Ignore The Polls?!
They won't tell you who's going to be President. They're still useful.
The New York Times has several pieces out parsing the results of its latest surveys with Sienna College, including those showing Harris with a 4-point lead in Pennsylvania and Trump with a 6-point lead in Arizona and noting the Democrats’ continuing struggle with Hispanic voters. But Ezra Klein, one of their most prominent pundits, urges readers to “Ignore The Polls.”
Here’s a bit of advice to help maintain your sanity over the next few weeks until Election Day: Just ignore the polls. Unless you’re a campaign professional or a gambler, you’re probably looking at them for the same reason the rest of us are: to know who’ll win. Or at least to feel like you know who’ll win. But they just can’t tell you that.
Which isn’t quite true: most races are so lopsided that the outcome really isn’t in doubt. But Klein is certainly right that, in a relatively tight race like that between Trump and Harris, there’s just too much uncertainty for the polls to be all that predictive. (Although, even there, we already know the almost-certain winner in 42 or 43 states.)
Back in 2016, Harry Enten, then at FiveThirtyEight, calculated the final polling error in every presidential election between 1968 and 2012. On average, the polls missed by two percentage points. In 2016, an American Association for Public Opinion Research postmortem found that the average error of the national polls was 2.2 points, but the polls of individual states were off by 5.1 points. In 2020, the national polls were off by 4.5 points and the state-level polls missed, again, by 5.1 points.
This is more than the margin any candidate consistently has in any of the swing states. Which is what makes them swing states to begin with.
As of Oct. 10, The New York Times’s polling average had Kamala Harris leading Trump by three points nationally. That’s tight, but the seven swing states are tighter: Neither candidate is leading by more than two points in any of them.
Imagine the polls perform better in 2024 than they did in either 2016 or 2020: They’re off, remarkably, by merely two points in the swing states. Huzzah! That would be consistent with Harris winning every swing state. It would also be consistent with Trump winning every swing state. This is not some outlandish scenario. According to Nate Silver’s election model, the most likely electoral outcome “is Harris sweeping all seven swing states. And the next most likely is Trump sweeping all seven.”
Which, one must admit, is decidedly unhelpful as predictions go.
After a discussion about polling methodology debates (see Nate Silver‘s “New York Times polls are betting on a political realignment” for a longer take), Klein observes,
Here’s the other reason you can safely tune out the daily polling news: The polls are remarkably, eerily stable.
A week before the Harris-Trump debate in September, Harris led Trump by three points. Then came the debate, during which Trump turned in the second-worst debate performance in recent memory. Then came another attempted assassination of Trump, after the shooting at a campaign rally in July. Then the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 50 basis points. Then Israel launched a ground invasion of Lebanon. Then came the vice-presidential debate. Then came a surprisingly strong jobs report. In this period, Harris released an 82-page booklet of policy proposals and Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Trump in the Jan. 6 case, filed a 165-page brief adding new details of Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. After all that, Harris is now leading Trump by … three points.
Which is rather remarkable. I’ve been saying for a very long time that public opinion on Trump is baked at this point. There’s simply nobody who is going to vote in the election who doesn’t have a firm view of who he is. That was also true of Joe Biden but is decidedly not the case with Kamala Harris. Even granting that the overwhelming majority of voters are reliable partisans, it’s amazing that her support hasn’t moved at all as people get to know her.
But it really comes down to this:
There are voters who are still undecided, but they are, almost by definition, voters who pay less attention to political news and are either so uninterested in politics or so cynical about both candidates that nothing has yet caused them to make up their minds. There are many more voters whose minds are made up but may or may not actually fill out ballots by Election Day. These are the voters who will decide the election, and they’re not tipping their hands yet.
For most of the cycle, the pundits were talking about the “double haters,” who strongly disliked both Trump and Biden. I would have thought that swapping one of the hated candidates for a fresh new face would have brought most of these folks over to the Not Trump side. Thus far, it just hasn’t happened.
To the extent one is looking for answers—and especially to the extent that they’re causing added anxiety—Klein is certainly right: the polls aren’t going to help you, so you might as well just wait until the morning after the election to see what happened.
For the kind of people who read political blogs and listen to political podcasts—even in non-election years!—though, the polls are quite useful. While they won’t tell us who’s going to win Pennsylvania or Georgia, they do provide insights into attitudinal shifts that will shape that outcome. That Trump is appealing to young Black and Hispanic men in a way that Mitt Romney and George W. Bush didn’t is interesting. Ditto the fact that there’s now a huge divide in how those with and without a college education vote.
If you’re only interested in the topline results, the polls aren’t terribly useful. At best, they’re entertaining in the way that sports talk is: a way to pass the time until the games are actually played. But, if you’re interested in the factors that contribute to the results, the polls and the analysis of the microtrends are the best way to understand our shifting political landscape.
The handwringing, ugh. I think Klein knows better. Fact is, many in the Opinionista class are still traumatized by what happened in 2016, and so warn everyone about the imperfections, about being complacent.
Polls have a lot of value, and until someone comes up with a better idea as to taking the pulse of an upcoming election they’re always going to be with us. Polls are a snapshot in time and while polls may not be dead-on accurate they surely give us an idea of where and how things are going.
People are freaked out for good reasons. It’s a very demoralizing time. Harris has turned to the right on immigration, most educated voters are at least dimly aware that our wonderful ally Israel is happily executing children, and my good friend Dick Cheney shows up every other inning to tell me how bad Trump is. Meanwhile, the polls point to Trump winning. It’s not a great moment in American political history, and the Democrats seem to have no idea what to do.
To confuse the issue further, NBC News now has Harris and Trump running neck and neck.
Somewhat OT, but look at that picture. And look at his latest videos. Part of it may be the lighting, but he is going to a darker pancake makeup. I probably could interpret that as his losing confidence (because of the polls) or responding to something about his appearance that the pancake is covering. And the demarcation line is becoming more obvious.
Anyway, pretty ugly.
@Cheryl Rofer:
He probably thinks it makes him look younger, thinner, and more vigorous.
My internal poll is that few people who voted for Biden will vote for Trump, and I doubt that they will skip voting. However, the Trumpers are highly motivated, and they may show up in higher numbers. It’s a toss-up.
It would have if the face had been male. You need to expand the horizons of your cynicism, that’s all. [Thumbs up emoji]
@Modulo Myself:
Could you cite anything specific on this point? From where I sit, the Harris/Walz campaign team is consistently doing what they need to do.
If you are looking for day to day polling to accurately reflect good or bad campaign strategy, then Trump’s visits to Colorado and California this week would move his numbers either up or down. They won’t.
As James notes:
If this is the case (and sure, why not?), then one needs to consider whether our political landscape is actually shifting. And it’s not in any meaningful way. The national averages trend lines on 538 have been statistically flat since early September.
Here’s all you need to know about the polls:
– It’s good that Democrats think it’s close – that will mitigate complacency. It’s still a GOTV election.
– It’s bad that Republicans think Trump is winning – that will feed conspiracy theories if he doesn’t win. Trump plans to claim victory no matter what.
@Cheryl Rofer: It may be the lighting, it may be darker, it may be that the makeup artist he’s not using is doing worse at putting it on. Very sad and low energy* no matter what.
Bigly.
*Had anyone else noticed that he stopped using his previous turns of phrase this round? He does adapt; I’d wondered if he’d be able to.
@Cheryl Rofer:
The outside matches the inside in this case.
Exit polls are often more accurate than pre-election polls as it removes the uncertainly of the likely voter screen, and election results can be broken down to a precinct level to extract more information based on demographics of those precincts.
So even in the case of people interested in understanding what is happening to America’s electorate, I think polling a month before the election is pretty useless when much better information is right around the corner.
Unless you are planning on doing something between now and the election that will directly affect the outcome… focusing GOTV, fomenting revolution, etc.
@just nutha:
Trump uses words and phrases that he then abandons after constant repetition. He also uses them oddly, as in “proud” or “proudly,” i.e. Americans will be “proudly” saying “Merry Christmas.” Or “strongly,” as in “we’ll be looking at that very strongly.”
My guess is that the late deciders will break in favor of Harris. I just don’t think most voters want another four years of DJT, regardless of where he might stand on this or that issue. I’m expecting a Harris/Walz victory.
@Paine: ” I’m expecting a Harris/Walz victory.”
I’m expecting it, too. But I spent the afternoon checking out rentals in Groningen — much cheaper than Amsterdam and reportedly the happiest city in the Netherlands — so clearly I’m not 100% convinced…
Bush won 40-44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Trump’s share in 2020 was 32%-38% (depending on the survey). The highest estimate of Trump’s Hispanic support is lower than the lowest estimate for Bush’s. And in some estimates Bush did 12 points better than Trump.
There’s also conflicting data on Trump’s share of the black vote in 2020, but all the polls I’ve seen show it to have been either about the same or significantly less than Bush in 2004.
We’ll soon find out how those groups turn out to vote this year, but I would exercise caution in drawing conclusions from pre-election polls, which historically have understated minority support for the Democratic Party.
@Kylopod: Yeah, I’m amused by the whole Democrats are struggling with Hispanic and black voters narrative. Where’s the beef outside of suspect polls and the media’s desire for horserace clickbait? We heard the same durm and strang in 2022, only for Dems to win about the same share they always do.
That Trump is doing no better — and possibly slightly worse — with Hispanic voters than the penultimate Republican president gets memory-hold. That data point doesn’t add to the infotainment drama:
2022 Post-Mortem — Latino Voters and the Case of the Missing Red Wave (Equis Institute)
Hispanics in Florida growing more conservative along with the rest of the state do not a national realignment make.
And there at last it is without any shred of artifice remaining:
https://x.com/essenviews/status/1844866402982797644
@wr:
Third.
Democrats have to freakout in October because that’s just what Democrats do. Fish need water. And the media has push horserace clickbait because of boredom and bills.
But, sorry, while there may be marginal movement, there’snot going to be any grand realignment of ethic minorities this year. Harris and Democrats are gonna win the same 60-65% of Latinos and 90-95% of blacks per usual. The election will hinge on a) which campaign can turnout its people and b) whether racist, rapist, elderly Putin-puppet Trump can wrest back the educated whites, anti-Trump Republicans, and pro-abortion white women who picked him for yolo and lulz in 2016.
Unlikely. Polls and absentee ballots in Pennsylvania already look ominous for Trump. He looks better in Arizona, but that’s as much a mirage as the polls that had Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker ahead, with pollsters’ likely voter screens still underestimating Democratic strength post-Dobbs.
Trump is not going to win Pennsylvania or Arizona, without which he has no real path. But let the doomers doom, because panicked people vote.
@Cheryl Rofer:
As the old saw has it, you can’t polish sh*t.
@DK:
The commentator and Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg named his blog and substack Hopium Chronicles, after an insulting term Nate Silver applied to him for his optimistic predictions of Democratic chances in the 2022 midterms.
A lot of people dismiss Rosenberg as a pollyannish cheerleader for his party (he was even convinced Biden was going to win post-debate), but I’ve been listening to him for a while and I think his arguments are more nuanced than he gets credit, and he’s got some important insights that a lot of Dems overlook.
What I’ve taken from his analysis is that he’s never denied Trump can win this election. He just thinks the doom-and-gloom coming from many on our side is destructive to morale, and that a lot of the Republican-bullish takes (including the Republican-aligned pollsters flooding the zone and skewing the averages in their favor) are part of a concerted effort by Republicans to damage Democratic morale.
Too many Dems (and anyone who’s anti-Trump, including the Bulwark folks) took the wrong lesson from 2016. In the years since, they think the worst thing we can do, the thing we must always be on the lookout for, is complacency. Let me break the news: There is no complacency. That tendency among Dems went the way of the dinosaurs after 2016. I see far greater evidence of 2016 PTSD–constant self-doubt, self-recrimination, fear of a repeat of that year no matter how good the signs on our side appear to be. I saw it in 2018 and 2020 and 2022. Pessimism can be just as damaging as complacency. It may have cost Dems the House in 2022 (a point Rosenberg has made).
Panic has its uses, but it isn’t cost-free as a motivator. (As someone with anxiety problems, I can attest that it can cause a person to freeze up–the deer-in-headlights response–rather than helping motivate the person to work to prevent the undesirable outcome they dread.) And I really hate that slogan I keep hearing, “No matter what the polls say, always act like you’re 10 points down.” You know when everyone was acting like we were 10 points down? When Biden was still the nominee.
@Paine:
I expect that if the late breaking voters break for Harris, they will vote Republican downballot bacuase “both sides are the same” and they want a “check on Harris’s power.” And then complain that nothing gets done, rather than the amazing bipartisan solutions they think are common sense.
People who haven’t decided between Harris and Trump at this point are shockingly uneducated and/or stupid.
I hope the Democrat-leaning irregular voters in swing states show up in larger numbers than the complete moron brigade.
Whether or not to embrace fascism, mass deportations and unchecked police violence is a pretty straightforward choice. I have less respect for those who can’t decide than even for those who embrace fascism. At least Nazi-ism is an ethos!
I feel better about the “I oppose fascism, but my vote won’t matter” crowd. Or the both sides are bad, but not the same bad and less worse is probably a big difference, I don’t know if I can pull the lever though.” Discouraged is less worse than mind-bogglingly stupid.
@Gustopher:
I doubt that’s going to happen. It didn’t in 2020, when there was a record-low number of congressional districts voting for a different party for president and House (just 16 out of 435, less than 4% of the total). If anything, the signs are that Democratic candidates for Senate in the swing states are doing significantly better than Harris. Some of that’s due to incumbency, but it also includes Ruben Gallego in AZ, probably because his opponent is the deeply unpopular Kari Lake. And while I suspect the gap will be narrower than the polls are suggesting, I think they’ll hold to a degree.
@Modulo Myself:
Democratic governance requires voluntary compliance with certain basic norms of behavior by all parties with significant power. They cannot be imposed by force. There really isn’t much one party can do if it remains committed to these norms, but the other adopts deliberate lying as its core campaign strategy while condoning or encouraging lawlessness. This becomes especially true if large sections of the media, the legal system and law enforcement agencies decide to put their thumbs on the scale for the lawless party.
Democrats have tried to combat this by persuading voters that democracy is worth saving. Could they have done it more effectively? Hard to say, but I doubt any messaging would have cut through the blizzard of shit with which Trump and his hordes keep flooding the zone.
I was just chatting with a long-time friend. He’s a typical law enforcement conservative. He can’t stand Trump and won’t vote for Harris, so he’s staying home. I wonder how many prior Trump voters there are like him? I wonder if that cohort is undercounted…
@Ken_L: Don’t omit that they are flooding the zone with shit because the shit they are flooding it with is what they prefer. The social contract, to the extent that it ever existed is now broken. Whether there is another “we the people” who can agree on a new contract remains to be seen. I expect to not live long enough to find out.
@Kylopod:
Yes. I think this too. I think the recent uptick in Truth Social stock is likely to be this, too.
There is a raft of professional propagandists on call, and money talks.
It is only unhelpful if you simply deep down are mentally treating polls as Oracular declarations, and not as giving a cone of probabilities. Of course you will heatedly deny but underneath it all, that is the meaning.
Which in the end is how most people in reality underneath façades understand polls, Oracles not data that is providing insight into probababilistic paths. Admittedly the human mind is not set up to think clearly the probabilistic cones that such data gives one (which to mitigate the typical mimsreading it is to say requires not very comfortable training, I myself would not call myself having done graduate work very good at it, only having gone through such becoming aware of own mental foible to try to work against).
A clearer understanding of the possibility paths if one is in planning can be quite useful (knowing that the co-variance patterns and the matter which the swing states are structured as nearly as likely to result in a Trump sweep as Harris tells you things about the potentials).
For the political fandom, Mr Klein is without any doubt spot on as the combination of common probabilities innumeracy and cheerleading sentiments need else falling into depression….
Knife-edge and therefore the back-and-forth variation now is essentially telling you that while swapping for Harris certainly improved the odds, it remains knife-edge and no Swing Geography nor operation to seduce some small percent of a margin in vote should be neglected if you have the means.
(while equally the narrowneess of polling if you end up in victory or defeat however should be a warning of recalibration of the narrowness and overweightedness to the political speech of the Uni-educated white collar Left in your political sales pitches, given the ongoing erosion of your margins in working class men that is expanding to non-white as the data show)
@DeD: It is difficult to undercount what has not happened yet. Voter intentions of vote/not-vote are notoriously instable globaly ex-legal mandate.
But Ms Harris being in position to not motivate such profile to vote (as in the Not-Fear/Hate her enough to vote for Trump) may be a margin to gain, one of the last minute effects one should not rationally expect polling to capture unless if becomes a very large effect.
@DeD: Yes, that cohort is under-counted. It’s tough to assess that number with polling. But while it’s probably a decent number nationwide, it’s unlikely that there are sufficient numbers in swing states to measure.
Having numbers hovering in the statistical wiggle area in multiple swing states is hard, because we don’t know what might be lurking in the background that could make a difference. There’s also the X factor of external events (more likely than not, weather-related).
I tend to pay attention to campaign choices. That Harris is releasing an agenda specifically targeted to the interests of Black men reinforces what I’ve been concerned about–the campaign internal polling must be showing soft support among Black men. We’re three weeks out tomorrow. Introducing policy prescriptions this close to the election is a sign. I hope it works.
@Jen: Insofar as quality polling as like NYT and others says essentially the same notably relative to working class (non-Uni edu notably) men – black, hispanic – Madame Harris adjusting is quite wise.
Hopefully the effort is being well spent in outreaches at this specific demo, as risk management and loss minimisation.
Knife edge … not comforting at all but at minimum Madame Harris seems to show significant awareness.
If you are into tea leaf reading I suspect the only polls that matter are internal polls. But we can’t see them.
I suspect the best way to analyze (guess?) is to look for changes in tactics as the campaigns evaluate those internal polls.
@Jack: Internal pols are like internal company marketing, unless an executive oversight is really quite committed to hearing bad news and challenges – which does not come easily to humans – are sans any doubt heavly subject to partisan team motivated reasoning and thumbs on scales. Beni Adam, Beni Adam.
I believe Silver discussed recently as well. As he noted as well the more proper polling sign is the one the uninitiated see as problematic, polling values bouncing around, as this is a proper sign that the pollster (ceteris paribus) is not “smoothing and herding” results for expactions alignment.
@Lounsbury: This is exactly the opposite of what legitimate internal polling shows. Campaign internals are usually far more detailed and more accurate on baseline motivations and likelihood to vote. They are not beauty contests with the thumb on the scales.
@Lounsbury:
I disagree. No spin is employed when winning and losing is on the line. Entertain your fantasy. But I don’t think so.
Harris has gone from a basement/joy strategy, to softball (disastrous) interview strategy to a Fox News (desperate) strategy. They know the people aren’t stupid.
She is simply vacuous. Her people know it. It’s Hail Mary time.
@Jack: You know, I recall hearing the opposition say Obama was stupid. Now it’s Harris. I’m sorry, you used “vacuous”, not stupid. Is there a difference in your mind?
This is in the same post where you assert the value of sticking to accurate data when the stakes are high. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that either Obama or Harris is stupid. Listening to them convinces me otherwise. And yet, here are these claims.
If’ you’ve been reading along, and it seems you have, you might note that I push back on claims of Trump being stupid. Trump isn’t stupid. He just doesn’t care about a lot of stuff. He doesn’t need to know that, his people know that.
Lots of smart people are wrong about all kinds of stuff. I see this every day.
I agree with you that it’s important to get a more accurate view of the world, though.
@Jay L Gischer:
I’ll cede your point. “Stupid” is hyperbole. I should take more care in wording. But I would not back off on Harris as vacuous. The video clips are out there in spades.
This is the penultimate point: despite all the current juvenile and hysterical accusations made about Trump, (including a blogger here who absolutely publicly embarrassing himself with wild eyed notions of fascism) the country had a good run under his tenure, until COVID. Its an empirical fact. The current administration, and its VP, have been a dud. And the people know it.
For the record. I think its a horrible choice. If I was still in FL I would not vote for either. But I am in GA. And GA matters. And Kamala Harris as President is an unthinkable horror. So there you go.
Here is something for people to chew on. Want to know a person(s) I might vote for if the Dems could jettison their loony ways? Harold Ford Jr. Or maybe Shapiro in PA. But I don’t think that is realistic. The Party is dancing with the IL and CA guvs. Insanity.