It's looking like our election day model was pretty accurate, except for the Florida senate race which we called correctly but the margin was off.
Florida
PollFair Call: Trump +11
Actual Result: Trump +13
PollFair Call: Scott +8
Actual Result: Scott +13
Nevada
PollFair Call: Trump +4
Actual Result: Trump +4
PollFair Call: Rosen +3
Actual Result: Rosen +2
Arizona (90% in)
PollFair Call: Trump +6
Actual Result: Trump +7
PollFair Call: Gallego +1
Actual Result: Gallego +2
Our election day model is partially based on average polling crosstabs, providing more evidence that the poll surveys themselves were actually quite accurate and just the original poll weightings were wrong in many cases.
Based on election day electorate so far, and electorate of the early and mail-in vote, we're currently projecting:
Florida:
🔴Trump +11
🔴Scott +8
Arizona:
🔴Trump +6
🔵Gallego +1
Nevada:
🔴Trump +4
🔵Rosen +3
(Based on the 30-day rolling average of state party id crosstabs)
It's looking like our election day model was pretty accurate, except for the Florida senate race which we called correctly but the margin was off.
Florida
PollFair Call: Trump +11
Actual Result: Trump +13
PollFair Call: Scott +8
Actual Result: Scott +13
Nevada
PollFair Call: Trump +4
Actual Result: Trump +4
PollFair Call: Rosen +3
Actual Result: Rosen +2
Arizona (90% in)
PollFair Call: Trump +6
Actual Result: Trump +7
PollFair Call: Gallego +1
Actual Result: Gallego +2
Our election day model is partially based on average polling crosstabs, providing more evidence that the poll surveys themselves were actually quite accurate and just the original poll weightings were wrong in many cases.
Based on election day electorate so far, and electorate of the early and mail-in vote, we're currently projecting:
Florida:
🔴Trump +12
🔴Scott +8
Arizona:
🔴Trump +7
Senate TIED
Nevada:
🔴Trump +4
🔵Rosen +3
(Based on the 30-day rolling average of state party id crosstabs)
Pre-election favorability ratings suffered from the same weighting issues that caused polls to be inaccurate in calling the election itself, which caused Harris/Walz to appear liked and Trump/Vance to appear disliked. You can see closer to reality in the exit polls.
@TheXclamationX We thought they were only counting mail in ballots at this point, which is why it has swung in Whitesides favor, but we could be wrong.
@PerfectUnion87 Good question. From what we've seen some devise a weighting based on various dynamics, others use the survey itself to influence the weighting, or a combination of the two. It is certainly open to mistakes and/or abuse.
It looks like the average weighting from national polls ended up being just a fraction above D+0. Preliminary results from exit polls suggest the real environment was R+3.
Toward the end, we saw the more accurate pollsters homing in on R+2, but during the whole campaign we saw anything ranging from R+2 to D+7. We find it hard to believe any pollster truly thought D+7 would be accurate.
The interesting thing is the party-id crosstabs in most polls were close to accurate - if you apply an R+3 weighting you generally get results ranging from a tie to Trump +3 nationally from most polls, and our average would be Trump +2.
So, there was nothing wrong with the surveys themselves in the main - it was almost entirely a weighting issue, as we suspected.
This was our most viewed post of the election cycle for whatever reason. We got a lot of flak for what we are doing, but ironically it looks like this Fairweighted poll might end up being dead on accurate - Baldwin +1. Read the comments if you need some entertainment this morning!
@chompyfone We were very confident we'd turn out to be more accurate than most polls, even though we ended up being too far left in some cases. And that ended up being true.
Having seen the success of our poll "Fairweighting" experiment, do you think that poll re-weighting is a valid exercise? Would you like to see more of it in future elections?
Please leave your reasons/opinions/thoughts in the comments below.