Homepage
Success Feed
Results
of
a
Baldwin
Wallace
University
research
project
help
to
explain
the
widespread
inaccurate
margins
in
"horserace"
polling
leading
up
to
the
2020
presidential
election.
A team of student and faculty researchers tested two theories about why statewide polling accurately identified President Trump as the winner in Ohio but understated the margin of his lead over Joe Biden. Similarly, statewide polling accurately identified Biden as the winner in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but overstated his margins. They also examined the issue of narrower margins in national polls.
The research team found evidence supporting two possible sources of polling error. First, the ambivalent or mixed attitudes undecided voters had toward Trump. Second, strong Trump supporters may have been less likely than other voters to participate in public opinion polls, leaving their voices underrepresented.
BW political science professor Dr. Lauren Copeland and sociology professor Dr. Julie Newcamp organized the Faculty-Student Collaboration (FSC) course to study possible sources of polling error and to identify ways to improve the accuracy of public opinion polls.
To
test
the
idea
of
undecided
voter
ambivalence,
the
researchers
used
a
statistical
software
program
to
analyze
pre-election
survey
data
from
Baldwin
Wallace
University's
Great
Lakes
Poll,
which
the
Community
Research
Institute
collected
in
October
2020.
They
also
dissected
2020
pre-election
survey
data
from
the
American
National
Election
Studies.
According to Copeland, the research confirmed that undecided voters had mixed attitudes toward Trump and appear to have broken Trump's way on election day.
"Although a supermajority (70%) of undecided voters approved of Trump's handling of the economy, only about one-third (35%) approved of his handling of the pandemic," Copeland explains. "That finding held across both polls. It's possible undecided voters voted for Trump on election day based on pocketbook issues."
To
test
the
idea
that
Trump
supporters
were
less
likely
to
share
their
opinions
with
pollsters
at
all,
the
research
team
convened
a
focus
group
with
a
large
conservative
grassroots
organization.
Students designed the qualitative focus group instrument and Sarah Giddings '23, president of BW's College Republicans, facilitated the session.
Preliminary findings suggest that strong Trump supporters may participate in public opinion polls at lower rates.
"These voters may be less likely to participate because they do not trust the organizations that conduct public opinion polls, including academic research centers," said Giddings. "Instead, GOP voters believe that poll results are released to suppress the conservative vote, as well as to change people's opinions, not to accurately measure them."
One focus group participant stated, "People have gotten to the point where not only you don't trust practically any media, no matter what it is. I hate to say this, but we don't trust our medical field. We don't trust our government; we don't trust anyone or anything at all."
Copeland says the level of mistrust makes it hard to solve the poll participation issue.
"The participants said they would be more likely to participate in polls conducted by students at BW because they would feel that they are helping someone," Copeland explains. "They also said when the polls get it right, trust will follow. But, it's a vicious cycle because polling accuracy can't increase if strong Trump supporters don't participate."
Students presented their preliminary results at BW's annual Ovation Day of Excellence, which featured more than 135 original research and creative projects.
