People Say Polls Don't Matter Right Now but History Shows Otherwise

[Doctor Jack]

So, we are rapidly approaching the month of July but people continue to say that the polls don't matter right now, we can't trust them, they are inaccurate, etc. I did some digging and found that since 1952, the candidate leading in the polls in early July have won 12 of 17 elections (70%) and those leading by the second half of July have won 16 of 17 (94%). So, unless polls show Trump taking a sudden lead in the next week or two, history says the boy might as well pack it in and go home.



1952:

Leading in July=Eisenhower
Winner of the Election=Eisenhower

1956:

Leading in July=Eisenhower
Winner of the Election=Eisenhower

1960:

Leading in July=Kennedy
Winner of the Election=Kennedy

1964:

Leading in July=Johnson
Winner of the Election=Johnson

1968:

Leading in July=Humphrey's early in the month, Nixon in the 2nd half
Winner of the Election=Nixon

1972:

Leading in July=Nixon
Winner of Election=Nixon

1976:

Leading in July=Carter
Winner of Election=Carter

1980:

Leading in July=Carter first half, Reagan in 2nd half
Winner of Election=Reagan

1984:

Leading in July=Reagan
Winner of Election=Reagan

1988:

Leading in July=Dukakis
Winner of Election=Bush

1992:

Leading in July=Clinton
Winner of Election=Clinton

1996:

Leading in July=Clinton
Winner of Election=Clinton

2000:

Leading in July=Bush
"Winner" of Election=Bush

2004:

Leading in July=Kerry
"Winner" of Election=Bush

2008:

Leading in July=Obama
Winner of Election=Obama

2012:

Leading in July=Obama
Winner of Election=Obama

[lunamagica]

1. It's not July yet.

[PJMcK]

2. Good research

Very interesting data, Doctor Jack. Let's see what happens over the next four weeks.

[Hortensis]

3. That's interesting. Thanks, Doctor Jack.

[rock]

4. Interesting

But polls have slowly been deteriorating over the last decade or so. I am referring to the quality of the polls and how scientific they are done.

[mythology]

5. In June 1992 Clinton was behind in the race

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

We have pre-election polls and exit polling to make an assessment of what impact Perot actually had on the outcome. In a three-way match-up nationally, in early June 1992, Perot led with 39%, Bush was second with 31%, while Bill Clinton trailed with 25%, according to Gallup. Perot exited the race during the Democratic convention in mid-July. In the immediate aftermath of the convention, Gallup had Clinton leading Bush 56% to 34%, clearly a post-convention bounce.

In 1988 from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.

In September 2000

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/13/us/2000-campaign-polls-poll-shows-gore-overcoming-voter-concerns-likability.html?pagewanted=all

Forty-two percent of registered voters said they would back Mr. Gore if the election were held today, and 39 percent said they would vote for Mr. Bush. Four percent said they would back Ralph Nader, the Green Party nominee, and 2 percent would favor Patrick J. Buchanan of the Reform Party.

So can you cite your claims as you didn't do that?

[Doctor Jack]

6. That's why I "July", not "June"

and I said in about two weeks, if Trump isn't ahead, he is almost certainly going to lose.



Clinton was behind slightly in June but ahead by July in 1992. I never claimed otherwise.


And I said that Dukakis was ahead in July. Bush wasn't ahead until September in 1988. That is where the 96% of candidates ahead in the 2nd half of July have won comes in. I never said 100%.

[RAFisher]

7. People don't understand statistics and nobody likes ties.

I believe research as shown the polls become more accurate before the elections. But to your point, leading in the polls means nothing unless the greater than the margin of error. Polls have sampling error. But polls months before an election are less accurate than polls the day before. So that's more error that could be calculated by looking at past elections.

Johnson was over 50 points ahead of Goldwater in June 1964. But Obama was only 2 points ahead in June 2012. You can't treat both Johnson and Obama as winning without looking at the error. If a candidate leads in the poll all it means that they aren't losing. They could be in a statistical tie or winning. But the media doesn't find it exciting to say people are statistically tied so they just make it seem like a horse race.