The ultra Javier Milei, favorite in the polls after coming second in this Sunday’s elections.Juan Ignacio Roncoroni (EFE)
In an election as close as the one Argentina experienced in the first presidential round, the polls are at least expected to provide clear answers to the fundamental questions. In this case, two key questions arose: if a candidate managed to win the presidency in the first instance and avoid a second round, and then which candidates would advance if a second round were required? The polls largely correctly assumed that Javier Milei, representing the right, and Sergio Massa, representing the left, would run in an eventual second round, as it was highly unlikely that either candidate would reach 45% of the vote. or 40% with a difference of 10 points compared to the second, as established by Argentine regulations. However, despite this success, general follow-up evaluation questions the accuracy of the surveys. The main reason for this is that many predictions had Milei as the favorite, but in the end it was Sergio Massa who led the race.
The cognitive fixation of our attention on the winner is inherent in every election campaign. And the candidates are not only fighting against themselves, but also with expectations. At the moment, the headlines and analysis in most media and networks in Argentina are focused precisely on the fact that, beyond the absolute number of votes, what is surprising is the way in which the expectations that they have, to some extent, raised through these polls , were formulated and conditioned the perception of the result. It is common for a candidate who exceeds expectations, even if they don’t win, to be perceived as a “moral winner.” On the other hand, the one who does not live up to expectations, even if he has the most votes, can be seen as a weakened candidate. By overtaking Milei despite the forecasts, Massa defied previous expectations and gained an additional boost in public perception. However, it is paradoxical that these expectations were expressed only two months ago, when the polls were incorrect about the number of votes that Milei would receive.
If you look at the data at the national level compared to the election results, this double assessment becomes clear. On the one hand, the polls were correct in identifying the top three candidates, highlighting the gap between them and the remaining contenders, and predicting that Patricia Bullrich would not advance to the second round. Likewise, the average expected that no candidate would win in the first round. However, there is a clear underestimation of Sergio Massa and, although to a lesser extent, an overestimation in favor of Javier Milei.
This methodology has resulted in the average being more precise in the case of Sergio Massa as the undecideds have not been taken into account. However, the accuracy was slightly less accurate for Milei and even less accurate for Bullrich.
Closely related to this is the participation, which this time was significantly lower than in previous years. In reality, the decision to participate or not is more common than the decision to change votes between candidates. In a context like Argentina, characterized by its extreme polarization, it is more common for voters to oscillate between voting and abstaining, rather than changing their preference between different parties. Even if a vote transfer trend can be observed between the two right-wing candidates, the increase in his support for Massa is probably more due to the mobilization of the undecided than to the direct transfer of votes from other candidates. .
If we look at the polls based on the numbers each one reported in its most recent version, i.e. adding the undecided back into the voter base, we find this: the vast majority, if not all, were right in predicting who the second return would arise, and everyone without exception correctly foresaw the need for this second instance. Only two of them were wrong when they predicted that there would be a second round between Massa and Milei, while only one, on the contrary, was correct in this prediction.
It is expected that now, as after the primaries, when polls did not anticipate the high number of votes for Milei’s primary, polling places will adjust their methods and calibrate their estimates for the second round. The crucial factors for effective calibration, which makes it possible to obtain more accurate forecasts in the future, lie precisely in the appropriate interpretation of voters’ indecision and abstention.