The votes are counted. Likud surged in the home stretch, making them the largest party in the new Knesset. The fifth-largest party, Kulanu, is likely to play an outsized role in determining who the next Prime Minister will be. This means that Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to office is not quite a done deal.
March 18th, 2015, 2:09am by Sam Wang
March 17th, 2015, 3:19pm by Sam Wang
What are you reading?
March 17th, 2015, 10:07am by Sam Wang
wow, what? –> in “bombshell 12 hours from election,” Tzipi Livni forgoes rotating premiership agreement with Herzog http://t.co/bivJLqXCY5
— Taniel (@Taniel) March 17, 2015
If pre-election polls hold up – and there is some question now, since Israeli law prohibited publication of polls over the weekend – Labor/Hatnuah (also known as the Zionist Camp) may well get the first chance to form a ruling coalition of a majority of the newly-elected 120 Knesset members. On the face of it, it would not seem that Likud-plus (Likud plus natural allies on the right) can get to 61 seats easily. However, Labor’s difficulties are quite substantial, a problem which has become quite apparent upon further analysis. For this reason, Netanyahu’s chances of retaining at least some power are probably better than I thought before.
The last few days of the Israeli campaign have been quite a spectacle… [Read more →]
March 14th, 2015, 6:03pm by Sam Wang
Note: updated to reflect final polls and some reader comments like this one.
Israeli elections are Tuesday, March 17th – St. Patrick’s Day! Israeli politics is rococo in its complexity, but let’s take a look at the data. Bottom line, there is a substantial chance of Netanyahu being ousted as Prime Minister. In the context of Israeli politics, his US speech looks like a Hail Mary pass. [Read more →]
February 28th, 2015, 6:30am by Sam Wang
I’m looking for a research assistant at Princeton to work on a gerrymandering project at a scholarly level, i.e. for academic research. It will also have practical implications. There’s a posting at the Student Employment office – look for posting #35677! For now, students only please.
January 20th, 2015, 11:50am by Sam Wang
In a recent CBS poll, Republican voters were asked who they wanted to see run for President. In terms of the net yes-minus-no percentage, leading the pack were Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. Trailing, but still with net positives were Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson. In negative territory were Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. Bringing up the rear? Chris Christie and Sarah Palin.
Palin is an interesting “control experiment” since her political career is basically over. Using her to define a maximum lack of enthusiasm (1 Palin unit, or 100 centiPalins), and Mitt Romney to set the high-enthusiasm end (0 centiPalins), Governor Christie is at 77 centiPalins. Whatever it is that GOP voters want, it doesn’t come from New Jersey.
January 2nd, 2015, 1:13pm by Sam Wang
Since mid-December, President Obama’s net approve/disapprove numbers have shot up. This graph shows the median of the last 21 days of polling. The current level, a net disapproval of only 2%, reflects six pollsters (Gallup, Rasmussen, CNN, ARG, YouGov/Economist, and ABC/Post). These are his highest numbers since early 2013. What is going on?
First, a caveat. A jump of this size and suddenness is surprising. Reasons should be offered with care. For example, I still don’t have a good explanation for the dive in Obama’s numbers in June – and that was a drop of similar size. Still, this recent jump occurred with multiple pollsters, suggesting that it’s a real phenomenon and not some artifact of changing methods.
To identify possible causes, we should look to events prior to the jump. The obvious event is the President’s newfound liberation from the pressures of the election cycle. Since the November election, the President has done the opposite of what many people expected: he showed strong assertiveness to Congress (shortly after November 4), acted boldly on immigration (November 20), made frank public statements on race (December 17), and normalized relations with Cuba (December 17). Could it be that voters like a strong leader?
It could be asked whether, from an electoral standpoint, these actions would have been welcome before the election. However, that is a mixed bag. Consider an alternative scenario, in which Obama had acted like this earlier. That might have been worse for his policies since loss of the Senate was still likely, as well as retained GOP control of the House. Those defeats would then cast a shadow on Obama’s actions and lead to pressure to reverse them. In the current situation, the President has little reason to change course.
I’ll get out on a limb with a speculation: If this “real Obama” uptick lasts, it might demonstrate a benefit to Democrats if they act, with vigor, like Democrats. With a newly invigorated President and a Congress in full opposition, the coming year will be worth watching.
Postscript: The most plausible trigger seems to be normalization with Cuba, which was huge news and reminded people of the unique power of the Presidency. This is a time when crosstabs would be helpful. Is the uptick concentrated among Hispanics? Democrats? Independents? For now, I leave that to readers and other analysts…
November 10th, 2014, 9:26am by Sam Wang
At The American Prospect: Tweet
In the home stretch, I wrote that midterm polling is far less accurate than in Presidential years. Today, in The American Prospect, I detail how this year’s polling errors are correlated with voter turnout, which was the lowest since 1942, as based on Michael McDonald’s tabulation so far. In 2014, Democrats underperformed expectations by over 5 percentage points on average, the largest such error in over 20 years. State by state, underperformance was correlated with low turnout. This suggests that voter apathy on the Democratic side was a significant factor in the 2014 election. Here’s the article.
From a polling standpoint, estimating turnout is likely to be a major source of systematic error. Here are some details of this year’s GOP “bonus.” [Read more →]
November 5th, 2014, 11:41am by Sam Wang
Pre-election PEC Senate aggregate: 52 Republican seats.
Outcome: 52 or more Republican seats (Alaska is not called, and Louisiana goes to a runoff).
As I wrote in The New Republic, last night’s performance by the GOP was remarkable. In close Senate races, Republicans outperformed polls by an average of 5.3 percentage points. Prime examples of that effect could be seen with Republican wins in Kansas and North Carolina, two races that went against pre-election polls.
In gubernatorial races, Republicans outperformed polls nearly 2 percentage points on average. This was enough to put Paul LePage of Maine (tied), Rick Scott of Florida (tied), and Bruce Rauner of Illinois (Quinn +2.0%) over the top. All in all, Republicans had an excellent night.
Historically, midterm polling is much more prone to large biases than in Presidential years. In 2010, Democrats benefited; in 2014, it was Republicans. In six Senate races that were polling within less than three percentage points, two were won by the lagging candidate. That is entirely in line with past results. Added to the median poll-based snapshot of 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats+Independents, the result could be as large as a convincing 54-46 majority.
Before the election, I pointed out the possibility that polling bias could go in either direction. It is likely that pollsters face a tough challenge in identifying likely voters in an off-year.
With control the Senate so closely fought, even a small bias put into question who would control the chamber. And, as I wrote, it also opened the possibility of a GOP blowout. I said we didn’t know what would happen. Maybe we can call that my Peggy Noonan moment.
Over the weekend I suggested Brier scores as a way to compare predictions. Aggregators and analysts did worse than in 2012, when polls did not miss any races (PEC Brier score, 0.01; scores close to zero are considered good).
I used final probabilities as listed at The Upshot to calculate Brier scores. The lowest (and therefore best) score came from Drew Linzer (DailyKos Elections), who took a Bayesian polls-only approach and ended up with a Brier score of 0.10. Coming in second was The Washington Post with a mostly-polls approach, at 0.12. Next came HuffPost, FiveThirtyEight, and Betfair got 0.14, followed by The Upshot at 0.15. And finally we have PEC, with 0.18. Although the number of “misses” (i.e. being on the wrong side of 50% probability) was no worse than the other sites, we were done in by an across-the-board lack of certainty, which we predicated on the unreliability of midterm polls. Congratulations to Drew Linzer!
Postscript: as pointed out by commenter Paul, Drew Linzer shines even more if his calculation’s performance in the several months prior to the election is included.
P.P.S.: Doug Rivers at YouGov has evaluated his own organization’s miss of actual-voter behavior, as well as that of other polling organizations. The findings seem consistent with what I’ve reported here.
November 4th, 2014, 9:23pm by Sam Wang
See below the fold for older commentary. The most recent comment will appear up top.
12:10am: Tonight’s performance by the GOP has been quite remarkable. In close Senate races, Republicans seem to be outperforming polls by around 5 percentage points. That goes a long way toward explaining what is happening in Virginia. In close gubernatorial races, Republicans are outperforming polls by about 3 percentage points.
I did say that historically, midterm polling can be off in either direction by a median of 3 percentage points – far worse than Presidential years. Tonight is certainly consistent with that.
11:30pm: Ernst will win Iowa. Other than New Hampshire, it’s looking like a sweep of close races by Republicans. Counting CO, GA, IA, KS, and NC gets to 52. Alaska and Louisiana are still outstanding, but that’s icing on the cake for the GOP.