Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004-3027
T 202/691-4000
Poll Power
“Pollsters and pundits” has become a dismissive epithet in modern politics. Pollsters, at least, deserve much better.
As the votes were counted on the night of this past January’s New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, pollsters and other professionals in the political game began to grapple with an uncomfortable fact: Virtually all of them had been dead wrong. Despite unanimous poll results predicting a Barack Obama victory (by an average of eight points) on the heels of Senator Obama’s surprising triumph in the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton was going to emerge the winner.
To read the rest of this article, please consider becoming a WQ subscriber, which allows online access to the current WQ issue as well as archive content. Other access options are below.
Research, browse, and discover more than 35 years of articles, essays, and reviews by preeminent scholars and writers. Our searchable archive of back issues is free for WQ subscribers.
 |
 |
 |
Subscribe today
to the WQ Online
and receive immediate access
to the WQ archive for a full year.
Subscribe Now
-
Scott Keeter is director of survey research for the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C. A political scientist and survey methodologist, he is the author of A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen (2006), among other books.
more from this author >>
The Irrational Electorate
A Princeton political scientist reveals that many of our worst fears about America’s voters are true.An Admirable Folly
From afar, America’s presidential contests often look more like playground antics than a shining example of democracy. But looks can be deceiving.Bury the Hatchet
The antidote to frenzied partisanship won’t be found in politics as usual but in problem-solving leaders who govern from the center.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and in no way represent the views or opinions of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. This section is moderated by Wilson Quarterly staff.
Reality?
Nice article. But you say: "Whatever their pitfalls, election polls face the ultimate measure of accountability: reality" You seem to make the assumption that the results of the election are closer to reality than the polls. Insecure voting machines, and other forms of corruption make this a questionable assumption. Your other points about polling bias are quite reasonable. I'm not saying this is the only factor, just that it should be considered.
Posted by: Voter | 10/27/08
Let's not go overboard
It is possible to appreciate the legitimate value of polling without underselling their limitations as representations of reality (the reality that we asked questions about). Anyone who hasever given or taken a multiple choice examination out to be alive to the distortions and contortions involved in attributing anything like reality to polls. Polls are at their best when they're about raw intention. Beyond that, polls are pretty much the same as market segmentation: they can help the "company" serve customers better, but the price is that they are going to have good platform for manipulating the consumers as well. Which brings us to the issue of the power of polls. "Momentum", which is arguably the final word in an election, reinforces the worst side of the electorate: its herd instinct.
Posted by: Jon | 10/28/08
..what's his point?
... hard to follow this long, meandering essay by Mr Keeter -- what is his primary point & purpose here ?? Glorification of polls & pollsters seems to be the theme. He does make the rare confession that the typical Pew 'response-rate' is only 22% in their polling process. Such a shockingly low response-rate negates any claim of "scientific" validity to Pew (..and other major) polls. Such poll 'results' are little more than mere guesses of true public opinion.
Posted by: westerden | 10/29/08
your analogy re: polling
using a blood test as an example of small sample polling is, on its face, absurd. Humans are not part of a single organism with the same chemistry and environmental inputs nor are we circulated continuously throughout the US like corpuscles. we are isolated independent and, with the exception of the tepid dirty bathwater of media nonsense we are subjected to, our experiences and environmental are vastly different. Not a valid argument
Posted by: Jamie | 10/29/08