DOCSLIB.ORG

London, United Kingdom 2020 Presidential Election Research Six

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London, United Kingdom 2020 Presidential Election Research Six London, United Kingdom 2020 Presidential Election Research Six Swing States 7 September 2020 Methodology Arizona Pennsylvania Sample Size: 830 Sample Size: 1053 Fieldwork Dates: 30.08.2020 - 04.09.2020 Fieldwork Dates: 30.08.2020 - 03.09.2020 Margin of Error: 3.40% Margin of Error: 3.02% North Carolina Michigan Sample Size: 951 Sample Size: 967 Fieldwork Dates: 30.08.2020 - 03.09.2020 Fieldwork Dates: 30.08.2020 - 03.09.2020 Margin of Error: 3.18% Margin of Error: 3.15% Florida Wisconsin Sample Size: 1093 Size: 670 Fieldwork Dates: 30.08.2020 - 03.09.2020 Fieldwork Dates: 30.08.2020 - 04.09.2020 Margin of Error: 2.96% Margin of Error: 3.78% Interview Method: Online Web Survey (compatible with both computers & smartphones). Survey questions were available in English and Spanish. Populations Sampled: Representative samples of registered voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Sampling Method: Representative samples were selected through registered panel providers. Weighting: Data weighted according to the profile of adults (18+) in each state. Data weighted by age, gender, region, education level, race, and 2016 Presidential Election Vote. Targets for age, gender, education, and race were derived from the 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.1 Targets for region based on the county-level estimates by the US Census; categorization of counties into regions our own.2 Targets for past vote were derived from the official results of the 2016 Presidential Election. Turnout Weighting: In order to best assess the current voting intention of the public, we asked respondents how likely they are to vote in the Presidential Election on November 3rd, based on a well-defined scale of 0 to 5, where each number is carefully defined as follows: 0 (Definitely will not vote) 1 (Probably will not vote) 2 (Leaning towards not voting, but could vote) 3 (Leaning towards voting, but might not vote) 4 (Probably will vote) 5 (Certain to vote) Their likelihood to vote was then weighted to the subsequent answers they gave when asked whom they would vote for. The voting intention of those who responded ‘5’ were weighted by a factor of 1.0, ‘4’ by a factor of 0.8, ‘3’ by a factor of 0.6, ‘2’ by a factor of 0.4 and ‘1’ by a factor of 0.2. Those who responded ‘0’ were not asked at all whom they would vote, because it was considered that they would not vote. For our voting intention questions for US Senate and State Governor elections, we presented respondents with a separate likelihood to vote question for those specific races in order to weight appropriately. It is important to note that our turnout weighting does not aim to predict turnout itself but only aims to marry respondents’ actual enthusiasm for voting to their stated voting preferences. Those who said they are not registered to vote in the States surveyed were excluded. 1 For age, gender, race and education estimates, see: data.census.gov 2 For county-level data, see: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html 2 Methodology Voting Intention: After being asked their likelihoods to vote, respondents were then asked for whom they will vote in November if they were to vote. The possible responses, presented in a randomized order, were "Donald J. Trump (Republican)", "Joseph R. Biden (Democrat)", “Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian)”, “Howie Hawkins (Green)”, "Other (Third Party/Write-In", and "Don't Know". The option “Kanye West (Independent)” was included in those states where he could still qualify to be on the ballot. Those who said they were certain not to vote were not prompted and were counted as 'won't vote' Our voting intention results presented here incorporate respondents’ stated likelihood to vote. Margin of Error: Because only a subset of the American population was surveyed for this research, all results are subject to a margin of error. By consequence, not all differences are statistically significant, especially among subsamples. The margin of errors provided above mark the range within which the true value falls if 50.0% of respondents gave a particular answer to a question––the worse-case scenario from the perspective of margin of error––at a 95.0% confidence level. Subsample results from crosstabs are subject to a higher margin of error due to their lower sample sizes. Conclusions drawn from small subsamples should be treated with caution. We particularly emphasize caution when reporting on any subsample figures where the base is below 50 respondents. * Due to rounding, some percentages presented below may add up to 99 or 101. * Questions presented below are shown in the order that they were presented to respondents. Additional information: Redfield & Wilton Strategies is a member of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its rules.3 3 See: http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/officers-members/ 3 Presidential Election On a scale from 0 to 5, how likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020? Arizona (n = 830) Pennsylvania (n = 1053) 0 (I will definitely not vote) 6% 0 (I will definitely not vote) 4% 1 (I will probably not vote) 2% 1 (I will probably not vote) 3% 2 (I will lean towards not voting, but I 3% 2 (I will lean towards not voting, but I might 7% might still vote) still vote) 3 (I will lean towards voting, but I might 5% 3 (I will lean towards voting, but I might not 3% not vote) vote) 4 (I will probably vote) 9% 4 (I will probably vote) 10% 5 (I will certainly vote) 75% 5 (I will certainly vote) 73% North Carolina (n = 951) Michigan (n = 967) 0 (I will definitely not vote) 6% 0 (I will definitely not vote) 5% 1 (I will probably not vote) 4% 1 (I will probably not vote) 2% 2 (I will lean towards not voting, but I 5% 2 (I will lean towards not voting, but I might 4% might still vote) still vote) 3 (I will lean towards voting, but I might 7% 3 (I will lean towards voting, but I might not 2% not vote) vote) 4 (I will probably vote) 11% 4 (I will probably vote) 9% 5 (I will certainly vote) 68% 5 (I will certainly vote) 77% Florida (n = 1093) Wisconsin (n = 670) 0 (I will definitely not vote) 5% 0 (I will definitely not vote) 6% 1 (I will probably not vote) 5% 1 (I will probably not vote) 2% 2 (I will lean towards not voting, but I 7% 2 (I will lean towards not voting, but I might 3% might still vote) still vote) 3 (I will lean towards voting, but I might 6% 3 (I will lean towards voting, but I might not 4% not vote) vote) 4 (I will probably vote) 9% 4 (I will probably vote) 8% 5 (I will certainly vote) 69% 5 (I will certainly vote) 77% 4 For whom will you vote in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020? (Answer codes were randomized.) Arizona (n = 830) Pennsylvania (n = 1053) Donald J. Trump (Republican) 43% Donald J. Trump (Republican) 43% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 48% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 48% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 0% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 1% Kanye West (Independent) 0% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 1% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 0% Don’t Know 7% Don’t Know 6% North Carolina (n = 951) Michigan (n = 967) Donald J. Trump (Republican) 44% Donald J. Trump (Republican) 40% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 43% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 51% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 0% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 1% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 1% Don’t Know 9% Don’t Know 7% Florida (n = 1093) Wisconsin (n = 670) Donald J. Trump (Republican) 44% Donald J. Trump (Republican) 41% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 47% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 50% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 2% Howie Hawkins (Green) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 0% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 1% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 0% Don’t Know 6% Don’t Know 6% 5 How certain, if at all, are you now that you will indeed vote for the candidate you have just selected over the other candidates presented? (Answer codes were randomized. Asked to those who say they will vote, except those that do not know who they will vote for.) Arizona (n = 718) Pennsylvania (n = 924) 0 – Not at all certain 3% 0 – Not at all certain 1% 1 – Somewhat certain 5% 1 – Somewhat certain 8% 2 – Moderately certain 11% 2 – Moderately certain 14% 3 – Extremely certain 82% 3 – Extremely certain 77% North Carolina (n = 823) Michigan (n = 829) 0 – Not at all certain 2% 0 – Not at all certain 1% 1 – Somewhat certain 7% 1 – Somewhat certain 6% 2 – Moderately certain 17% 2 – Moderately certain 15% 3 – Extremely certain 73% 3 – Extremely certain 78% Florida (n = 959) Wisconsin (n = 583) 0 – Not at all certain 2% 0 – Not at all certain 1% 1 – Somewhat certain 7% 1 – Somewhat certain 6% 2 – Moderately certain 16% 2 – Moderately certain 14% 3 – Extremely certain 76% 3 – Extremely certain 79% 6 Comparison to Past Results If you are to vote in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020, how will you vote? (Answer codes were randomized.) Arizona May June July August September Donald J. Trump (Republican) 41% 39% 38% 38% 43% Joseph R. Biden (Democrat) 45% 43% 46% 47% 48% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) — 2% 2% 2% 0% Howie Hawkins (Green) — 1% 1% 1% 1% Kanye West (Independent) — — 2% 2% 0% Other (Another Third Party/Write-In) 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% Don’t Know 11% 13% 11% 10% 6% North Carolina May June July August September Donald J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Swing Voters Instruments of Democracy Or Farmers of Clientelism? Evidence from Ghana
    = = = = = = = = Are Swing Voters Instruments of Democracy or Farmers of Clientelism? Evidence from Ghana Staffan I. Lindberg Keith R. Weghorst = = = = QoG WORKING PAPER SERIES 2010:17= = THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg Box 711 SE 405 30 GÖTEBORG June 2010 ISSN 1653-8919 © 2010 by Staffan I. Lindberg and Keith R. Weghorst. All rights reserved. The authors wishes to acknowledge insightful comments on earlier version from Leonardo Arriola, Dominic Lisanti, Kristin Michelitch, and participants in both the Comparative Politics Colloquium at University of Florida and the Quality of Government workshop at Marstrand 17-19 May, 2010. The survey was carried out in collaboration with research officers at Center for Democratic Development-Ghana and we also wish to recognize the excellent work by the 49 assistants we trained for the field work during summer 2008. The research project was sponsored by the Africa Power and Politics Programme, with funding provided by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). As always, the content, errors, omissions, and flaws of the text is the responsibility of the authors. Are Swing Voters Instruments of Democracy or Farmers of Clientelism? Evidence from Ghana Staffan I. Lindberg Keith R. Weghorst QoG Working Paper Series 2010:17 June 2010 ISSN 1653-8919 Abstract: This paper is one of the first to systematically address the question of whether strength of ethnic identity, political parties’ candidates campaign strategies, poverty, or evaluation of clientelism versus collective/public goods, determines who becomes persuadable voters (swing voters) in new democracies. It brings together three of the major research streams in comparative politics – the literatures on development, democracy, and political clientelism – to properly situate the swing voter as – potentially – the pivotal instrument of democracy and antidote to the public goods deficit in failed developmental states.
    [Show full text]
  • The Election
    Forecast error: what’s happened to the polls since the 2015 UK election? By Timothy Martyn Hill [originally published at significancemagazine.com] When British Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election for 8 June 2017, it seemed like a smart move politically. Her Conservative Party was riding high in the opinion polls, with a YouGov poll in the Times giving them 44%, a lead of 21 points over her nearest rivals, the Labour Party[0514a]. Were an election to be held the next day (as surveys often suppose[0514b]) May looked to be on course for a convincing win and an increased majority in the House of Commons. But then came the obvious question: “Can we actually trust the polls?” The media seemed sceptical. Though they had not shied away from reporting poll results in the months since the 2015 general election, they were clearly still sore about the errors made last time, when survey results mostly indicated the country was heading for a hung parliament. So, can we trust the polls this time around? It’s not possible to say until we have election results to compare them to. But what we can do is consider the work that’s been done to try to fix whatever went wrong in 2015. There’s a lot to cover, so I’ve broken the story up by key dates and periods: • The election – 7 May 2015 • The reaction – 8-10 May • The suspects • Early speculation – 11 May-18 June • The Sturgis inquiry meets – 19 June • The investigation focuses – 20 June-31 December • Unrepresentative samples indicted – 1 January-30 March 2016 • The Sturgis inquiry report – 31 March • A heated debate – 1 April-22 June • EU referendum and reaction – 23 June-19 July • US presidential election and reaction – 20 July-31 December • The calm before the storm – 8 December 2016-18 April 2017 • Have the polls been fixed? The election – 7 May 2015 The night before the 2015 General Election, the atmosphere was tense but calm.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusion: an Election That Satisfied Few and Solved Little
    This is a repository copy of Conclusion: An Election that Satisfied Few and Solved Little. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/137841/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Tonge, J, Leston-Bandeira, C orcid.org/0000-0002-6131-4607 and Wilks-Heeg, S (2018) Conclusion: An Election that Satisfied Few and Solved Little. Parliamentary Affairs, 71 (suppl_1). pp. 267-276. ISSN 0031-2290 https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx069 © The Author 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society; all rights reserved. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Parliamentary Affairs following peer review. The version of record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx069 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Conclusion: An Election that Satisfied Few and Solved Little Jonathan Tonge, Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Stuart Wilks-Heeg Rarely can a partial election victory have felt so akin to a defeat for a party.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mountain to Climb: Labour's 2020 Challenge Andrew Harrop May 2015
    The mountain to climb: Labour’s 2020 challenge Andrew Harrop May 2015 Fabian Society 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.fabians.org.uk This paper, like all publications of the Fabian Society, represents not the collective views of the Society but only the views of the author. This publication may not be reproduced without express permission of the Fabian Society. - 1 - Key points Labour will need to win at least 106 seats in 2020 to secure a majority, after taking account of the forthcoming boundary changes. The electoral swing required in marginal seats to win a majority will be over twice that which Labour needed for victory in 2015. This assumes a similar rate of progress in England/Wales and in Scotland; if Labour makes no gains in Scotland, the party would need to perform better in England and Wales than at any time since 1997. Around 4 out of 5 of the extra (net) votes Labour will need to gain in English and Welsh marginals will have to come direct from Conservative voters (in 2015 this figure was around 1 out of 5, because of the Lib Dem meltdown). ‘English Votes for English Laws’ no longer poses a separate challenge to Labour, over and above the task of winning a UK majority. It is actually slightly easier for Labour to win a majority of English seats than of UK seats. But an anti-Tory alliance led by Labour would find it harder to achieve a majority in England (under EVEL) than across the UK. An alliance of parties could achieve a UK majority by gaining 38 seats but would need to gain 71 seats for an English majority.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Vote and Elections: the Role of the Election Methods and Polls in an Agent-Base Simulation Framework
    Popular vote and elections: the role of the election methods and polls in an Agent-Base Simulation framework Econophysics Course 2018 Davide Fallara Dipartimento di Fisica Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Fisica dei Sistemi Complessi Università degli studi di Torino Anno accademico 2017/18 1 Abstract The aim of this work is to simulate the parties rally of a small state divided in constituency, how dierent election methods change the nal outcome and how the poll may interfere with the results, in order to do that we have develop a simulation in NetLogo. There are dierent set of data related to dierent election already held as inputs, this model not only show the dynamics of the opinions amongs the electorate, but also try to emphasize the pros and cons of some dierent electoral system as First Past the Post, Proportional and Winner Takes All. There is also a discussion about Poll's Bias, and how to estimate it. The agents have dierent properties that try to simulate some psychological eects as herd eect and conrmation bias, there is also a tentative to simulate the fact that the people may lie to the polling rm. 2 Introduction When you want to model society and social behavior the main issue is that you want to represent something that usually it's uncountable, especially when you refer to the politics, that is always a slippery eld. An old school approach, based on equation will be not only dicult, but also almost impossible to implement, so a new kind of approach that is becoming quite classic it's ABM or Agent-Base Modeling.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics Revision Guide Uk Government and Politics
    POLITICS REVISION GUIDE UK GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS Contents UK Politics Topic 1- Democracy and Participation • Key ideas in Politics o What is Politics? o What is power? o What is authority? • Forms and functions of democracy? • Development of the franchise • Participation • Is there a participation crisis? • Rights and Responsibilities • Is the UK a liberal democracy? • How do different groups vote? • Explaining voter choice • Election case studies Topic 2- Elections and Direct Democracy • Functions of elections • Elections in the UK • Types of electoral systems • Positives and negatives of different electoral systems • Referendums • Types of referendums • Should we use more referendums? Topic 3- Political Parties • Introduction and roles of political parties • Ideologies and Party Systems • Conservatives • Labour • Minor Parties • Ideological Convergence • Party Finance • Are parties still relevant? Topic 4- Pressure Groups • What are pressure groups? • Functions of pressure groups • Why are pressure groups important? • Why do people join pressure groups and why have they increased in number? • Classifying pressure groups • Pressure group methods • Direct Action • Factors influencing success • Pressure groups and pluralism • Are pressure groups good for democracy? Topic 5- The European Union • What is the EU? • Aims of the EU? • How has the UK seen the EU? • Key Institutions • Is there a democratic deficit? • EU Policy-making • The impact of the EU on UK politics UK Government Topic 1- The Constitution • Feature of the UK constitution
    [Show full text]
  • Election Forecasting
    ORiON Volume 34 (2), pp. 83{106 ISSN 0259{191X (print) http://orion.journals.ac.za ISSN 2224{0004 (online) c 2018 From SA to the USA: Election forecasting JP Holloway∗ HW Ittmanny N Dudeni-Tlhonez PMU Schmitzx Received: 22 November 2017; Revised: 25 April 2018; Accepted: 11 May 2018 Abstract Elections draw enormous interest worldwide, especially if these involve major coun- tries, and there is much speculation in the media as to possible outcomes from these elections. In many of these recent elections, such as the UK and USA, however, fore- casts from market surveys, electoral polls, scientific forecasting models and even exit polls, obtained from voters as they leave the voting stations, failed to predict the correct outcome. Election night forecasts, which endeavour to forecast the ultimate result before the final outcome is known using early results, were also carried out, with some more accurate than others. After successfully predicting most of the metropolitan region results correctly in the South African local 2016 municipal elections, using an election night forecasting model developed for South Africa (SA), the question of adapting the model to work outside of SA on a different electoral system was raised. The focus of this paper is to describe the results obtained for the 2016 USA presidential election, on election night, using an adapted version of the SA model. This paper also addresses the applicability of the model assumptions as well as the data issues involved in forecasting outside of South Africa. It is shown that even with many hurdles experienced in the process the model performed relatively well.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneers of Qualitative Research
    Life Story Interview with Paul Thompson, 2014 Pioneers of Qualitative Research David Butler Life story interview with Paul Thompson 2014 Principle investigator’s thematic highlights UK Data Archive, University of Essex, Colchester. June 2017 SN 6226 - Pioneers of Social Research, 1996-2012. Depositor: Thompson, P. Copyright British Library 1 Life Story Interview with Paul Thompson, 2014 Contents 1. Deep Academic Roots ......................................................................................................... 3 2. War Service ......................................................................................................................... 4 3. Onto Electoral Television .................................................................................................... 5 4. Developing Electoral Statistics ........................................................................................... 5 5. Donald Stokes and Political Change in Britain ................................................................... 6 6. “Swing” ............................................................................................................................... 7 7. “Psephology” ...................................................................................................................... 8 8. The “Cube Law” ................................................................................................................. 8 9. Interviewing Political Elites ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Election 'Swingometer' Based on Notional Results in Scotland and Uniform National Swing from Labour to Conservatives
    General Election ‘Swingometer’ Standard Note: SN/SG/3430 Last updated: 18 March 2005 Author: Adam Mellows-Facer Social and General Statistics This note analyses the effect of a uniform national swing at the forthcoming General Election from Labour to the Conservatives. Note on methodology The basis of the chart overleaf is the 2001 General Election results. Notional 2001 results are used for the new constituencies in Scotland, as calculated by Denver, Rallings and Thrasher.1 Uniform national swings from Labour to the Conservatives are assumed. For example, for a 2 percentage point swing, 2 percentage points are taken off the Labour share, and added to the Conservative share, in each constituency. Shares of the vote for all other parties are assumed to stay constant. The use of uniform national swing ignores any possible local effects. Seats listed in each column are those that would change hands should such a swing occur. As well as the incremental percentage point increases, the swings where Labour loses its majority, where the Conservatives become the largest party, and where the Conservatives gain an overall majority, are also shown. The following connected Standard Notes may also be of interest: SN/SG/3373, Marginal seats SN/SG/3425, 3-way Marginal seats SN/SG/3428, Projected General Election results 1 BBC, ITN, "PA" News, Sky News, Media Guide to the New Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies, compiled by David Denver, Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. Standard Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise others.
    [Show full text]
  • Another Mountain to Climb: Labour's Electoral Challenge in the 2020S
    Another mountain to climb: Labour’s electoral challenge in the 2020s Andrew Harrop December 2019 Fabian Society 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.fabians.org.uk This paper, like all publications of the Fabian Society, represents not the collective views of the Society but only the views of the author. This publication may not be reproduced without express permission of the Fabian Society. Summary To win a majority at the next election Labour needs to gain 123 seats, almost twice as many as it required at the 2019 election. This figure actually under-states the extent to which Labour’s position has deteriorated. To secure the ‘winning post’ marginal seat Labour now needs an electoral swing of 10.3 percentage points, almost three times more than the swing it needed to win the 2019 election. Labour will need to consider intermediate goals. At the next election it will need to secure 43 seats to deprive the Conservatives of a majority (requiring less than a 4 percentage point swing), or 83 seats to govern in partnership with the SNP (requiring a 7 point swing). 63 per cent of the seats Labour needs to win are in the north, the midlands and Wales; 13 per cent are in Scotland; and 24 per cent are in southern England. 104 of the 123 seats Labour needs to win are in towns not cities (by contrast over half of existing Labour seats are in cities). Only 30 per cent of the 123 seats Labour needs to win voted ‘remain’ in the EU referendum, compared to around half of Labour’s existing seats.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservatives in Crisis
    garnett&l 8/8/03 12:14 PM Page 1 The Conservatives in crisis provides a timely and important analysis incrisis Conservatives The of the Conservative Party’s spell in Opposition following the 1997 general election. It includes chapters by leading academic experts The on the party and commentaries by three senior Conservative politicians: Lord Parkinson, Andrew Lansley MP and Ian Taylor MP. Having been the dominant force in British politics in the twentieth century, the Conservative Party suffered its heaviest general Conservatives election defeats in 1997 and 2001. This book explores the party’s current crisis and assesses the Conservatives’ failure to mount a political recovery under the leadership of William Hague. The Conservatives in crisis includes a detailed examination of the reform of the Conservative Party organisation, changes in ideology in crisis and policy, the party’s electoral fortunes, and Hague’s record as party leader. It also offers an innovative historical perspective on previous Conservative recoveries and a comparison with the revival of the US Republican Party. In the conclusions, the editors assess edited by Mark Garnett and Philip Lynch the failures of the Hague period and examine the party’s performance under Iain Duncan Smith. The Conservatives in crisis will be essential reading for students of contemporary British politics. Mark Garnett is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Politics at the University of Leicester. Philip Lynch is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Leicester. Lynch Garnett eds and In memory of Martin Lynch THE CONSERVATIVES IN CRISIS The Tories after 1997 edited by Mark Garnett and Philip Lynch Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave Copyright © Manchester University Press 2003 While copyright in the volume as a whole is vested in Manchester University Press, copyright in individual chapters belongs to their respective authors.
    [Show full text]
  • POLLING ERROR in the 2015 UK GENERAL ELECTION: an ANALYSIS of YOUGOV's PRE and POST-ELECTION POLLS the Polls Released by Yougo
    POLLING ERROR IN THE 2015 UK GENERAL ELECTION: AN ANALYSIS OF YOUGOV’S PRE AND POST-ELECTION POLLS DOUGLAS RIVERS AND ANTHONY WELLS 1. INTRODUCTION The polls released by YouGov and all other pollsters prior to the 2015 UK general election sig- nificantly overestimated Labour support and underestimated Conservative support. For example, YouGov’s final pre-election poll, fielded 4–6 May and released on Wednesday afternoon on the eve of the election, had Labour and Conservatives tied at 34%. In fact, Conservatives won with 37.7% of the vote, well ahead of Labour at 31.2%. The purpose of this report is to understand why we were wrong and what could be done to fix it. We have divided our analysis into three types of error. There are, of course, many potential explanations for what happened, but they fall into three broad categories: 1. Late swing. There was nothing wrong with the pre-election polls. The samples were represen- tative of the population and the results were accurate at the time the interviews were conducted, but people changed their minds after the polling was completed. 2. Misreporting. The samples were representative of the population, but respondents did not accurately report if or how they would vote. 3. Sample composition. The samples were unrepresentative of the British population and the weighting used was inadequate. These are difficult analyses to perform. Some of the variables are difficult or impossible to mea- sure. Voting is secret, so we can never definitively say whether someone has reported accurately how they voted. Further, although the size of the polling error—predicting a tossup when, in fact, Conservatives won by almost seven points—seems large, it is, in fact, a 3.7% error in the estimate of Conservative vote share.
    [Show full text]