Polling and Prediction in the 2016 Presidential Election

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 01 May 2017Publisher:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)Journal:Computer, volume 50, pages 110-115 (issn: 0018-9162,

Copyright policy )

Authors: Nicholas A. Valentino; John Leslie King; Walter W. Hill;

doi: 10.1109/mc.2017.139

Polling and Prediction in the 2016 Presidential Election

- Summary
- Metrics

Abstract

In the wake of experts' failure to predict the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, a rigorous analysis of what went right and wrong is needed to improve future polling. Despite claims that "data is dead," low-tech factors such as sampling errors and inaccurate likely-voter models were probably most responsible.

Related Organizations

University of Michigan–Flint
United States
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
United States
St. Mary's College of Maryland
United States

Impact byBIP!

	selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	12
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%