Here Are My Nominees For Phrase of the Year

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


I mentioned yesterday that I remain pretty relaxed about the latest presidential polls. To explain this, I’d like to nominate two phrases of the year: response rates and reversion to the mean.

Response rates

I haven’t written about this before, but it’s been a hot topic of conversation in polling circles this year. In a nutshell, lots of pollsters have come to believe that voters are less likely to respond to polls when their candidate does badly. YouGov, which uses a panel-based polling system that allows them to re-interview people, says this:

After the first presidential debate in September, we reinterviewed 2,132 people who had told us their vote intentions a month before. 95 percent of the September Clinton supporters said they intended to vote for her….Of the Trump supporters, only 91 percent said they were still planning on voting for Trump….The net effect was to increase Clinton’s lead by almost four points. That was real change, though significantly less that the ten point change to Clinton’s lead seen in some polls….Other events, however, have not had any detectable impact on voting intentions. We did not see any shifts after the release of the Access Hollywood video, the second or third presidential debates, or the reopening of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails.

….Although we didn’t find much vote switching, we did notice a different type of change: the willingness of Clinton and Trump supporters to participate in our polls varied by a significant amount depending upon what was happening at the time of the poll: when things are going badly for a candidate, their supporters tend to stop participating in polls. For example, after the release of the Access Hollywood video, Trump supporters were four percent less likely than Clinton supporters to participate in our poll. The same phenomenon occurred this weekend for Clinton supporters after the announcement of the FBI investigation.

The chart on the right shows what happened to YouGov’s response rates after the second debate: people who had voted for Obama in 2012 answered the phone more, while people who had voted for Romney answered the phone less. This produces a swing in the final poll results, but it’s meaningless. The same people are still out there, and they’re mostly still planning to vote for the same person.

The whole YouGov piece is worth a read, because it does a good job of explaining what this phenomenon is all about, as well as offering possible solutions. But the bottom line is simple: A lot of the poll swings we see in presidential campaigns are probably illusions, demonstrating only changes in the willingness to be polled, not changes in voting intention. If this gets confirmed, it represents a genuine sea change in how we interpret polls.

Reversion to the mean

This theory about response rates might explain another phenomenon that’s been much in evidence this year: reversion to the mean. You can see it pretty clearly in Sam Wang’s meta-margin:

Up through July, Hillary Clinton was ahead of Trump by a steady 3.5 points. Then she got a big spike after the Democratic convention, but it quickly reverted to around 3.5. Then she dropped a bunch after some email news and her fainting spell on 9/11—but again, the trendline quickly reverted to 3.5. Then she spiked again after the second debate and the Access Hollywood video, but reverted to 3.5 yet again.

Clinton could easily lose another point before Election Day, or she could revert back to 3.5 and stay there. I’d bet on reversion to the mean. This election features two candidates who have been around a long time and are both very well known. Almost everybody made up their minds pretty early, and nothing much has changed for the past 12 months. Hillary Clinton will most likely win by 3-4 percentage points, plus maybe a little extra because she has a way better ground game.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest