Why are exit polls so accurate while pre-voting intention polls largely rubbish?  The UK election showed this stark reality where opinion polls leading up to the election showed a close race whereas the exit poll accurately measured a Labour Party landslide victory with an 80 seat majority (in actuality the majority came in at 82).  The UK exit poll sampled 2200 electors at 200 polling booths during the first half of the voting day.  The statistical sample size was no larger than surveys of pre-election voting intentions.  It is tempting to say that exit polls capture the opinions of actual voters whereas the inaccuracies of voting intentions capture non-voters, but this is not an argument in favour of systematic error.

My theory is that the majority of electors who matter, the swing voter, makes up his/her mind in the polling booth itself.  They may enter the voting station having answered a pre-poll survey one way but then, when actually pulling the lever, decide to do something else, which they report on exit.  The pre-election opinion polls are therefore just as accurate as the exit polls, however they are measuring a different thing.  Intentions are very different from actualities.

I cannot help thinking that this will again be the case in the current US Presidential election.  The media now report that  Kamala Harris is ahead in ‘polls of polls’ by a small margin but it is difficult to fathom a small margin given who she is running against.  Donald Trump evokes just as much vitriol amongst his haters (liberals, assassins, the media) as he evokes patriotism amongst his supporters.  It is hard to imagine a close outcome in this environment with whomever manages to stick in the mind of the swing-voter in the polling place on election day.  There are two points here,

1.  The US Presidential race is wide open now and will be until election day
2. The winner, if you agree with my thesis, will be the candidate who leaves the most indelibly positive impression on voters lever-in-hand.

To this second point, Harris’s game plan seems to be to stay out of the public arena and let other actors define Trump negatively (US celebrities, the media, Trump himself when off-message).  Trump, on the other hand, so long as he remains on message (MAGA, immigration) is then left free to present his case, even in front of an unsympathetic media.  It strikes me that Harris’s controlled absence prevents her from making that positive recall amongst the swing-voter on election day. Trump seems to be in the box seat and it is Harris who has let him get there…

There’s an old saying in advertising that goes ‘…if you have something to say, say it, if you don’t, sing it…’.  This seems apt.  Perhaps Harris should start practicing her Arias while its not too late?

 

Do you like what you read? Then subscribe to our blog below…

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human: