Erikson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2004. “Likely (and Unlikely) Voters and the Assessment of Campaign Dynamics.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (4): 588–601.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2009. “The Crystallization of Voter Preferences during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40 (3): 482–496.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, and Christopher Wlezien. 2012. The Timeline of Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?" British Journal of Political Science 23 (3): 409–451.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Donald Green, James Gimpel, and Daron Shaw. 2011. “How Large and Long-Lasting Are Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 135–150.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth, James Lo, Lynn Vavreck, and John Zaller. 2010. “The Duration of Advertising Effects in Political Campaigns.” Working Paper. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Political Science, UCLA.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Emily Thornson, and Andrew Gooch. 2010. “The Economy and the Dynamics of the 2008 Presidential Campaign: Evidence from the National Annenberg Election Study.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 20 (2): 271–289.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009b. “Preelection Poll Accuracy in the 2008 General Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 (4): 896–907.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. “The Dynamics of Campaign Preferences in the 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections.” The Forum 8 (4): Article 9.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2012. “Campaign Context and Preference Dynamics in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 22 (2): 123–127. (September).Google Scholar
Stimson, James. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1999. “Presidential Election Polls in 2000: A Study in Dynamics.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33 (1): 172–187.Google Scholar
About the article
Costas Panagopoulos is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy at Fordham University.
Published Online: 2013-02-09
Details about Pollster’s aggregation methodology are available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/modelbased-poll-averaging_b_1883525.html. (Accessed November 20, 2012.)
The Pollster estimates are correlated with the Gallup Daily Tracking poll measures (correlation coefficient=0.46, p<0.01), for example.
Lowess (locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) creates a new value for each time point based on the results of regressions using a designated number of surrounding data points. Predictions from these regressions are weighted based on their temporal distance from the point in question to generate the new value [see Erikson and Wlezien (1999) for additional details].
The Republican convention took place in Tampa, FL August 27–30, 2012, and the Democratic convention took place in Charlotte, NC September 3–7, 2012.
For the purposes of the current study, we consider the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy to have started on October 29 when much of the devastation was concentrated in the tri-state area of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.