redfield & wilton strategies - executive summary the · 2021. 1. 24. · 9 for the weighting...

1

Executive Summary Despite our consistent polling showing Joe Biden ahead of Donald Trump nationally and in most swing states, the 2020 presidential election carries a degree of uncertainty. Given the coronavirus pandemic, this election will be unlike any other before it. A significant portion of the voting population say they would not feel safe voting in person on Election Day.1 Instead, more Americans are sending their votes by mail or voting early than ever before. Traditional campaigning has been disrupted. There have been fewer (and smaller) campaign events, while get-out-the-vote ground operations have been reduced. One presidential debate was cancelled. Moreover, Americans are meeting each other in person less frequently and remain just as, if not more, siloed in partisan information bubbles than they were before the pandemic.2 To add to that, the general surprise at the 2016 result remains fresh in the public memory. With this in mind, we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies have produced this report, a pre-mortem report, to examine beforehand the ways in which Donald Trump could win the election, despite the vast majority of polling suggesting otherwise. Over the course of this past year, in addition to regular national polls, our research team has conducted several polls in six key US swing states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Our methodology closely resembles that of established pollsters in both the United States and the United Kingdom, and the results of our US polls, published in The Telegraph,3 Newsweek,4 the Washington Post,5 and other publications,6 have generally fallen in line with the averages of public polls posted in aggregators such as FiveThirtyEight, The Economist (both of which include our results), and RealClearPolitics (which does not yet include our results). With the exception of two polls in North Carolina in September, our polls have consistently shown leads for Joe Biden. Our national polling, including our final national poll conducted this past weekend, have sometimes shown the Democratic candidate leading by double digits. Our final swing state polling finds Joe Biden leading in all six states. Altogether, he leads by 2% in North Carolina, 4% in Florida and Arizona, 5% in Pennsylvania, 12% in Wisconsin, and 13% in Michigan. Our final numbers in the swing states are as follows: Arizona (26 Oct - 29 Oct) Joseph Biden (Democrat) 50% Donald Trump (Republican) 46% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 2% Howie Hawkins (Green) 0% Other 1% Don’t Know 2% Florida (27 Oct - 28 Oct) Joseph Biden (Democrat) 50% Donald Trump (Republican) 46% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 0% Other 0% Don’t Know 3%

1 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/only-a-third-of-us-electorate-intends-to-vote-in-person-on-election-day/ 2 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-american-public-believe-social-media-has-made-the-world-a-worse-place/ 3 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/exclusive-swing-state-polling-shows-biden-pulling-away-debate/ 4 https://www.newsweek.com/counties-that-flipped-obama-trump-few-care-about-law-order-poll-says-1542936 5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kanye-west-presidential-campaign/2020/07/18/7e043434-c905-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html 6 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/media-research

2

Michigan (26 Oct - 29 Oct) Joseph Biden (Democrat) 54% Donald Trump (Republican) 41% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Howie Hawkins (Green) 0% Other 1% Don’t Know 4% North Carolina (26 Oct - 29 Oct) Joseph Biden (Democrat) 49% Donald Trump (Republican) 47% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 2% Howie Hawkins (Green) 0% Other 0% Don’t Know 2% Pennsylvania (26 Oct - 29 Oct) Joseph Biden (Democrat) 50% Donald Trump (Republican) 45% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 1% Other 1% Don’t Know 3% Wisconsin (26 Oct - 29 Oct) Joseph Biden (Democrat) 53% Donald Trump (Republican) 41% Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) 2% Other 1% Don’t Know 3% In short, our polling to date indicates a likely Joe Biden victory. Nevertheless, while we are confident in our own polling, this election remains an unusual one. We have therefore identified in this report four key reasons why Donald Trump could still win.

1) Turnout: Voting intention polls tend to focus on which candidate a given set of respondents will vote for. Just as, if not more, important, however, is whether respondents will vote to begin with. In our swing-state polling, respondents who said they would vote for Donald Trump, though fewer in number, were consistently more likely to say they will certainly vote. Changing the weighting of respondents based on their self-reported likelihood to vote produces a different result, sometimes dramatically different.

2) Postal voting: As early as July, we identified that those who say they would vote for Joe Biden were significantly more likely to report feeling uncomfortable about voting in person on Election Day due to the coronavirus pandemic. In fact, among those voting by mail, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by a significant margin, while Donald Trump is significantly ahead of Joe Biden among those voting on the day of the election.7 This variation in means of voting must also factor in pollsters’ estimation of turnout.

3) Interview Method: Our polls are primarily online surveys. However, in one iteration of polling, we decided to perform an experiment and conducted two separate, simultaneous polls: one via telephone and one via online. In some states, our results were nearly identical. In others, they were different.

7 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/two-thirds-of-those-voting-by-mail-intend-to-vote-for-biden/

3

4) Social Desirability Bias: It is impossible to confirm whether respondents are genuinely telling the truth (not

only to us but even to themselves) when they say they will vote for a certain candidate or when they say they will vote at all. Moreover, those who say they ‘do not know’ how they will vote could actually know and just feel uncomfortable sharing. Respondents who did say they were likely to vote for Joe Biden or for Donald Trump were neither more nor less likely to report feeling uncomfortable sharing their voting intention with others. Interestingly, respondents were consistently more likely to guess that they neighbors were voting for Donald Trump.8 What this finding suggests about a potential social desirability bias is again unclear.

In the pages that follow, we provide an in-depth look at each of these reasons.

8 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/us-voting-intention-25-26-october-2020/

4

Turnout Any well-constructed survey of a given population, if it is to be properly representative, must be grounded in an understanding of the overall demographic composition of the population that is being sampled (i.e. gender, age, regional, educational attainment, and so forth). For pollsters, this understanding can derive from public sources of information, such as the US Census, or from independently collected data. But what is the population being sampled? Until Election Day, the composition of the population of those voting in a given election is unknown. We simply do not know how many males as opposed to females are voting, or how many of those voting have college degrees versus those who do not, and so on. Moreover, due to privacy reasons, demographic information about the population of those registered to vote (never mind the population of those actually voting) is generally not publicly available. In addition, with the obvious exception of exit polling, pollsters typically do not find their respondents on the way to vote or having just voted. Rather (and especially during the coronavirus pandemic), pollsters usually find respondents at home. Immediately after responding to a poll, a respondent might go back to work, watch Netflix, read a book, call their mother, commit a crime––in short, anything but actually vote. As such, voting intention pollsters are forced to adopt a multi-layered approach. We poll the general population, constructing our targets on the basis of the demographic data of the general population9 (typically drawing from the US Census), and then we ask respondents questions that could indicate whether or not they will vote before we even ask them for whom they will be voting. The results shown by voting intention polls are therefore conditional on pollsters’ estimation of the likelihood of their respondents to vote. If this estimation is wrong, it does not matter (in a reasonably close election) how well a pollster gauges who would vote for whom. To be clear, election pollsters are trying to answer two questions, simultaneously:

1) Who is voting? 2) How will those who are voting vote?

It is too often forgotten that election pollsters must answer and are answering the first question as well as the second question. An accurate representation of the general public is not the same as an accurate representation of the voting public.10 Who is a ‘likely voter’? Some pollsters limit their polls to registered voters. Most go even further and restrict their polls to exclusively likely voters –– but how does one determine who is a likely voter? Unfortunately, many pollsters do not publicly detail how they define a likely voter. If respondents say they will ‘probably’ vote, instead of saying they ‘certainly’ will vote, should their voting preference be considered at all? After all, you wouldn’t conduct business with someone who says they will ‘probably’ pay you, would you? And yet, some respondents who say they ‘probably’ will vote do end up voting. Even a respondent who says he or she is unlikely to vote may, in the spur of the moment, perhaps after a strange dream where they are admonished by their high school civics teacher, decide to show up to the polling station on Election Day. And then there are some respondents who say they will ‘certainly’ vote but do not end up casting a ballot, maybe because they think it is their high school civics teacher conducting the poll and feel pressured to say they will vote despite not having a clear intention of doing so.11

9 For the weighting targets we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies employ, please see the appendix of this report. 10 This differentiation is also why higher turnout usually improve pollsters’ accuracy. The higher the turnout, the more the voting public overlaps with the general public.

5

Some pollsters might be too exclusive in their determination of who is a ‘likely voter’ and leave out respondents who do turn out to vote, and others might be too inclusive in this determination and include respondents who will not vote. In our own polling across six swing states, an inclusive determination generally favors Joe Biden. Meanwhile, a stricter determination of who is a likely voter generally helps Donald Trump by narrowing Joe Biden’s lead. Likelihood to Vote In our surveys, we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies ask respondents to indicate, on a scale of 0 to 5, how likely, if at all, they are to vote. Our LTV scale is carefully defined as follows:

On scale from 0 to 5, how likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on November 3, 2020? 0 (I will definitely not vote) 1 (I will probably not vote) 2 (I am leaning towards not voting, but I may still vote) 3 (I am leaning towards voting, but I may not vote) 4 (I will probably vote) 5 (I will certainly vote)

Now that absentee ballots have been mailed out and early in person voting is well under way, we also include “I have already voted” as an option, modifying our LTV question to the following:

On scale from 0 to 5, how likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on November 3, 2020? Or have you already voted? 0 (I will definitely not vote) 1 (I will probably not vote) 2 (I am leaning towards not voting, but I may still vote) 3 (I am leaning towards voting, but I may not vote) 4 (I will probably vote) 5 (I will certainly vote) I have already voted.

Following this question, we ask respondents for whom they will vote (or have voted). Except for those who say they will definitely not vote (i.e. 0 out of 5), all respondents are provided with our voting intention question (including respondents who say they ‘will probably not vote’ or that they are leaning towards not voting). In our final voting intention result, however, we weigh the responses of respondents according to their stated likelihood to vote. Those who say they will certainly vote have their votes weighted by a factor of 1, those who say they will probably vote have their votes weighted by a factor of 0.8, those who said they are leaning towards voting are weighted by a factor of 0.6 and so on… until those who were definitely not voting have their votes weighted by a factor 0. Despite this extensive down-weighting of respondents who self-report a low likelihood to vote, our turnout weighting involves a rather inclusive consideration of who is a ‘likely voter.’ What if we instead look exclusively at those who say they will certainly vote? Across the six swing states polled, respondents who say they will vote for Donald Trump consistently say that they will certainly vote with greater frequency than those who say they will vote for Joe Biden. For instance, in polls conducted between October 16 and October 18, Joe Biden’s leads in our standard, more inclusive LTV weighting are reduced from 4% to 2% in Pennsylvania, from 7% to 5% in Arizona, from 11% to 10% in Michigan, from 8% to 7% in Wisconsin, and from 4% to tied in Florida. In North Carolina, Biden’s narrow 1% lead is even reversed to a 1% lead for Donald Trump. In one particularly dramatic instance, a Michigan poll conducted in late September sees a 12% lead for Joe Biden among our standard LTV weighting reduced to 2% when looking at only those who say they are certain to vote or have already voted. While this dramatic change does not replicate itself as extensively in more recent polls in Michigan, it nevertheless reveals a significant challenge faced by pollsters in estimating likelihood to vote.

6

In the next pages, we will show how our voting intention results have been reported, under our more inclusive LTV weighting and how our voting intention results would look under a stricter LTV weighting, whereby only respondents who say they will certainly vote are included. To be sure, Joe Biden still mostly leads Donald Trump in this viewing, but his leads are generally narrower.

7

For whom will you vote (or for whom did you vote) in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020?Donald Trump Joseph Biden Don't Know

Arizona

Aug 10 Aug 25 Sep 9 Sep 24 Oct 9 Oct 24

0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Standard LTV


0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Standard LTV vs. LTV 5/5

Florida


0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Standard LTV


0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%


Michigan


0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Standard LTV


0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%


* other candidates/answers have been excluded from the above plots but are still holding a percentage of votes

8

It is worth noting that this narrowing of Biden’s leads does not manifest itself in our national polling, but rather only in our swing state polling. In our national polls, as opposed to our polls in the six swing states, those who say they will vote for Joe Biden are roughly equally likely as those who say they will vote for Donald Trump to say they certainly will vote or have already voted.12


For whom will you vote (or for whom did you vote) in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020?Donald Trump Joseph Biden Don't Know

US National

Sep 5 Sep 15 Sep 25 Oct 5 Oct 15 Oct 25

0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Standard LTV

Sep 5 Sep 15 Sep 25 Oct 5 Oct 15 Oct 25

0%5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%



9

As more and more respondents report having voted, the sum of the number of respondents who say they are certain to vote and who say they have already voted has remained roughly constant. The percentage of respondents who select 4 or below on the 0 to 5 likelihood to vote scale remains steady. As such, we are more inclined to suggest favoring a stricter determination of who is a likely voter, which exclusively looks at respondents saying they will certainly vote or have already voted.

10

On scale from 0 to 5, how likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on November 3, 2020? Or have you alreadyvoted?

I will certainly voteI have already voted Total

US National

Aug 29 Sep 3 Sep 8 Sep 13 Sep 18 Sep 23 Sep 28 Oct 3 Oct 8 Oct 13 Oct 18 Oct 23 Oct 28

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

Aug 31 Sep 10 Sep 20 Sep 30 Oct 10 Oct 20

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

Arizona


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

Florida


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

Michigan


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

North Carolina


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

Pennsylvania


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

Wisconsin

11

Note: Given that those who respond to surveys on politics and on voting intention are more likely to be voting and willing to share they are voting, our LTV question should not serve as a prediction of what percentage of the population of registered voters will be voting. This tendency also both complicates and simplifies the process of answering the question ‘who is voting?’ identified previously. The Enthusiasm Gap Another way to gauge respondents’ likelihood to vote is to ask about their enthusiasm. Across our many national polls and our swing state polls, respondents who say they will vote for Donald Trump are consistently more likely to say they are ‘very enthusiastic’ about voting for Donald Trump than respondents who say they are voting for Joe Biden are to report being ‘very enthusiastic’ about voting for Joe Biden.

12

However, this so-called ‘enthusiasm gap’ disappears when the phrasing of the question is changed. In the question we have frequently posed to respondents, we ask them how enthusiastic they are about voting for the candidate they have chosen. When we instead posed to respondents in our most recent polls a question asking how enthusiastic they were about voting in this election, full stop, likely Biden voters and likely Trump voters said at nearly identical rates that they were ‘very enthusiastic’ about voting.

You have indicated that you will vote for Donald Trump/Joe Biden in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020. Howenthusiastic, if at all, are you about voting for him?

Donald Trump - Swing States

Donald Trump - National

Joe Biden - Swing States

Joe Biden - National

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75%

3 (Very Enthusiastic)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 (N

ot A

t All

Enth

usia

stic

)

72 polls across Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and 15 polls nationally from June 9, 2020 toNovember 1, 2020.

* The question included five different answers starting from 0: Not Enthusiastic to 5:Very Enthusiastic. In the above chart only 0 and 5 are included.

13

This distinctive variation suggests that a significant proportion of those voting for Joe Biden are primarily enthusiastic about voting against Donald Trump. Data published by us in October13 indicated that voters for Joe Biden were distinctively likely to say they were, on a scale from 0 (not at all aligned) to 10 (fully aligned), not at all aligned with the views of Donald Trump across a variety of issues. When asked for their alignment with the views of Joe Biden, far fewer of Biden’s voters said they were highly aligned with their preferred candidate. On the other hand, likely Trump voters were significantly more likely to express full alignment with the President’s views on a variety of issues.

13 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/alignment-question-illustrative-of-how-2020-election-is-a-referendum-on-donald-trump/

On a scale of 0 to 3, how enthusiastic are you about voting in this election?





0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75%

3 (Very Enthusiastic)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 (N

ot A

t All

Enth

usia

stic

)

15 polls across Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and 2 polls nationally from October 20, 2020 toNovember 1, 2020.

14

In short, the 2020 Election is seen by most as a referendum on Donald Trump. While there is neither a considerable degree of alignment with Joe Biden’s views nor enthusiasm for his particular candidacy, Biden’s voters are highly opposed to the current incumbent and are motivated to vote him out. We are therefore hesitant to suggest enthusiasm about voting for a particular candidate as a basis of determining respondents’ likelihood to vote, even as the varying level of enthusiasm for each candidate gives us reason, again, to pause.

15

Means of Voting As early as July,14 we identified that respondents saying they will for Donald Trump were significantly more likely than respondents saying they will vote for Joe Biden to report feeling comfortable about voting in person in November. Initially, we suggested that this variation could simply be an expression of optimism or pessimism regarding the potential coronavirus situation in November. With a change in the coronavirus situation, these two distinct groups could possibly coalesce around similar levels of comfort or discomfort. However, the levels of comfort or discomfort for both groups have remained remarkably constant.

Beyond feeling more comfortable voting in person than Biden voters, respondents voting for Donald Trump have been consistently more likely to say they would feel safe doing a variety of activities during the coronavirus pandemic, ranging from eating at a restaurant or drinking at a bar in an outdoor setting, to travelling to another US state. These varying attitudes towards what is safe or unsafe are also evidenced by the large, crowded rallies hosted by the Trump campaign, which contrast with the rallies hosted by the Biden campaign featuring socially distanced attendees.15

14 https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/given-coronavirus-situation-trump-voters-nearly-twice-as-likely-to-be-comfortable-voting-in-person/ 15 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2020-54742426

Considering the coronavirus situation in your state, to what extent do you think you would feel comfortable voting in personin November?





0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%

Comfortable or Very Comfortable

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Unc

omfo

rtabl

e or

Ver

y U

ncom

forta

ble

66 polls across Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and 13 polls nationally from July 9, 2020 toNovember 1, 2020.

16

The consequence of such disparate views on the pandemic is that, in numbers higher than ever before, voters are voting by mail, and these postal voters are significantly more likely to be voting for Joe Biden. In our final round of swing state polls, 73% of Joe Biden’s voters in Arizona, 51% of his voters in Florida, 64% of his voters in Michigan, 34% of his voters in North Carolina, 53% of his voters in Pennsylvania, and 61% of his voters in Wisconsin say they are voting or have already voted by mail. By contrast, 54% of Donald Trump’s voters in Arizona, 30% of his voters in Florida, 30% of his voters in Michigan, 14% of his voters in North Carolina, 19% of his voters in Pennsylvania, and 24% of his voters in Wisconsin say they are voting by mail. Altogether, a majority of Bidens voters in five of the six states polled are voting by mail. Meanwhile, more than half of respondents voting for Donald Trump in Michigan (58%), Pennsylvania (74%), and Wisconsin (57%) say they are voting in person on the day of the election. As early voting has expanded in most states, an increasing number of respondents have consistently said will vote in person but early, while fewer are saying they will vote in the person on the day of the election. Therefore, how voters decide to vote appears to be somewhat in flux. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is clear: those voting in person on Election Day will primarily vote for Donald Trump, while those voting by mail will have largely voted for Joe Biden. In-person early voters split roughly evenly. The three charts in the next page detail, in our national polling, how the popular vote in terms of means of voting has changed over time.

At this moment, would you feel safe or not safe if you did the following:

Donald Trump - National Donald Trump - Swing States Joe Biden - National Joe Biden - Swing States

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Safe %

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

Uns

afe

%

Eating at a restaurant or drinking at a bar outside

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Safe %

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

Uns

afe

%

Going outside your home at all

48 polls across Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and 13 polls nationally from August 12, 2020 to November 1, 2020.

17

For whom will you vote (or for whom did you vote) in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020?

Don't KnowJoseph BidenDonald Trump

In person, on Election Day

Sep 5 Sep 10 Sep 15 Sep 20 Sep 25 Sep 30 Oct 5 Oct 10 Oct 15 Oct 20 Oct 25 Oct 30 Nov 4

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%80%

In person, Prior to Election Day


5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%

By Mail (Absentee Ballot)


5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%80%


18

The Effect on Turnout16 The wide discrepancy in how the two groups of voters are voting is important to note because it relates to our first point on turnout. In an ordinary election, the expansion of early voting and no-excuse absentee voting would have likely served to increase turnout. But we are in the midst of a pandemic. Many voters who are voting early in person or via absentee ballot are regular voters who usually vote in person on Election Day. As such, variation in method of voting and in attitudes towards voting in person presents several complicating factors for pollsters, because something could make it easier or harder for one group of voters to turnout to vote by their preferred means of voting but could have little effect on another group of voters. Simply put, turnout by means of voting can differ. For instance, those voting on Election Day may face unprecedented long lines as polling stations practice social distancing. Factors that would encourage turnout on the day, such as a decline in fear of contracting coronavirus, will likely help Donald Trump. Factors that would discourage turnout, such as a tropical storm or long lines, will likely help Joe Biden. Meanwhile, postal voting faces its own hurdles and catalysts. Voting by mail is a multi-step process. A voter must request a ballot, receive the ballot in the mail, fill out the ballot, and then drop off the ballot at the post office or another location, such as a ballot drop box. Each of these steps will likely take place at different times, lengthening the process of voting, whereas the steps for voting in person all take place simultaneously. On the other hand, postal voters have the leisure of filling out their ballots at their own pace from the comfort and security of their own homes, making factors such as the weather or lines irrelevant. Voters voting by mail may receive their ballot days, or even weeks, before they complete it and send it off. But if they have procrastinated voting for so long already, will they even vote? In our final round of polling in the swing states concluded on Friday 30 October, 85% of those who say they will vote by mail in Arizona, 75% in Florida, 76% in Michigan, 67% in North Carolina, 79% in Pennsylvania, and 83% of those in Wisconsin say they have sent their completed and signed ballot. In our latest national poll, conducted across this past weekend, 83% of those who say they are voting by mail say they have sent their ballot off. In all seven of these final polls, these percentages are lower than the percentage of those voting by mail who say they will certainly vote or have already voted.

16 The public discussion has featured in-depth analysis of how and when postal votes are to be counted as well as the complications presented by USPS delays. As that discussion has been extensively covered elsewhere, we are limiting our study to how varying means of how people are voting factor into considerations on turnout.

19

For whom will you vote (or for whom did you vote) in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020?

Don't KnowJoseph BidenDonald Trump

In person, on Election Day


5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%80%

In person, Prior to Election Day


5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%

By Mail (Absentee Ballot)


5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%80%


20

In some instances, such as in Michigan, this difference is as wide as 10%. To be sure, any ballot mailed posted before Election Day is supposed to be counted, and some of these voters may simply decide to vote in person instead of mailing back their ballot, but ours is primarily a question of behavioral intent: if you say you are very likely to vote, but you have been sitting on your absentee ballot for several days, if not weeks, should we believe that you are still likely to cast a ballot? In essence, the two questions of the turnout section become bifurcated into four questions:

1) Who is voting by mail? 2) How will those voting by mail vote? 3) Who is voting in person? 4) How will those voting in person vote?

The in-person question can also be further separated into those voting in person early and those voting in person on the day of the election. In any case, whereas our fundamental point in the previous section on turnout is to suggest that an overestimate of turnout will overestimate Joe Biden’s leads, here we are even more nuanced in this distinction: an overestimate of turnout among those voting by mail and an underestimate of turnout among those voting in person will overestimate Joe Biden’s leads over Donald Trump.

21

Interview Method Throughout this election season, we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies have conducted our polls online. Polling online provides two key advantages: firstly, we are able to conduct polling more frequently and reach a greater number of respondents. Secondly, online polling allows for a greater number of questions to be asked at any given time, therefore allowing us to introduce variations of similar questions in order to monitor consistency, or to add more demographic information for further crosstab analysis. Even so, online polling is imperfect. It is quite possible that the views of Americans who tend to respond to online polls may somewhat differ from the general population. In this case, despite our best efforts to stratify and weight respondents in order to reflect the demographics of the United States, we are faced with the prospect of some sampling bias. An alternative (and longer established) method to conduct polling is by telephone. In the past, telephone polls had a stronger theoretical underpinning compared to telephone polls today and, also, compared to online polls conducted today. In the days before the internet, nearly everyone had a landline phone, responded to phone calls (particularly before Caller ID), and had their numbers listed in a phone book. By contrast, fewer people have landlines today and are, in any case, less willing to answer the phone from a number they do not recognize. Moreover, there is no internet equivalent of a phone book for email addresses. As such, polling in the past had a stronger claim to saying that everyone in the population sampled had an equal likelihood of responding to the survey. In other words, historical polling was closest to the ideal of probability-based sampling, a necessary component of any survey of a sample of a larger population. No sampling method today is as able to lay claim to this theoretical bulwark. Each method succeeds and fails at reaching a certain type of respondent. But, if there is to be a method in the future that comes closest to this ideal, it is more likely to be online polling given the growth in internet usership. Beyond differences in sampling, another key difference between polling methods is social desirability bias. It is possible that a respondent will be unwilling to answer a question a certain way by phone if they perceive that their interviewer might have a different view, or if the view they hold is considered to be unpopular. However, the lack of a personal connection in online polling, meanwhile, may embolden some respondents to lie or exaggerate. Ultimately, although desirability bias also has an impact on the results of online, it is generally believed to be a more significant problem in telephone polling where the tone of the interviewer can sway respondents to respond differently than they would otherwise.17 For these reasons, we have decided to use online polling as our primary interview method. Nevertheless, in an effort to test our assumptions and the accuracy of our online polling, we conducted online and telephone polls in the swing states on the same days earlier in October in order to compare the two methods. For the most part, our results were inconclusive about the relative accuracy of online versus telephone polling. In two states, Biden’s leads over Trump were nearly identical regardless of interview method, while in three states the differences between our results were within the margin of error. In Wisconsin, however, the two interview methods led to notably different results. The figures on the next page incorporate our ‘certain to vote’ only weighting.

17 Automated phone calls (i.e. interactive voice response, IVR), a method still utilized by some in the United States, is illegal in the United Kingdom and the EU.

22

Results in Arizona and Michigan did not vary substantially regardless of the interview method. In Arizona, we found a 2% lead for Biden on the telephone poll and a 3% Biden lead on the online poll, a one-point difference that comfortably falls within the margin of error of both polls. In Michigan, the results were similarly close, with Biden scoring a 9% lead in our online poll and a 10% lead in our telephone poll.

In Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, meanwhile, Biden’s respective 6%, 8%, and 3% leads in our online polls contrasts with his respective 9%, 5%, and 7% leads in our telephone polls. While these differences may appear dramatic, they are, in fact, each within the margin of error. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the percentage of respondents voting for Joe Biden are 51% (online) and 49% (telephone), and the percentage of respondents voting for Donald Trump are 43% (online) and 44% (telephone). It is important to stress that margin of error does not apply to the differences between two given responses but to one given response.18

18 For example, a 3% margin of error for a poll means a 6% margin of error for the difference between two given responses. In this instance, a lead of 5% for Candidate A over Candidate B could, in fact, be a lead of 11% for Candidate A or a 1% lead for Candidate B.

Telephone/Online Polls

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

Telephone Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

45%

48%

0%

1%

1%

3%

46%

48%

ArizonaOnline Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

44%

50%

0%

0%

1%

4%

43%

52%

Florida

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

4%

42%

51%

1%

1%

2%

5%

41%

51%

MichiganOnline Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

0%

1%

3%

46%

49%

0%

1%

1%

6%

42%

49%

North Carolina

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

1%

1%

5%

43%

51%

0%

1%

5%

44%

49%

PennsylvaniaOnline Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

0%

2%

5%

40%

53%

1%

2%

4%

45%

49%

Wisconsin

Sample Size:720___

Dates of Poll:9 - 10 Oct

Sample Size:750___


Sample Size:981___


Sample Size:1,519___


Sample Size:950___


Sample Size:994___


Sample Size:972___


Sample Size:827___






Sample Size:691___


Sample Size:613___



Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

45%

48%

0%

1%

1%

3%

46%

48%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

44%

50%

0%

0%

1%

4%

43%

52%

Florida

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

4%

42%

51%

1%

1%

2%

5%

41%

51%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

0%

1%

3%

46%

49%

0%

1%

1%

6%

42%

49%

North Carolina

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

1%

1%

5%

43%

51%

0%

1%

5%

44%

49%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

0%

2%

5%

40%

53%

1%

2%

4%

45%

49%

Wisconsin

Sample Size:720___


Sample Size:750___


Sample Size:981___




Sample Size:950___


Sample Size:994___


Sample Size:972___


Sample Size:827___






Sample Size:691___


Sample Size:613___



Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

45%

48%

0%

1%

1%

3%

46%

48%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

44%

50%

0%

0%

1%

4%

43%

52%

Florida

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

4%

42%

51%

1%

1%

2%

5%

41%

51%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

0%

1%

3%

46%

49%

0%

1%

1%

6%

42%

49%

North Carolina

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

1%

1%

5%

43%

51%

0%

1%

5%

44%

49%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

0%

2%

5%

40%

53%

1%

2%

4%

45%

49%

Wisconsin

Sample Size:720___


Sample Size:750___


Sample Size:981___




Sample Size:950___


Sample Size:994___


Sample Size:972___


Sample Size:827___






Sample Size:691___


Sample Size:613___



Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

45%

48%

0%

1%

1%

3%

46%

48%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

44%

50%

0%

0%

1%

4%

43%

52%

Florida

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

4%

42%

51%

1%

1%

2%

5%

41%

51%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

0%

1%

3%

46%

49%

0%

1%

1%

6%

42%

49%

North Carolina

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

1%

1%

5%

43%

51%

0%

1%

5%

44%

49%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

0%

2%

5%

40%

53%

1%

2%

4%

45%

49%

Wisconsin

Sample Size:720___


Sample Size:750___


Sample Size:981___




Sample Size:950___


Sample Size:994___


Sample Size:972___


Sample Size:827___






Sample Size:691___


Sample Size:613___



Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

45%

48%

0%

1%

1%

3%

46%

48%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

44%

50%

0%

0%

1%

4%

43%

52%

Florida

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

4%

42%

51%

1%

1%

2%

5%

41%

51%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

0%

1%

3%

46%

49%

0%

1%

1%

6%

42%

49%

North Carolina

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

1%

1%

5%

43%

51%

0%

1%

5%

44%

49%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

0%

2%

5%

40%

53%

1%

2%

4%

45%

49%

Wisconsin

Sample Size:720___


Sample Size:750___


Sample Size:981___




Sample Size:950___


Sample Size:994___


Sample Size:972___


Sample Size:827___






Sample Size:691___


Sample Size:613___


23

Only in Wisconsin were differences between the two polls noticeably profound. Here, a 13% lead for Joe Biden in our online poll contrasts significantly with his 4% lead in our telephone poll. Donald Trump’s vote share increases from 40% to 45%, while Biden’s vote share decreases from 53% to 49%. It is worth noting that our sample sizes in our Wisconsin polls (a state with a smaller population) are generally smaller than those in other states, and therefore the margin of error is greater.

To provide more conclusive analysis on the impact that telephone versus online polling has on results, we would need to conduct this experiment a significant number of times in order to establish clearer patterns. Unfortunately, it was not practical to conduct such a consistent level of polling through both methods in this election cycle. Nevertheless, as we consider the various ways in which Trump could still win, despite the polling saying otherwise, we must of course acknowledge that the choice of interview method might have resulted in Joe Biden’s leads appearing wider than they actually were.


Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

45%

48%

0%

1%

1%

3%

46%

48%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

5%

44%

50%

0%

0%

1%

4%

43%

52%

Florida

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins

0%

1%

1%

4%

42%

51%

1%

1%

2%

5%

41%

51%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins

0%

0%

1%

3%

46%

49%

0%

1%

1%

6%

42%

49%

North Carolina

Online Joseph Biden

Donald Trump

Don't Know

Other

Jo Jorgensen

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

1%

1%

5%

43%

51%

0%

1%

5%

44%

49%


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

Howie Hawkins


Donald Trump

Don't Know

Jo Jorgensen

Other

0%

0%

2%

5%

40%

53%

1%

2%

4%

45%

49%

Wisconsin

Sample Size:720___


Sample Size:750___


Sample Size:981___




Sample Size:950___


Sample Size:994___


Sample Size:972___


Sample Size:827___






Sample Size:691___


Sample Size:613___


24

Social Desirability Bias The uncomfortable truth about polling is that we must take respondents at their word. Prudent pollsters couch their language to reflect this truth: instead of saying ‘x% of voters will vote for Candidate A,’ it should be ‘x% of voters say they will vote for Candidate A.’ Polls do not show how the public is voting (or not voting) but how the public says it is voting (or not voting). More often than not, people tell the truth. Nevertheless, there are circumstances that could compel respondents to not tell pollsters the truth, such as embarrassment that their opinion might be considered socially undesirable or because they feel they are being polled by a biased pollster. Unless we were given Godlike capabilities (in which case, why would we be pollsters?), it is unfortunately impossible for us pollsters to 100% verify that respondents who say they will vote for a certain candidate will indeed vote at all and, when voting, will actually vote for the candidate they tell us they will vote for. Nevertheless, there are certain methods which can mitigate a potential social desirability bias. One, as mentioned before, is to conduct polls online. Another is to prompt our Voting Intention question as the first question, immediately following demographic questions, in every survey that we conduct. As such, respondents have no inclination as to whether we are a biased pollster. In fact, our polls are anonymized such that our respondents do not know the organization that is surveying them. Across our many polls in the swing states and nationally, respondents saying they are voting for Donald Trump have been just as likely as respondents saying they are voting for Joe Biden to say they are comfortable sharing how they are voting with their friends and family. Notably, undecided voters have been the main group of respondents who express discomfort sharing their voting intention, which could either reflect that those who say they ‘don’t know’ how they will vote are actually only unwilling to share their voting intention with us or that those who say ‘do not know’ feel uncomfortable sharing their indecisiveness on an issue where others tend to be decisive. 19

19 Note: This question asks about friends and family, but iterations of our question which asks about comfort sharing with a stranger they just met also shows similar results.

25

The above figures suggest that neither Biden nor Trump voters claim to be less comfortable about sharing their voting intention with others. Nevertheless, this data contains a logical paradox. Respondents who, because they feel uncomfortable sharing how they will vote, tell us they are voting for one candidate when they are actually voting for another candidate could skew this data. These respondents, the so-called ‘shy Trump voters’ or ‘shy Biden voters’ could inflate the reported comfort of those who say they are voting for either candidate (by not telling us they are voting for him), while also inflating the stated discomfort of those who say they are voting for the other candidate (by telling us they are voting for him instead). In our final national poll, we furthered our investigation by presenting respondents with a statement asking if they would feel comfortable lying about their voting intention to someone they just met. This time, we found that 29% of those who told us they are voting for Donald Trump said they would feel comfortable lying about their voting intention, compared to 21% of those who told us they are voting for Joe Biden.20 While this finding reflects only one datapoint, these figures tentatively suggest that roughly 1 in 5 likely Biden voters would feel comfortable lying about how they will vote, compared to roughly 1 in 4 likely Trump voters. The logical implication of this difference is that there are likely to be more ‘shy Trump voters’ than ‘shy Biden voters’ among our respondents, despite the possible presence of a significant amount of ‘shy Biden voters,’ too. Altogether, asking respondents directly for their level of comfort or discomfort sharing or lying about their voting intention cannot reveal exactly what type of respondent may or may not be lying to us about their voting intention. There does not appear to be an obvious way around this hurdle, and it would be bold for us to weigh data according to who we think may be lying to us. Moreover, as mentioned in the first section on turnout, we may also have

20 Add link to US national VI.

On a scale from 0 to 5, how comfortable would you feel sharing with your friends and family how you intend to vote (or howyou voted) in the Presidential Election on 3 November 2020?





Undecided - Swing States

Undecided - National

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85%

Comfortable or Very Comfortable

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

Unc

omfo

rtabl

e or

Ver

y U

ncom

forta

ble

48 polls across Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and 13 polls nationally from August 12, 2020 toNovember 1, 2020.

Some explanatory text here

26

encountered respondents who feel embarrassed to say they are not voting and therefore say they will vote. Just as formidable as the ‘shy Trump voter’ is the ‘shy non-voter.’ One data point that has consistently given us reason to pause, however, is the following: When asked to guess how their neighbors and the people in there are voting, a greater proportion of respondents consistently guess Donald Trump. This discrepancy has appeared ever since we introduced this question in our polling in late September.

One possible hypothesis that explains this phenomenon, apart from a possible social desirability bias, is that likely Joe Biden voters appear less likely to claim to know their neighbors well and trust them (a possible consequence of living in more urban areas). In previous polling, we have presented respondents with the statement, “I know my neighbors well and trust them.” Among respondents who strongly agreed with this statement, a majority say they are voting for Donald Trump. Among respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, a considerable majority say they are voting for Joe Biden.21 Respondents who say they are voting for Joe Biden may therefore be attributing opposing political viewpoints to neighbors they neither know well nor trust. Similarly, when respondents are asked who they think is more likely to win the election, the results appear much closer than the actual voting intention results produced in the same polls. Here, a considerable number of respondents who indicated they are voting for Joe Biden selected, ‘They are equally likely to win,’ whereas respondents voting for Donald Trump were more likely to be confident in their candidate winning. This variation could, in part, reflect cautiousness among Democratic voters following the ‘surprise’ of 2016.


If you had to guess, for whom do you think most of your neighbors are voting?

Donald Trump Joe Biden Other

US National

Sep 25 Sep 30 Oct 5 Oct 10 Oct 15 Oct 20 Oct 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Sep 21 Oct 1 Oct 11 Oct 21

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Arizona


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Florida


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Michigan


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

North Carolina


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pennsylvania


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Wisconsin

Most of my neighbors willnot be voting

27

At this moment, between the candidates of the two main political parties, who do you think is more likely to win the 2020Presidential Election?

Don't KnowEqually LikelyJoe BidenDonald Trump

US National

Aug 29 Sep 3 Sep 8 Sep 13 Sep 18 Sep 23 Sep 28 Oct 3 Oct 8 Oct 13 Oct 18 Oct 23 Oct 28

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Arizona


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Florida


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Michigan


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

North Carolina


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pennsylvania


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Wisconsin

28

What these other data points suggest about a social desirability bias remains unclear. It helps that it takes more effort to maintain a lie than to keep telling the truth. Self-contradictory respondents who, for instance, say they have already voted, yet they also say they are voting by mail but are yet to request their mail-in ballot are likely to not be telling us the truth. But such obvious cases are few and far in between. Altogether, the potential for some respondents to not be entirely candid in our polling about our voting intention, the relatively similar proportions of likely Biden and Trump voters who feel comfortable both sharing and lying about their voting intention suggests that social desirability bias is a phenomenon that largely exists on both sides and could bias results in either direction. In the long run, the best remedy regarding social desirability biases is to convey to respondents that the person asking them questions takes their responses seriously and treats them in the fairest light possible. If respondents know that whoever is surveying them is taking their responses seriously and will reflect their responses in the fairest possible light, then they may be more likely to respond seriously and honestly. This is an ideal that we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies strive for and serves as an additional motivating factor for producing this report.

29

Conclusion In conclusion, we stress again that our polling has consistently shown Joe Biden to be in the lead. Nevertheless, we have identified four key reasons in our own polling that explain why Donald Trump could still win:

1) Turnout 2) Means of Voting 3) Interview Method 4) Social Desirability Bias

We feel fairly confident in our polling, especially given its consistency over time. In our estimation, a Biden victory remains more likely than a Trump victory. Even so, the data points identified in this report give us reason for pause and demonstrate that the possibility of a Trump victory still exist.

30

Appendix In the interest of transparency, we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies include this appendix, which details the sample sizes, dates, and weighting targets for our national and swing state polls. Targets for age, gender, education, and race were derived from the 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.22 Targets for region are based on the county-level estimates by the US Census, while categorization of counties into regions are our own.23 Targets for past vote were derived from the official results of the 2016 Presidential Election. Except for the telephone poll, all polls were conducted through online web surveys (compatible with both smartphones and computes). Survey questions were made available in English and Spanish, and probability-based samples were selected through registered panel providers. The target percentages for each variable in each state are as follows:

AGE US National Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina Pennsylvania Wisconsin 18–24 11.7% 12.1% 10.8% 12.9% 12.5% 11.8% 12.4% 25–34 17.8% 17.7% 16.3% 16.5% 17.0% 16.5% 16.3% 35–44 16.2% 15.8% 15.3% 14.9% 16.5% 14.8% 15.5% 45–54 15.9% 15.1% 16.6% 16.5% 17.5% 17.1% 17.3% 55–64 16.6% 15.5% 16.5% 17.9% 16.5% 17.8% 17.9% 65-74 12.4% 13.3% 13.6% 12.9% 12.0% 12.2% 11.8% 75+ 9.4% 10.5% 11.0% 9.1% 8.0% 9.8% 8.9%

Gender US National Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina Pennsylvania Wisconsin

Male 49.5% 49.8% 49.0% 49.5% 48.7% 49.4% 50.1%

Female 50.5% 50.2% 51.0% 50.5% 51.3% 50.6% 49.9% Notes: Gender was weighed according to 18 to 74-year old population in 2018. Given that the gender ratio diverges most at old age and that respondents are less likely to respond to an online poll, we chose to weight gender according to the gender breakdown of Adult 18-to-74-year-olds.

Education (18-24-year-olds)

US National Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Below High School -

12.1% 14.5% 15.5%

12.8% 12.7% 11.9% 10.8%

High School 76.1% 75.4% 75.4% 77.0% 76.0% 74.9% 76.8% Bachelor’s Degree +

11.9% 10.1% 9.1%

10.3% 11.3% 13.2% 12.4%

22 For age, gender, race and education estimates, see: data.census.gov 23 For county-level data, see: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html

31

Education (25+ year-olds)

US National Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Below High School -

11.4% 12.4% 12.0%

9.5% 11.8% 9.0% 7.9%

High School 55.5% 57.4% 58.8% 61.9% 56.3% 59.2% 62.1%

Bachelor’s Degree +

33.1% 30.1% 29,2%

28.6% 31.9% 31.8% 30.0%

United States Region States Target Weight % Northeast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont 17.1% Midwest Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota 20.8% South Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas 38.3%

West Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington 23.9%

Arizona Region Counties Target Weight % Maricopa County Maricopa County 61.5% Pima County Pima County 14.5% Other County Pinal County, Yavapai County, Yuma County, Mohave County,

Coconino County, Cochise County, Navajo County, Apache County, Gila County, Santa Cruz County, Graham County, La Paz County, Greenlee County 24.0%

Race/Ethnicity US National

Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina

Pennsylvania Wisconsin

White (non-Hispanic)

60.4% 54.4% 53.5% 74.9%

62.8% 76.1% 81.1%

Hispanic or Latino 18.3% 31.6% 26.1% 5.2% 9.6% 7.6% 6.9% Asian 5.9% 3.7% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% 3.7% 2.3 Other (Incl. American Indian, Native Hawaiian)

2.0% 5.2% 0.5% 2.5% 2.2% 0.6% 3.0%

Black or African American

13.4% 5.1% 16.9% 14.1% 22.2% 12.0% 6.7%

32

Florida Region Counties Target Weight %

North Florida Duval County, Marion County, Escambia County, Leon County, Alachua County, St. Johns County, Clay County, Okaloosa County, Bay County, Santa Rosa County, Flagler County, Nassau County, Putnam County, Columbia County, Walton County, Jackson County, Gadsden County, Susanne County, Levy County, Wakulla County, Baker County, Bradford County, Washington County, Taylor County, Holmes County, Madison County, Gilchrist County, Dixie County, Gulf County, Union County, Calhoun County, Hamilton County, Jefferson County, Franklin County, Lafayette County, Lincoln County 19.5%

Central Florida (minus Tampa)

Orange County, Polk County, Brevard County, Volusia County, Seminole County, Manatee County, Osceola County, Lake County, Citrus County, Sumter County, Hardee County 23.7%

Tampa Bay Area Lee County, Sarasota County, Collier County, St. Lucie County, Charlotte County, Martin County, Indian River County, Highlands County, Monroe County, Okeechobee County, Hendry County, DeSoto County, Glades County 14.7%

South Florida (minus Miami)

Lee County, Sarasota County, Collier County, St. Lucie County, Charlotte County, Martin County, Indian River County, Highlands County, Monroe County, Okeechobee County, Hendry County, DeSoto County, Glades County 12.6%

Miami Metro Area

Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County

29.5%

Michigan Region Counties Target Weight %

Central Michigan Bay County, Branch County, Calhoun County, Clinton County, Eaton County, Gratiot County, Hillsdale County, Huron County, Ingham County, Ionia County, Isabella County, Jackson County, Midland County, Montcalm County, Saginaw County, Sanilac County, Shiawassee County, Tuscola County, Genesee County, Lapeer County 21.7%

Detroit Metro Area

Macomb County, Oakland County, St Clair County, Wayne County 40.5%

South East Michigan

Lenawee County, Livingston County, Monroe County, Washtenaw County 8.1%

North Michigan & Upper Peninsula

Alcona County, Alpena County, Antrim County, Arenac County, Benzie County, Charlevoix County, Cheboygan County, Clare County, Crawford County, Emmet County, Gladwin County, Grand Traverse County, Iosco County, Kalkaska County, Lake County, Leelanau County, Manistee County, Mason County, Missaukee County, Montmorency County, Ogemaw County, Osceola County, Oscoda County, Otsego County, Presque Isle County, Roscommon County, Wexford County, Alger County, Baraga County, Chippewa County, Delta County, Dickinson County, Gogebic County, Houghton County, Iron County, Keweenaw County, Luce County, Mackinac County, Marquette County, Menominee County, Ontonagon County, Schoolcraft County 9.5%

West Michigan Allegan County, Barry County, Berrien County, Cass County, Kalamazoo County, Kent County, Mecosta County, Muskegon County, Newaygo County, Oceana County, Ottawa County, St Joseph County, Van Buren County 20.3%

33

North Carolina Region Counties Target Weight %

Charlotte Metro Area Anson County, Cabarrus County, Gaston County, Iredell County, Lincoln County, Mecklenburg County, Rowan County, Stanly County, Union County 21.8%

Coastal Plain Beaufort County, Bertie County, Bladen County, Brunswick County, Camden County, Carteret County, Chowan County, Columbus County, Craven County, Cumberland County, Currituck County, Dare County, Duplin County, Edgecombe County, Gates County, Greene County, Halifax County, Harnett County, Hertford County, Hoke County, Hyde County, Jones County, Lenoir County, Martin County, Nash County, New Hanover County, Northampton County, Onslow County, Pamlico County, Pasquotank County, Pender County, Perquimans County, Pitt County, Robeson County, Sampson County, Scotland County, Tyrrell County, Washington County, Wayne County, Wilkes County, Wilson County 26.4%

Mountain Region Alexander County, Alleghany County, Ashe County. Avery County. Buncombe County, Burke County, Caldwell County, Catawba County, Cherokee County, Clay County, Cleveland County, Graham County, Haywood County, Henderson County, Jackson County, Macon County, Madison County, McDowell County, Mitchell County, Polk County, Rutherford County, Stokes County, Surry County, Swain County, Transylvania County, Watauga County, Yadkin County, Yancey County 14.7%

Piedmont Triad Alamance County, Caswell County, Davidson County, Davie County, Forsyth County, Guilford County, Montgomery County, Moore County, Randolph County, Richmond County, Rockingham County 16.5%

Research Triangle Chatham County, Durham County, Franklin County, Granville County, Johnston County, Lee County, Orange County, Person County, Vance County, Wake County, Warren County 20.6%

Pennsylvania Region Counties Target Weight % Piedmont Adams County, Berks County, Cumberland County, Dauphin County,

Franklin County, Lancaster County, Lebanon County, Lehigh County, Northampton County, York County 23.6%

Delaware Valley Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia County 32.3%

Northeastern Bradford County, Carbon County, Columbia County, Lackawanna County, Luzerne County, Monroe County, Montour County, Northumberland County, Pike County, Potter County, Schuylkill County, Sullivan County, Susquehanna County, Tioga County, Wayne County, Wyoming County 10.7%

Central Bedford County, Blair County, Cameron County, Centre County, Clearfield County, Clinton County, Fulton County, Huntingdon County, Indiana County, Jefferson County, Juniata County, Lycoming County, Mifflin County, Perry County, Snyder County, Union County 7.5%

Western Allegheny County, Armstrong County, Beaver County, Butler County, Cambria County, Clarion County, Crawford County, Elk County, Erie County, Fayette County, Forest County, Greene County, Lawrence County, McKean County, Mercer County, Somerset County, Venango County, Warren County, Washington County, Westmoreland County 25.9%

34

Wisconsin Region Counties Target Weight % Northeast Brown County, Calumet County, Door County, Fond du Lac County, Green

Lake County, Kewaunee County, Manitowoc County, Marinette County, Marquette County, Menominee County, Oconto County, Outagamie County, Shawano County, Waupaca County, Waushara County, Winnebago County 19.6%

Northern Ashland County, Barron County, Bayfield County, Burnett County, Douglas County, Florence County, Forest County, Iron County, Langlade County, Lincoln County, Oneida County, Polk County, Price County, Rusk County, Sawyer County, Taylor County, Vilas County, Washburn County 6.6%

South Central Columbia County, Dane County, Dodge County, Grant County, Green County, Iowa County, Jefferson County, Lafayette County, Richland County, Rock County, Sauk County 19.8%

Southeast Kenosha County, Milwaukee County, Ozaukee County, Racine County, Sheboygan County, Walworth County, Washington County, Waukesha County 37.1%

West Central Adams County, Buffalo County, Chippewa County, Clark County, Crawford County, Dunn County, Eau Claire County, Jackson County, Juneau County, La Crosse County, Marathon County, Monroe County, Pepin County, Pierce County, Portage County, St Croix County, Trempealeau County, Vernon County, Wood County 17.0%

2016 Election Vote US National

Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina

Pennsylvania Wisconsin

Donald Trump 46.1% 48.7% 49.0% 47.5% 49.8% 48.6% 47.2% Hillary Clinton 48.2% 45.1% 47.9% 47.3% 46.2% 47.9% 46.5% Gary Johnson - 4.1% 2.2% 3.6% 2.8% 2.4% 3.6% Jill Stein - 1.3% 0.7% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% Other 5.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 1.7% Did Not Vote 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%

35

The sample sizes and dates of our polls conducted nationally and in six swing states are as follows:

US National Arizona Florida Michigan North Carolina Pennsylvania Wisconsin

Sample Size

Dates Sample Size

Dates Sample Size

Dates Sample Size

Dates Sample Size

Dates Sample Size

Dates Sample Size

Dates

1,500 8 – 9 June 2020

946 10 – 13 May 2020

1,014 10 – 13 May 2020

970 10 – 14 May 2020

859 10 – 14 May 2020

963 10 – 14 May 2020

875 10 – 14 May 2020

2,000 9 July 2020

865 14 – 17 June 2020

1,079 14 – 15 June 2020

826 14 – 16 June 2020

902 14 – 17 June 2020

1,125 14 – 16 June 2020

846 14 – 19 June 2020

2,000 12 Aug 2020

858 19 – 23 July 2020

1,121 19 – 21 July 2020

811 19 – 24 July 2020

919 19 – 21 July 2020

1,016 19 – 21 July 2020

742 19 – 24 July 2020

2,000 19 – 20 Aug 2020

856 14 – 18 Aug 2020

1,280 14 – 16 Aug 2020

812 14 – 18 Aug 2020

967 14 – 17 Aug 2020

1,006 14 – 17 Aug 2020

672 14 – 19 Aug 2020

2,000 31 Aug – 1 Sept 2020

830 3 – 4 Sept 2020

1,093 3 Sept 2020

967 3 Sept 2020

951 3 Sept 2020

1,053 3 Sept 2020

670 3 – 4 Sept 2020

2,000 7 – 8 Sept 2020

855 12 – 16 Sept 2020

1,158 12 – 14 Sept 2020

930 12 – 14 Sept 2020

1,092 12 – 15 Sept 2020

1,036 12 – 14 Sept 2020

636 12 – 16 Sept 2020

2,500 16 – 17 Sept 2020

871 23 – 26 Sept 2020

1,073 23 – 25 Sept 2020

785 23 – 26 Sept 2020

1,097 23 – 26 Sept 2020

1,015 23 – 25 Sept 2020

663 23 – 27 Sept 2020

2,500 21 – 22 Sept 2020

727 4 – 7 Oct 2020

998 4 – 6 Oct 2020

700 4 – 6 Oct 2020

938 4 – 6 Oct 2020

927 4 – 6 Oct 2020

688 4 – 7 Oct 2020

Telephone Polls Conducted in Swing States

720 9 – 10 Oct 2020

981 9 – 10 Oct 2020

827 9 – 10 Oct 2020

950 9 – 10 Oct 2020

1,145 9 – 10 Oct 2020

613 9 – 10 Oct 2020

3,000 26 Sept 2020

750 10 – 13 Oct 2020

1,519 10 – 13 Oct 2020

972 10 – 13 Oct 2020

994 10 – 13 Oct 2020

1,289 10 – 13 Oct 2020

691 10 – 13 Oct 2020

2,500 3 – 4 Oct 2020

664 16 – 18 Oct 2020

1,569 16 – 17 Oct 2020

900 16 – 18 Oct 2020

1,048 16 – 17 Oct 2020

1,211 16 – 17 Oct 2020

636 16 – 18 Oct 2020

2,000 10 Oct 2020

772 20 – 22 Oct 2020

2,120 20 – 21 Oct 2020

1292 20 – 22 Oct 2020

1,191 20 – 21 Oct 2020

1,372 20 – 21 Oct 2020

671 20 – 22 Oct 2020

3,150 17 – 18 Oct 2020

817 22 – 25 Oct 2020

1,335 23 – 25 Oct 2020

1421 22 – 25 Oct 2020

955 22 – 25 Oct 2020

1,379 23 – 25 Oct 2020

905 22 – 25 Oct 2020

5,745 25 Oct 2020

889 26 – 29 Oct 2020

1,587 27 – 28 Oct 2020

1212 26 – 29 Oct 2020

1,489 26 – 29 Oct 2020

2,125 26 – 29 Oct 2020

800 26 – 29 Oct 2020

10,098 30 Oct – 1 Nov 2020

redfield & wilton strategies - executive summary the · 2021. 1. 24. · 9 for the weighting...

Documents