DCCC Targeting and Analytics Department
Graded against the actual result across 35 races (from 35 polls, through 2022).
Head-to-head vs the VotePredictor model
The fair, apples-to-apples test: on the 35 races DCCC Targeting and Analytics Department actually polled, how its final poll's margin compared to what the VotePredictor model predicted for those same races.
| Model | Avg miss (pts) | Called right |
|---|---|---|
| DCCC Targeting and Analytics Department | 6.21 | 57% |
| VotePredictor | 4.69 | 83% |
VotePredictor aggregates all the pollsters, so it's expected to beat any single one on margin — that's the value of averaging. The honest comparison among forecasters is on the combined board.
Every race (35)
Each race DCCC Targeting and Analytics Department polled, scored on its final poll — the call right before the vote — against the actual Dem−Rep result. Click a race for its full detail.
| Race | Their call | Result | Miss | Call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 NY-19 House | R+3.0 | D+5.3 | 8.3 | ✗ |
| 2022 PA-12 House | D+14.0 | D+12.4 | 1.6 | ✓ |
| 2022 RI-2 House | EVEN | D+3.7 | 3.7 | ✗ |
| 2020 CA-25 House | D+2.0 | R+9.7 | 11.7 | ✗ |
| 2020 CO-3 House | D+1.0 | R+6.2 | 7.2 | ✗ |
| 2020 FL-15 House | R+3.0 | R+10.8 | 7.8 | ✓ |
| 2020 MI-3 House | D+5.0 | R+5.9 | 10.9 | ✗ |
| 2020 NC-8 House | D+3.0 | R+6.6 | 9.6 | ✗ |
| 2020 TX-3 House | D+2.0 | R+12.2 | 14.2 | ✗ |
| 2020 WA-3 House | R+2.0 | R+13.0 | 11.0 | ✓ |
| 2018 IL-12 House | R+1.0 | R+6.2 | 5.2 | ✓ |
| 2018 MI-6 House | R+3.0 | R+4.6 | 1.6 | ✓ |
| 2018 NC-13 House | D+4.0 | R+6.0 | 10.0 | ✗ |
| 2018 PA-16 House | R+3.0 | R+4.3 | 1.3 | ✓ |
| 2018 WV-3 House | D+4.0 | R+12.7 | 16.7 | ✗ |
| 2016 AK-1 House | R+2.0 | R+14.3 | 12.3 | ✓ |
| 2016 CA-49 House | R+2.0 | R+0.5 | 1.5 | ✓ |
| 2016 FL-7 House | D+2.0 | D+3.0 | 1.0 | ✓ |
| 2016 MI-8 House | R+6.0 | R+16.9 | 10.9 | ✓ |
| 2016 MN-3 House | D+2.0 | R+13.7 | 15.7 | ✗ |
| 2016 NJ-5 House | D+6.0 | D+4.4 | 1.6 | ✓ |
| 2016 NV-3 House | D+3.0 | D+1.3 | 1.7 | ✓ |
| 2016 NY-19 House | D+5.0 | R+3.2 | 8.2 | ✗ |
| 2016 UT-4 House | R+8.0 | R+12.5 | 4.5 | ✓ |
| 2014 FL-26 House | D+5.0 | R+2.9 | 7.9 | ✗ |
| 2014 MA-6 House | D+8.0 | D+13.8 | 5.8 | ✓ |
| 2014 NJ-3 House | D+1.0 | R+9.6 | 10.6 | ✗ |
| 2012 CA-10 House | D+2.0 | R+5.4 | 7.4 | ✗ |
| 2012 CO-6 House | R+3.0 | R+2.0 | 1.0 | ✓ |
| 2012 FL-22 House | D+10.0 | D+9.3 | 0.7 | ✓ |
| 2012 IL-10 House | D+1.0 | D+1.3 | 0.3 | ✓ |
| 2012 IL-13 House | D+6.0 | R+0.3 | 6.3 | ✗ |
| 2012 IL-8 House | D+10.0 | D+9.5 | 0.5 | ✓ |
| 2012 NE-2 House | R+4.0 | R+1.6 | 2.4 | ✓ |
| 2012 RI-1 House | D+6.0 | D+12.1 | 6.1 | ✓ |
Accuracy by time to election
Lower is better. Time to election runs right (election week) to left (~2 months out).
By the numbers
| Time to election | Polls | Avg miss | vs field | Called right |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–3 wk | 7 | 7.20 | +2.13 | 43% |
| 3–6 wk | 18 | 5.14 | -0.60 | 72% |
| 6–9 wk | 9 | 8.05 | +1.90 | 44% |
vs field is this pollster's average miss minus all pollsters' at the same lead time — green beats the field, redtrails it. Our historical polls reach ~2 months out; earlier polling isn't in the record.
Track record by cycle — getting better?
| Year | Polls | Avg miss | Lean (house effect) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 8 | 3.1 | D+0.7 |
| 2014 | 3 | 8.1 | D+4.2 |
| 2016 | 9 | 6.4 | D+5.8 |
| 2018 | 5 | 7.0 | D+7.0 |
| 2020 | 7 | 10.3 | D+10.3 |
| 2022 | 3 | 4.5 | R+3.5 |
Do we credit a pollster for fixing its bias? Each cycle, the model re-estimates every pollster's lean from all its earlier polls (walk-forward) and subtracts it before using the poll. We tested weighting recent cycles more — it doesn't help: a pollster's lean in one cycle barely predicts the next (correlation 0.28), so the swings above are mostly noise, and averaging over more history beats chasing the latest cycle. The all-time estimate we use came out within ~0.5% of the best option.