November 2004
A lot of people are writing now about why Kerry lost. Here I want to examine a more specific question: why were the exit polls so wrong?
In Ohio, which Kerry ultimately lost 49-51, exit polls gave him a 52-48 victory.
And this wasn't just random error.
In every swing state they overestimated the Kerry vote.
In Florida, which Bush ultimately won 52-47, exit polls predicted a dead heat.
(These are not early numbers.
They're from about midnight eastern time, long after polls closed in Ohio and Florida.
And yet by the next afternoon the exit poll numbers online corresponded to the returns.
The only way I can imagine this happening is if those in charge of the exit polls cooked the books after seeing the actual returns.
But that's another issue.)
Forget why Kerry lost; why were the exit polls so wrong?
In Ohio, which Kerry lost 49-51, exit polls gave him 52-48. Not random error: every swing state overestimated Kerry, and Florida, which Bush won, looked a tie.
And these aren't early numbers — yet by next afternoon they matched the returns, as if someone cooked the books after seeing them.
Everyone's asking why Kerry lost; I want the narrower question of why the exit polls were so wrong, overestimating Kerry in every swing state.
What happened?
The source of the problem may be a variant of the Bradley Effect.
This term was invented after Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, lost an election for governor of California despite a comfortable lead in the polls.
Apparently voters were afraid to say they planned to vote against him, lest their motives be (perhaps correctly) suspected.
It may be a variant of the Bradley Effect, named after Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles who lost a governor's race despite a comfortable lead — voters wouldn't admit they'd vote against him.
The problem may be a variant of the Bradley Effect, named when a black mayor lost despite a comfortable lead because voters wouldn't admit they planned to vote against him.
It seems likely that something similar happened in exit polls this year.
In theory, exit polls ought to be very accurate.
You're not asking people what they would do.
You're asking what they just did.
How can you get errors asking that?
Because some people don't respond.
To get a truly random sample, pollsters ask, say, every 20th person leaving the polling place who they voted for.
But not everyone wants to answer.
And the pollsters can't simply ignore those who won't, or their sample isn't random anymore.
So what they do, apparently, is note down the age and race and sex of the person, and guess from that who they voted for.
In theory exit polls ought to be very accurate: you're not asking what people would do, but what they just did.
So where's the error? Some don't respond, and pollsters can't ignore them without spoiling the sample — so they note age, race, and sex and guess the vote.
Exit polls should be very accurate — you ask what people just did, not what they would. The error comes from non-respondents, whose votes pollsters guess from age, race, and sex.
This works so long as there is no correlation between who people vote for and whether they're willing to talk about it.
But this year there may have been.
It may be that a significant number of those who voted for Bush didn't want to say so.
This works only if there's no correlation between how people voted and whether they'll talk about it. This year there may have been: many Bush voters wouldn't say so.
That guessing works only if there's no correlation between who you voted for and whether you'll admit it. This year there may have been: many Bush voters may not have wanted to say so.
Why not?
Because people in the US are more conservative than they're willing to admit.
The values of the elite in this country, at least at the moment, are NPR values.
The average person, as I think both Republicans and Democrats would agree, is more socially conservative.
But while some openly flaunt the fact that they don't share the opinions of the elite, others feel a little nervous about it, as if they had bad table manners.
For example, according to current NPR values, you can't say [blocked] anything that might be perceived as disparaging towards homosexuals.
To do so is "homophobic."
And yet a large number of Americans are deeply religious, and the Bible is quite explicit on the subject of homosexuality.
What are they to do?
I think what many do is keep their opinions, but keep them to themselves.
They know what they believe, but they also know what they're supposed to believe.
And so when a stranger (for example, a pollster) asks them their opinion about something like gay marriage, they will not always say what they really think.
Why not? Because Americans are more conservative than they'll admit. The elite's values, at the moment, are NPR values.
The average person is more socially conservative; some flaunt it, but others feel nervous, as if they had bad table manners.
By NPR values you can't say [blocked] anything disparaging toward homosexuals — that's "homophobic." Yet many are deeply religious and the Bible explicit, so they keep quiet.
They know what they believe and what they're supposed to believe, so a stranger asking about gay marriage won't always hear it.
Americans are more conservative than they'll admit. The elite's values are NPR values, so some keep their real opinions to themselves and won't tell a pollster what they actually think.
When the values of the elite are liberal, polls will tend to underestimate the conservativeness of ordinary voters.
This seems to me the leading theory to explain why the exit polls were so far off this year.
NPR values said one ought to vote for Kerry.
So all the people who voted for Kerry felt virtuous for doing so, and were eager to tell pollsters they had.
No one who voted for Kerry did it as an act of quiet defiance.
When elite values are liberal, polls underestimate ordinary voters' conservatism. NPR values said vote Kerry, so his voters felt virtuous and eager to say so. No one voted Kerry as quiet defiance.
When elite values are liberal, polls underestimate ordinary voters' conservatism — Kerry's voters felt virtuous and eager to say so; no one voted for Kerry as an act of quiet defiance.
A linked appendix: Rasmussen's polling on support for a woman president.