Connect with us

Education

How U.S. polls got it wrong in 2016 — and why they’re more likely to get it right this time

Published

on

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election defied long odds and the widespread assumption that Hillary Clinton had the contest in the bag. That experience led many to suspect that — no matter how big Joe Biden’s lead is this time — it’s inevitable that Trump will prove the polls wrong again.

That’s a possibility, of course. But a lot has changed since 2016.

The CBC’s Presidential Poll Tracker gave Clinton a 3.4-point lead in national polls over Trump on election day. She was projected to win North Carolina and Florida by narrow margins, with Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looking safer for the Democratic nominee.

Instead, Trump won all of these states and secured more than the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the White House. He won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than a percentage point, but these states proved decisive.

With forecasters estimating Clinton’s odds of victory at anywhere from 71 per cent to 99 per cent, the result came as a shock. The assumption that the polls were wrong — massively wrong — has become part of the lore of the 2016 election.

Actually, the polls weren’t far off the final result at all. Clinton did win the popular vote, besting Trump by 2.1 points. So the total error in national polls was quite small — in line with, and even little better than, past performances in national U.S. polling since 1972.

State-level polling was worse. The polls overestimated Democratic support by about four points in Michigan and Pennsylvania, about five points in North Carolina and six points in Wisconsin. But the overall performance of state-level polls was also in line with the last few decades.

The problem wasn’t that the polls had missed the mark completely. The problem was where they missed the mark — which turned out to be in the few states that ended up greatly affecting the outcome of the race. If the Democrats had instead been under-estimated by a few points — as was the case in the 2012 election won by Barack Obama — Clinton’s margin would have only been padded and there would have been no polling controversy.

Instead, there is probably more doubt right now about Biden’s 11-point lead over Trump than there should be. The polls aren’t telling the same story they did in 2016 — and they aren’t telling that story in the same way.

Counting the voters who were missed in 2016

The polling error that did occur in 2016 wasn’t a fluke. Something did go wrong — and many pollsters have taken steps to avoid the same thing happening again.

The politics and data journalism website FiveThirtyEight surveyed a series of American pollsters to find out what changes they had made to their methodologies since 2016. The most common change has been that pollsters are now weighting their samples by education.

The fact that many pollsters did not do this in 2016 was cited as one of the main sources of the error in a post-election report by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). According to the report, only half of national pollsters weighted by education in 2016.

Only a third or fewer of the firms polling the Midwestern states where Trump scored his biggest upsets weighted their results by education in 2016.

Pollsters weight their samples by different factors, such as age, gender, region or household income, to ensure that various demographics are properly represented.

Failing to weight by education boosted Clinton’s numbers in some key swing states because pollsters weren’t getting enough responses from voters without college degrees. These voters broke for Trump by a margin of seven points nationwide and by 37 points among white non-college graduates alone, according to exit polls.

Now that more pollsters are weighting for education, the chance of making the same error in 2020 should be reduced. But it’s an open question whether these voters will be as decisive this time.

According to a recent poll by Marist, Biden is beating Trump among non-college graduates by a margin of three points. In the last Marist poll conducted before election day in 2016, Clinton was losing the non-college graduate vote by 11 points.

Biden’s lead is bigger, broader than Clinton’s

According to the CBC’s Presidential Poll Tracker, an aggregation of all U.S. polls, Biden is leading Trump by a margin of 10.8 points among decided voters. At this stage of the 2016 campaign, Clinton was leading by only 4.8 points.

In some states, Biden is doing far better than Clinton was this far out from election day. He’s leading by wider margins in Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. He’s ahead of Trump in Arizona and Georgia — states where Clinton was trailing by about three points at this stage of the campaign. In Texas, Trump is ahead by only 0.9 points. In 2016, Clinton was behind in Texas by nearly 12 points.

The Midwestern states are looking redder than they did at this stage in 2016. On average, Trump is doing 1.8 points better now than he was at this point in the campaign four years ago in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Former vice president Joe Biden is doing better than Hillary Clinton was at this point in the 2016 presidential election campaign in several states, including Florida. (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press)

By that measure, Trump would win Michigan and Wisconsin if the polls are off to the same degree they were in 2016. That would also swing North Carolina over to his column and perhaps Pennsylvania.

But 2016’s error wouldn’t be enough to overcome Biden’s lead in Arizona, Florida or Georgia. Without those states, Trump can’t win the White House.

And the changes pollsters have made since 2016 make it difficult to compare polls in this campaign to polls in the previous campaign. If pollsters were still failing to include enough non-college graduates in their samples today, Biden’s apparent polling lead in the Midwest might be even greater.

Biden is better liked than Clinton was

It’s important to note that Biden and Clinton are also very different candidates.

At the end of the 2016 campaign, the RealClearPolitics average put Clinton’s favourability at just 42 per cent, with 54 per cent of Americans holding an unfavourable view of her. Trump’s numbers were worse (38 per cent favourable, 59 per cent unfavourable) but he performed very well on election night among those who disliked both Clinton and Trump.

According to exit polls, those voters represented 18 per cent of the national electorate and they broke for Trump by a margin of 17 points. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, those voters backed Trump over Clinton by an average margin of 28 points.

Voters who disliked both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supported Trump in bigger numbers at the ballot box in 2016, according to exit polls. (Rick Wilking/Reuters)

As of Friday, RealClearPolitics puts Biden’s favourables at 51 per cent and his unfavourables at 44 per cent. Among those Americans who dislike both Biden and Trump, one recent poll suggests Biden is beating Trump by a margin of seven-to-one.

A two-horse race with few undecideds

Another difference between 2016 and 2020 is that very few American voters are sitting on the fence this time.

At this point of the last campaign, FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average suggested that 15.4 per cent of voters were either undecided or leaning toward a third party candidate. That number was still 12.5 per cent on election day — the highest such percentage since 1996.

As of Friday, it was just 5.7 per cent. That’s another strike against Trump’s hopes of pulling off an upset. Exit polls suggested Trump won the voters who made up their minds in the last week of the 2016 election campaign by three points nationwide, and by an average of 19 points in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

That helped him a lot last time. This time, there aren’t enough undecided voters still available to swing this election for Trump.

Worry about the voting, not the polls

In the end, there are better reasons to have doubts about the outcome of this election than the performance of the polls in 2016. One reason is the pandemic. The other is the man in the White House.

WATCH | First-time voter says he has ‘hard decision’ to make:

A first-time Latino voter in Florida says it was hard choosing whom to vote for in the U.S. presidential election. 4:54

COVID-19 has fundamentally shifted how Americans are voting in this election. Millions more will be voting by mail. These ballots historically have had a higher rate of rejection than those cast in person. Trump has suggested — without evidence — that mail-in voting will be rife with fraud and has hinted that he would not participate in a transition of power if he deems the election to have been unfair.

Early voters form a long line while waiting to cast their ballots in Durham, N.C. on Thursday. Some waited almost three hours to vote. (Gerry Broome / Associated Press)

In many states, restrictions and regulations will make it complicated to vote by mail and difficult to vote in person. The United States has a long, sad history of attempts to prevent some Americans — particularly Blacks and Hispanics — from casting ballots. The pandemic can make such attempts easier.

The president and his surrogates have worked to de-legitimize the voting process and have mused about court challenges after the election — something Trump himself has used as justification for appointing a new Supreme Court justice while his Republicans still have control of the Senate. After a year of protests and rioting across the United States, the threat of more violence resulting from a contested election is very real.

In light of all this, whether the polls will be off again by a few percentage points probably should be the least of anybody’s concerns.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Education

CBU to honour Donald Marshall Jr. with new research centre

Published

on

By

A new research institute planned for Cape Breton University will honour the legacy of Donald Marshall Jr., who fought for the Indigenous right to fish for a moderate livelihood.

The Mi’kmaw man’s name has been invoked in recent weeks by Indigenous fishermen in southwest Nova Scotia who have launched self-regulated lobster fisheries. 

“I think it’s very timely in terms of the need for knowledge sharing, for advocacy and for action,” said Janice Tulk, a senior researcher in the university’s development department. 

The idea for the institute has been in the works for a couple of years, sparked by one of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which emphasized the need for education about Indigenous law and Indigenous rights.

Donald Marshall Jr. addresses a crowd in Sydney, N.S., after leading a peaceful protest over Indigenous fishing rights, on Thursday, Sept. 28, 2000. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

“We started thinking about what could we do at Cape Breton University that would respond to that call,” said Tulk, whose areas of expertise include Mi’kmaw history and culture, as well as Indigenous economic reconciliation.

Tulk said the university has partnered with Cape Breton’s Mi’kmaw communities over the past 40 years to provide higher education in a variety of fields, with the creation of Mi’kmaw studies programs, Mi’kmaw science programs and more recently, Indigenous business and mentorship programs. The university saw the research institute as a next opportunity, said Tulk.

‘I think it’s amazing’

Cape Breton University will work with members of the Marshall family over the coming months to solidify the vision for the institute.

“I think it’s amazing,” said Crystal Bernard, Donald Marshall Jr.’s daughter.

“We’re so humbled and honoured that they would do this for him, in his name. And I know he would be very proud, as well.”

The idea was made public Monday as the university unveiled plans for a proposed, $80-million Centre for Discovery and Innovation. The project has yet to receive funding, but should it go ahead, it will house the Marshall Institute.

“We need a space where community collaboration can occur,” said Tulk, noting the institute will proceed with or without the new building.

Janice Tulk’s expertise includes Mi’kmaw history and culture, as well as Indigenous tourism development and economic reconciliation. (cbu.ca)

That collaboration will involve university researchers, faculty members and students, as well as community members and organizations such as the Bras d’Or Lakes Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative and the Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources, as well as various levels of government.

“I think we’re going to have some really valuable conversations that will advance our understanding of environmental justice and Indigenous approaches to climate change, and hopefully start to make some progress on those things through those dialogues, through advocacy, through policy change,” said Tulk.

Asked what role the institute might play in situations such as the current unrest over the Indigenous moderate livelihood fishery in Nova Scotia, Tulk said it would serve to help educate people about treaties and Indigenous rights.

“I would imagine that there would be advocacy as well,” said Tulk. “Certainly the institute could play a role in bringing stakeholders together to have honest conversations and collaboratively come up with solutions.”

Bernard said she believes her father would be disappointed by the ongoing situation in southwest Nova Scotia.

“I think it would be very upsetting to him that we’re having to go through this again,” she said.

“On the other hand, I think he’d be on the front lines, fighting with our people, trying to get people to understand that the treaty rights are not up for debate.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Education

Calgary Catholic school increases safety precautions after district’s ‘explosion’ of COVID-19 cases

Published

on

By

Just last week, the number of positive COVID-19 cases in the Calgary Catholic School District was in the low twenties. But over the weekend, there was an “explosion of cases,” which has led some schools to take drastic steps to prevent the spread of the virus.

Chief superintendent Bryan Szumlas says there are now 64 students and six teachers within the district who have active cases of COVID-19.

“Over the weekend, we saw an explosion of cases.… This is like a three times increase in the last five days. I believe this is what we’re seeing now as a result of the gatherings that happened over the Thanksgiving long weekend,” he said. “Within Calgary Catholic, we have 118 schools, and 35 of our schools right now are dealing with active cases of COVID-19.”

Szumlas said dealing with COVID-19 in schools is an always evolving situation.

“After a 14-day period, some of these schools come off the list where others go on the list. Since the beginning of the school year, it has been a roller-coaster of ups and downs,” he said.  “Right now, we are at a low point and we’re asking all of our parents and our students to please be vigilant and to continue to practise our health measures as we go forward.”

Szumlas said there were roughly 1,000 students in isolation last week, but since then that number has more than doubled, and there are now about 2,400 students and staff who are in self-isolation.  

“Now, that number may seem fairly large, but to put it in perspective, our school district has just over 56,000 students. So that’s roughly 3.5 to four per cent of our total population,” he said.

“Of course, it worries me, but I have a lot of faith that working together with our communities, that this is a little blip right now and we can, if we work together, we can change that curve and bring it down, if we’re all working together and continuing to practise our health measures.”

The recent surge in cases at Calgary Catholic has lead some schools like St. Francis High School to take a more severe approach to curbing cases within the school population. 

In a letter home to St. Francis parents on Monday, the principal announced that five families had received confirmation of a student testing positive for COVID-19, and thus 300 students and 12 staff were in isolation.

As a result of the rise in cases, St. Francis will end its fall athletic program.

“This is necessary to reduce staff and students potentially needing to self-isolate because of a positive COVID-19 case. The start of our winter athletic season will also be postponed until we see a drop in positive cases at Saint Francis,” wrote principal Mark Berger.

The school has also chosen to make final exams “write to improve” only (meaning a lower grade can’t bring down the student’s overall mark).

Szumlas said he supports these moves. 

“I do support what this principal and the school is doing. This is innovative, collaborative. They’re informing their parents. We stand behind this and it is part of the assessment practices,” he said. 

Berger’s letter also appealed to parents to not let teens gather on weekends.

“Some of the positive cases reported were associated with weekend student gatherings. We ask families to consider the potential negative impacts of group gatherings on our school community,” said Berger.

“We are asking parents to discuss with their children the importance of social distancing, avoiding large gatherings and the sharing of food and beverages.”

The Calgary Board of Education, since the beginning of the school year, has had 140 positive cases and 80-plus schools affected by them. 

In October, the CBE said 3,300 students and 325 staff members had been impacted by mandatory isolations. 

Of those attending CBE’s in-person learning, five per cent of students and 3.5 per cent of staff have been affected by required quaranties since September.

“To date, we have had six cases of suspected in-school transmission,” said CBE superintendent of school improvement, Joanne Pittman.

“What I would also say, though, is that even with that suspected in-school transmission, individuals who may have then tested positive have already been in quarantine, and as a result, additional actions were not required because of the safety precautions already put into place. “

CBE board chair Marilyn Dennis said parents should be encouraged by these numbers. 

“The fact that we have only 0.1 per cent of in-person students and .06 per cent of staff that have been identified with a positive case, I would think that would be very encouraging for families,” she said. 

“The strength of it is, No. 1, that we have strong compliance due to the protocols we put in place [and], No. 2, that we have been thorough in our response. We think we can be proud of the work that we’re doing in our schools to try and keep our communities healthy.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Education

Corrections watchdog urges moratorium on doctor-assisted deaths in Canadian prisons – Kamloops This Week

Published

on

By

Continue Reading

Trending