results need to be finalized.
d. The exit polls were correct, but there was an error in the vote count. This seems the less likely occurrence of all (unlike Florida 2000 where many Gore votes were either made incorrectly or counted incorrectly) but this is the first election that incorporated major use of the paperless ballot. Fortunately, this is easily tested after the 2004 votes are completed by seeing if the change from 2000 for paperless electronic voting counties is significantly different than the other counties.
2. What is the battleground for 2008?
My preliminary analysis shows that the extreme states (NY, HI, ID, etc) became less extreme, contrary to my model. My model preformed well in ranking the states but could not predict the dramatic movement by the extreme states. Most of the battleground moved to the left, the middle state was Ohio in this election. This may be good news for the Democrats in the future as it now appears they can win the election without winning the popular vote (assuming they can be competitive), a major switch from 2000. Again, there are many absentee and provisional votes to be counted which may affect the final results.
I am currently working on compiling a county list of all votes in 2004 to compare them to the 2000 election. Of particular interest to me are:
1. Why were the exit polls so wrong on this election?
Earlier I posted on a possible explanation as to the reason (Voters who are more afraid of terrorism were more likely to vote for Bush and also more likely to avoid exit polls) but I admit there are other possibilities:
a. Bush voters are less likely to talk to pollsters than Bush voters in 2000. This would be a major change from 2000 where the margins of error were random.
b. Kerry voters were more motivated to talk to exit pollsters than Gore voters were. Again, this would be a first.
c. The sample precincts used by exit pollsters to cluster sample have changed radically from 2000. Based on some counties I have already looked at, this seems unlikely - but results need to be finalized.
d. The exit polls were correct, but there was an error in the vote count. This seems the less likely occurrence of all (unlike Florida 2000 where many Gore votes were either made incorrectly or counted incorrectly) but this is the first election that incorporated major use of the paperless ballot. Fortunately, this is easily tested after the 2004 votes are completed by seeing if the change from 2000 for paperless electronic voting counties is significantly different than the other counties.
2. What is the battleground for 2008?
My preliminary analysis shows that the extreme states (NY, HI, ID, etc) became less extreme, contrary to my model. My model preformed well in ranking the states but could not predict the dramatic movement by the extreme states. Most of the battleground moved to the left, the middle state was Ohio in this election. This may be good news for the Democrats in the future as it now appears they can win the election without winning the popular vote (assuming they can be competitive), a major switch from 2000. Again, there are many absentee and provisional votes to be counted which may affect the final results.
Comments:
Post a Comment
