Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:24:15.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Accuracy of Microtargeted Policy Positions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Kyle Endres
Kyle Endres*
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Identifying voters who share policy positions with the candidates has become an important component of modern political campaigns as they rely on microtargeted estimates to guide targeting decisions. Using survey data and microtargeted estimates from the 2012 election, I conduct one of the first independent examinations of the accuracy of microtargeting. The estimates are the most accurate in Florida, a state that requests information on the race of voters when they register and has party registration. The estimates are less accurate in the other battleground states that do not collect as much information. The accuracy rates range from 36% to 82% depending on the issue and state.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 771 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ansolabehere, Stephen and Hersh, Eitan. 2012. “Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate.” Political Analysis 20 (4): 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Allison. 2012. “Microtargeting: How Campaigns Know You Better Than You Know Yourself.” CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/politics/voters-microtargeting/ Google Scholar
Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2013. The Victory Lab. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. and Rogers, Todd. 2014. “Political Campaigns and Big Data.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (2): 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2017. Political Campaigns: Concepts, Context, and Consequences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John and Vavreck, Lynn. 2013. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Endres supplementary material

Appendix

Download Endres supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 51.2 KB

A correction has been issued for this article:

Errata