🚨NEW from me and @TheEconomist's data team: Our interactive for the 2020 Democratic primary! We have a fancy polling average, candidate support by demographic group, data on who candidates' core voters are also considering and more. <THREAD> (No paywall!) projects.economist.com/democratic-pri…
1. Here is a collection of screenshots from the interactive. Allow me to tell you about some of the features, how they work, where we get our data and how we did our modeling. 1/13
2. The first element on the page presents our average of high-quality national polls of the Democratic primary. We include phone polls from firms that survey with live interviewers and online polls from firms that use well-documented, trusted methods (ie no IVR/Mturk combos).
3. We average the polls over time using a Bayesian implementation of a dynamic Dirichlet regression model. The model is specified to give more weight to higher quality pollsters, less weight to data collected in the past and incorporates pollster house effects.
4. The method used to calculate house effects is complicated, but know we let the model sort it out. Effects can change over time. (Something cool: the model also allows the average to learn about candidates' standings at the state level—but we're not releasing this just yet!)
5. Our 2020 site also features an array of interactive visualizations built on our weekly polling data from @YouGovUS. Breaking down support by demographic and political group is a major contribution of this project and something few other media outlets are providing.
6. We show a selection of demographics on the home page, but we make more detailed data available for each candidate on their own separate pages.

E.g. here are Warren's crosstabs: projects.economist.com/democratic-pri…

You can select candidates with the slider.
7. These stats are derived from the last month of data from YouGov. This gives us a large enough sample size to minimize sampling error while staying relevant, but also means the figures might differ from other analyses of YouGov's data. If you see small differences, fret not.
8. Though we focus quite a lot on first-choice vote intention, YouGov also provides some particularly insightful data in asking who voters are "considering" voting for. This may give us a reasonable upper bound on candidates' support in the polls.
9. One of the coolest parts of the project is this breakdown showing the share of each candidate's first-choice supporters who are considering other options. For example, Nearly 60% of Warren voters are also considering Harris, and 15% of Sanders voters consider Yang, too.
10. Because polls aren't all the information that may decide who is most likely to win the primary, and though prediction is not our ultimate goal with this project, we also show smoothed market betting odds.
11. The interactive updates at least daily, and sometimes more often when we have new polling, betting or YouGov data. We will be adding features (like state-levels polling) over time, so follow me for updates!
12. Worth giving a few hat tips. First up is @FiveThirtyEight for open-sourcing their collection of 2020 polling. @PoliSciJack also helped me implement a version of the that model we ended up using. Thanks to @PredictIt for archiving market data!
13/13. We hope you will find this as fun and insightful as we do! @martgnz and @futuraprime put their blood, sweat and tears into getting the website working and visualizations looking nice. It was a team effort.

If you have any feedback, we'd love to hear from you! Enjoy!
@martgnz @futuraprime Oh by the way, if you scroll over a candidate's face they will wiggle

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with G. Elliott Morris

G. Elliott Morris Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gelliottmorris

Feb 10
One potential miscalibration in the conventional wisdom on redistricting is not accounting for the partisanship of states that have/not passed maps. In 2020, the median partisan lean of districts in states which HAVE passed new boundaries was D+1. Was R+14 in states that haven't.
This just mean that we should expect the seats that haven't been redrawn to be muuuuch redder than the seats that have -- and the plans there maybe more biased toward Republicans. Court cases in OH, NC make this a little tricky, but if you look at the most likely maps...
... then you get the following changes v 2020:
In states that *HAVE* passed new maps: Democrats have gained 12 seats that lean toward them (counting competitive seats).
After adding likely maps is the remaining states: Dems will gain around 8 versus their 2020 map.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 7
NEW: Here is our big story on US Congressional redistricting so far.

Nationally, Democrats have fared surprisingly well in the maps passed so far. But they are still biased toward Republicans — the median seat will be about one point to the right.

economist.com/united-states/…
Much will depend on what happens in the 14 states that haven't passed new maps (or were told by courts to redraw them). Here is how one measure of fairness — the efficiency gap — has changed in each state (or, for states without final maps in the average plan under consideration)
A big story of the 2022 redistricting cycle is Democratic gerrymandering. But the data show Republicans are playing an entirely different game when it comes to packing and cracking partisans into seats. Nationwide, about 3% (8m) more Democratic votes are "wasted" than GOP votes.
Read 6 tweets
Feb 5
Apparently partisan gerrymandering was fine until Democrats started doing it
.@baseballcrank, if you think Democrats and Republicans shouldn’t be doing partisan gerrymandering, there are plenty of proposals for reforms from the last ~decade that you + your mag wrote against that you might reread and find newly fruitful. Your hypocrisy here is my point
Read 5 tweets
Feb 3
Am hearing more and more that Dems have gerrymandered their way to a balanced national House map. Will have more on this next week, but 2 points are (a) this ignores the role of litigation + independent commissions & (b) that there is still huge asymmetric bias at the state level
As a reference pt, states that Biden won by more than 5pts in 2020 had an efficiency gap of 5% under the old lines. Republicans rates had an average efficiency gap closer to 15 (2x the proposed threshold for litigation). After redistricting, Ds might be closer to 9, and Rs 14-15.
(Note, of course, that lots of maps aren't finalized yet so these calculations require some educated guesses, and numbers will change slightly)
Read 5 tweets
Feb 2
This morning, @TheEconomist launches a polling model for the upcoming French presidential election. Polls there are pretty good, and Macron has a good chance of winning.

We have tried some new (and some old) things in communicating uncertainty to readers:
economist.com/France2022 ImageImageImageImage
You can read an explanation of our methods (and see some cool additional charts) here:

economist.com/graphic-detail…
The polls may look a bit different than the feeling on the ground in France. We explain why in this piece:

economist.com/europe/emmanue…
Read 4 tweets
Jan 13
2 of these things are not like the others
(also a lesson in small data!)
The data are president-day pairs, so actually quite large from a raw n perspective -- the problem is that we have a limited data set to capture changing voter psychology (we have ~2.5 presidential terms of high partisanship)
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(