The Mythical Swing Voter

Cross-sectional surveys conducted during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign showed large swings in support for the Democratic and Republican candidates, especially before and after the first presidential debate. Using a unique (in terms of scale, frequency, and source) panel survey, we find that daily sample composition varied more in response to campaign events than did vote intentions. Multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) is used to correct for selection bias. Demographic post-stratification, similar to that used in most academic and media polls, is inadequate, but the addition of attitudinal variables (party identification, ideological self-placement, and past vote) appear to make selection ignorable in our data. We conclude that vote swings in 2012 were mostly sample artifacts and that real swings were quite small. While this account is at variance with most contemporaneous analyses, it better corresponds with our understanding of partisan polarization in modern American politics.

[1]  H. Himmelweit,et al.  Memory for Past Vote: Implications of a Study of Bias in Recall , 1978, British Journal of Political Science.

[2]  K. L. Schlozman,et al.  Organized interests and American democracy , 1986 .

[3]  H. Weisberg,et al.  Measuring Change in Party Identification in an Election Campaign , 1988 .

[4]  R. Little.  Post-Stratification: A Modeler's Perspective , 1993 .

[5]  Diana C. Mutz.  Effects of Horse-Race Coverage on Campaign Coffers: Strategic Contributing in Presidential Primaries , 1995, The Journal of Politics.

[6]  Larry M. Bartels.  Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996 , 2000 .

[7]  Jonathan N. Katz,et al.  Poststratification Without Population Level Information on the Poststratifying Variable With Application to Political Polling , 2001 .

[8]  J. Zaller.  The statistical power of election studies to detect media exposure effects in political campaigns , 2002 .

[9]  D. Hillygus,et al.  Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy , 2003 .

[10]  Larry M. Bartels,et al.  Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable ? , 2004 .

[11]  Party Identification Weighting-Experiments To Improve Survey Quality , 2005 .

[12]  A. Gelman,et al.  Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. , 2008, AJS; American journal of sociology.

[13]  Todd G. Shields,et al.  The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns , 2008 .

[14]  M. Fiorina,et al.  Political Polarization in the American Public , 2008 .

[15]  Joseph Hilbe,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2009 .

[16]  J. Krosnick,et al.  Computing Weights for American National Election Study Survey Data , 2009 .

[17]  Jeffrey R. Lax,et al.  How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in the States , 2009 .

[18]  Matthew Levendusky.  The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans , 2009 .

[19]  D. Yeager,et al.  Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples , 2011 .

[20]  A. Gelman,et al.  Polls and Elections Understanding Persuasion and Activation in Presidential Campaigns: The Random Walk and Mean Reversion Models , 2012 .

[21]  A. Gerber,et al.  Who Wants to Discuss Vote Choices with Others? Polarization in Preferences for Deliberation , 2013 .

[22]  A. Gelman,et al.  Deep Interactions with MRP: Election Turnout and Voting Patterns Among Small Electoral Subgroups , 2013 .

[23]  A. Kapteyn,et al.  The RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll , 2013 .

[24]  John M. Sides,et al.  The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election - Updated Edition , 2013 .

[25]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  Collective Intelligence , 1999 .

[26]  The RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll , 2014 .