Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Statistics, Politics and Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Wagschal, Uwe

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Roosevelt Predicted to Win: Revisiting the 1936 Literary Digest Poll

Sharon L. Lohr / J. Michael Brick
Published Online: 2017-03-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2016-0006


The Literary Digest poll of 1936, which incorrectly predicted that Landon would defeat Roosevelt in the 1936 US presidential election, has long been held up as an example of how not to sample. The sampling frame was constructed from telephone directories and automobile registration lists, and the survey had a 24% response rate. But if information collected by the poll about votes cast in 1932 had been used to weight the results, the poll would have predicted a majority of electoral votes for Roosevelt in 1936, and thus would have correctly predicted the winner of the election. We explore alternative weighting methods for the 1936 poll and the models that support them. While weighting would have resulted in Roosevelt being projected as the winner, the bias in the estimates is still very large. We discuss implications of these results for today’s low-response-rate surveys and how the accuracy of the modeling might be reflected better than current practice.


  • Amateur Statistician (1936) “The Literary Digest Poll: Mr. Franklin’s Mathematical Analysis Evokes Some Criticism,” Letter to the Editor, The New York Times (October 31), 18.Google Scholar

  • Belli, R. F., M. W. Traugott and M. N. Beckmann (2001) “What Leads to Voting Overreports? Contrasts of Overreporters to Validated Voters and Admitted Nonvoters in the American National Election Studies,” Journal of Official Statistics, 17:479–498.Google Scholar

  • Berent, M. K., J. A. Krosnick and A. Lupia (2016) “Measuring Voter Registration and Turnout in Surveys: Do Official Government Records Yield More Accurate Assessments?” Public Opinion Quarterly, 80:597–621.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowley, A. L. (1926) “Measurement of the Precision Attained in Sampling,” Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 22(Supplement to Book I):1–62.Google Scholar

  • Bryson, M. C. (1976) “The Literary Digest Poll: Making of a Statistical Myth,” The American Statistician, 30:184–185.Google Scholar

  • Cahalan, D. (1989) “Comment: The Digest Poll Rides Again !” Public Opinion Quarterly, 53:129–133.Google Scholar

  • Campbell, J. E. (2010) “Explaining Politics, Not Polls: Reexamining Macropartisanship with Recalibrated NES Data,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 74:616–642.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cohn, N. (2016a) “Why the Surprise Over ‘Brexit’? Don’t Blame the Polls,” The New York Times (June 24). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot/why-the-surprise-over-brexit-dont-blame-the-polls.html.

  • Cohn, N. (2016b) “How One Illinois Man Distorts National Polls,” The New York Times (October 13), p. A18.Google Scholar

  • Cornfield, J. (1942) “On Certain Biases in Samples of Human Populations,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 37:63–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crum, W. L. (1933) “On Analytical Interpretation of Straw-Vote Samples,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 28:152–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Franklin, F. (1936) “Refiguring the Digest Poll: Returns Otherwise Examined Found to Show Roosevelt Lead,” Letter to the Editor, The New York Times (October 28), 24.Google Scholar

  • Gallup, G. (1938) “Government and the Sampling Referendum,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 33:131–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hansen, M. H., W. N. Hurwitz and W. G. Madow (1953) Sample Survey Methods and Theory (Vol. 1: Methods and Applications). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

  • Harford, T. (2016) “When Forecasters Get it Wrong,” Financial Times (November 26), 45.Google Scholar

  • Hjort, N. L. and G. Claeskens (2003) “Frequentist Model Average Estimators,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98:879–899.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hoeting, J. A., D. Madigan, A. E. Raftery and C. T. Volinsky (1999) “Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial” (with discussion), Statistical Science, 14:382–417.Google Scholar

  • Laplace, P. (1814) Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités (no.57), Paris, France: MME VE Courcier, Imprimeur-Libraire pour les Mathématiques, quai des Augustins.Google Scholar

  • Lauter, D. (2016) “No, One 19-year-old Trump Supporter Probably Isn’t Distorting the Polling Averages All By Himself,” The Los Angeles Times (October 13) [online]. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-daybreak-poll-questions-20161013-snap-story.html.

  • Levy, F. F. (1936) “Forecasting the Election: Method Suggested to Correct the Poll Taken by the Literary Digest,” Letter to the Editor, The New York Times (October 16), 24.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1928a) “Semi-final Figures in ‘The Digest’s’ Big Poll,” Literary Digest, 99 (October 27):10–12.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1928b) “Final Returns in ‘The Digest’s’ Presidential Poll,” Literary Digest, 99 (November 3):5–7.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1932a) “‘Digest’ Poll Scrutinized by an Expert,” Literary Digest, 114 (October 8): 37–39.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1932b) “Roosevelt Bags 41 States Out of 48,” Literary Digest, 114 (November 5): 8, 9, 44, 46, 47.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1936a) “‘The Digest’ Presidential Poll is On!” Literary Digest, 122 (August 22): 3–4.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1936b) “First Votes in ‘Digest’s’ 1936 Poll,” Literary Digest, 122 (September 5): 7–8.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1936c) “Landon, 1,293,669; Roosevelt, 972,897: Final Returns in ‘The Digest’s’ Poll of Ten Million Voters,” Literary Digest, 122 (October 31):5–6.Google Scholar

  • Literary Digest (1936d) “What Went Wrong with the Polls?” Literary Digest, 122 (November 14): 7–8.Google Scholar

  • Little, R. J. A. (1993) “Post-Stratification: A Modeler’s Perspective,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88:1001–1012.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Little, B. (2016) “Four of History’s Worst Political Predictions,” National Geographic [online] Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/presidential-election-predictions-history/.

  • Lohr, S. (2010) Sampling: Design and Analysis (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

  • Lohr, S. and T. Raghunathan (2017) “Combining Survey Data with Other Data Sources,” Statistical Science, in press. Available at: http://imstat.org/sts/future_papers.html.Web of Science

  • Lusinchi, D. (2012) “‘President’ Landon and the 1936 Literary Digest Poll: Were Automobile and Telephone Owners to Blame?” Social Science History, 36:23–54.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • National Council of Public Polls (2017) “Election Results,” Available at: http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/101.

  • New York Times (1924) “Contest Accuracy of Digest’s Poll,” The New York Times (October 20), 2.Google Scholar

  • New York Times (1937) “Literary Digest Bought by Shaws,” The New York Times (June 17), 21.Google Scholar

  • Neyman, J. (1934) “On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: The Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97:558–625.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parten, M. (1950) Surveys, Polls, and Samples. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar

  • Presser, S., M. W. Traugott and S. Traugott (1990) “Vote ‘Over’ Reporting in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents?” ANES Technical Report Series No. nes010157. Available at: http://electionstudies.org/Library/papers/documents/nes010157.pdf.

  • Robinson, C. (1932) Straw Votes. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

  • Spiegelhalter, D. J. and H. Riesch (2011), “Don’t Know, Can’t Know: Embracing Deeper Uncertainties When Analyzing Risks,” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369:4730–4750.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Squire, P. (1988) “Why the 1936 Literary Digest Poll Failed,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 52:125–133.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sturgis, P., N. Baker, M. Callegaro, S. Fisher, J. Green, W. Jennings, J. Kuha, B. Lauderdale and P. Smith (2016) Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British General Election Opinion Polls. London: Market Research Society and British Polling Council. Available at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf.

  • Walton Jr., H., C. V. Gray and L. McLemore (2001) “African American Public Opinion and the Pre-Scientific Polls: The Literary Digest Magazine’s Straw-Vote Presidential Polls, 1916–1936,” National Political Science Review, 8:221–243.Google Scholar

  • Willcox, W. F. (1931) “An Attempt to Measure Public Opinion About Repealing the Eighteenth Amendment,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 26:243–261.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wright, G. C. (1993), “Errors in Measuring Vote Choice in the National Election Studies, 1952–88,” American Journal of Political Science, 37:291–316.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-03-31

Published in Print: 2017-10-26

Citation Information: Statistics, Politics and Policy, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 65–84, ISSN (Online) 2151-7509, ISSN (Print) 2194-6299, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2016-0006.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in