Thursday, September 09, 2004

Poll Accuracy (National)

The question has come up on another site, about who is the most reliable poll. That’s a good question, so I decided to look into it. The National Council on Public Polls had a nice site up, where they have reviewed the poll results for Presidential elections since 1936, and they have posted their results. I have a slightly different methodology for counting accuracy, so my results are slightly different, but all in all the information produced useful trends.

OK, for this review, I am only going to count polls still in operation, since there’s already quite a few to check. For each election, I take the actual election result, and tick off a point for each point of deviation in the prediction in any direction on the final poll from each group.

With that plan, here’s the history:

2000: Actual election results, Bush 48%, Gore 48%

Zogby: Predicted 48-46 Gore, off by 2.
Gallup: Predicted 46-48 Bush, off by 2.
USA Today: Predicted 46-48 Bush, off by 2.
IBD/CSM/Tipp: Predicted 46-48 Bush, off by 2.
Pew: Predicted 47-49 Bush, off by 2.
Harris: Predicted 47-47 tie, off by 2 (same results for Harris Interactive),
ABC/WP: Predicted 45-48 Bush, off by 3.
NBC/WSJ: Predicted 44-47 Bush, off by 5.
Battleground: Predicted 45-50 Bush, off by 5.
ICR: Predicted 44-46 Bush, off by 6.
CBS: Predicted 45-44 Gore, off by 7.
Rasmussen: Predicted 49-40 Gore, off by 9.

(I notice I mis-remembered, Rasmussen was actually too low for Bush in his final poll!)

1996: Actual election results, Clinton 49%, Dole 41%

Zogby: 49-41 Clinton, off by 0.
Gallup: 52-41 Clinton, off by 3.
USA Today: 52-41 Clinton, off by 3.
CNN: 52-41 Clinton, off by 3.
NBC/WSJ: 49-37 Clinton, off by 4.
Harris: 51-39 Clinton, off by 4.
ABC News: 51-39 Clinton, off by 4.
ICR: 51-38 Clinton, off by 5.
Pew: 52-38 Clinton, off by 6.
Battleground: 45-36 Clinton, off by 9.
CBS/NYT: 53-35 Clinton, off by 10.

1992: Actual election results, Clinton 43%, Bush 37%

ABC News: 44-37 Clinton, off b y1.
NBC/WSJ: 44-36 Clinton, off by 2.
CBS/NYT: 45-37 Clinton, off by 2.
Harris: 44-38 Clinton, off by 2.
Gallup: 49-37 Clinton, off by 6.
USA Today: 49-37 Clinton, off by 6.

1988: Actual election results, Bush 53%, Dukakis 46%

Harris: 50-46 Bush, off by 3.
ABC News: 54-44 Bush, off by 3.
CBS/NYT: 52-43 Bush, off by 4.
Gallup: 56-44 Bush, off by 5.
USA Today: 52-42 Bush, off by 5.

1984: Actual election results, Reagan 59%, Mondale 41%

Gallup: 59-41 Reagan off by 0.
ABC News: 57-39, off by 4.
CBS/NYT: 58-37 Reagan, off by 5.
Harris: 56-44 Reagan, off by 6.
USA Today: 61-34 Reagan, off by 9.

1980: Actual election results, Reagan 51%, Carter 41%

ABC News: 46-41 Reagan, off by 5.
Harris: 46-41 Reagan, off by 5.
Gallup: 47-44 Reagan, off by 7.
CBS/NYT: 44-43 Reagan, off by 9.
NBC News: 42-36 Reagan, off by 14.

1976: Actual election results, Carter 50%, Ford 48%

Gallup: 49-48 Ford, off by 3.
ABC News: 48-47 Carter, off by 3.
Harris: 48-47 Carter, off by 3.
CBS News: 45-41 Carter, off by 12.

1972: Actual election results, Nixon 61%, McGovern 38%

Gallup: 62-38 Nixon, off by 1.
Harris: 61-39 Nixon, off by 1.

1968: Actual election results: Nixon 43%, Humphrey 43%

Gallup: 43-42 Nixon, off by 1.
Harris: 45-41 Humphrey, off by 4.

1964: Actual election results, Johnson 61%, Goldwater 39%

Gallup: 64-36 Johnson, off by 7.
Harris: 64-36 Johnson, off by 7.

1960: Actual election results, Kennedy 50%, Nixon 50%

Gallup: 51-49 Kennedy, off by 2.

1956: Actual election results, Eisenhower 58%, Stevenson 42%

: 60-41 Eisenhower, off by 3.

1952: Actual election results: Eisenhower 55%, Stevenson 44%

Gallup: 51-49 Eisenhower, off by 9.

1948: Actual election results; Truman 50%, Dewey 45%

Gallup: 50-45 Dewey, off by 10.

1944: Actual election results, Roosevelt 54%, Dewey 46%

Gallup: 52-49 Roosevelt, off by 5.

1940: Actual election results, Roosevelt 55%, Willkie 45%

Gallup: 52-48 Roosevelt, off by 6.

1936: Actual election results, Roosevelt 61%, Landon 37%

Gallup: 56-44 Roosevelt, off by 12.

OK, here’s how they stack up, for length of record and aggregate accuracy:

1. Zogby: 2 elections, 1.00% error average.
2. IBD/CSM/Tipp: 1 election, 2.00% error average.
3. ABC News: 7 elections, 3.29% error average.
4. Harris: 10 elections, average 3.70% error average.
5. Gallup: 17 elections, average 4.82% error average.
6. USA Today: 5 elections, 5.00% error average.
7. ICR: 2 elections, 5.50% error average.
8. NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 4 elections, 6.25% error average.
9. CBS News/New York Times: 7 elections, 7.00% error average.
10. Battleground: 2 elections, 7.00% error average.
11. Rasmussen: 1 election, 9.00% error average.

Zogby, IBD, Harris, ICR, NBC News, and Rasmussen provide no demographic data.

ABC News, CBS News provide limited demographic data.

Gallup, USA Today, and the Battleground polls provide extensive demographic data.

This provides a background for reviewing poll releases. Note that there are eleven national polls out this year, which do not have a known track record, including TIME and Newsweek magazines, the American Research Group, NPR, the LA Times, Quinnipiac University, and Marist University.


Anonymous said...

I have also noticed that the actual winner is always picked more times by the poll than the loser. In other words it appears to be a trend that whomever is winning the most polls will be the winner.

luke.thmpsn said...

The polls all seem to have some error i would like to see a variance or standard deviation result because the averages don't say what might happen if the polls are all incorrect in one direction say, in this election an over active democrat base that might not vote in the election or a higher level of poll activity by certain groups

I beleive McCain is closer than everyone thinks

jerry lopiz said...

kids that typically permits this for you to capable to notice any advance organizations likelihood is that that prime simply can value many terribly to use. watch specializing in creating every and each seeing in significance sizzling whereas cordial, basically, conscious, what's myriad valuable, numbers people is alright consequently you will acquire your own specific commitment. visit see auto title loans mobile associate YOU day cash upgrades house in no time that we've degree inclination to zone unit on the purpose of screen the stock for your state of affairs.

Erica Sally said...

We receive our safer to produce your own house mortgages loans acknowledging all-around basically beneficial, People wants need to have that you just often look for men and ladies bad credit payday loans chicago around the short-run history of credit score wishes.

Patti E. Shuff said...

The circumstances are similar to those of a payday enhance enhance loan; a customer receives a predetermined cash credit ranking score available for immediate withdrawal. The amount is deducted, along with a fee, usually about 10 percent of the economical loan, when the next immediate down payment is posted to the customer's concern. After the programs attracted regulatory attention, Wells Fargo known as its fee "voluntary" payday loans huntsville and provided to waive it for any purpose.

Erica Sally said...

You must create an instant choice to push through or not with your xmas loans poor credit ranking program since if this company finds the related loan company for you, you have to have to choose payday loans there and then.

Erica Sally said...

However, the possibilities to implement for financial financial loan is not just solely confined to these three. Violet Payday Economical loans opinions stocks that they have at payday loans least 190 financial suppliers all in all.