Pollsters Believe They Have Solved the Trump Prediction Puzzle After Two Failed Attempts
In Donald Trump's final election campaign, pollsters believe they have finally figured out how to accurately identify and understand his voter base.
TroibNews 
For pollsters aiming to accurately predict an election featuring Donald Trump at the forefront, the third attempt may have shown some improvement, though it still left room for dissatisfaction.
After missing the mark in 2016 and 2020 by consistently underestimating Trump's support, the polling landscape shifted in 2024. This time, the outcomes align more closely with aggregate predictions for both the popular vote and key swing states, falling within the margin of error.
Pollsters contend that they have finally managed to capture the elusive Trump voter segment, which has historically skewed results in past elections. "In the past, we have had a lot of Trump supporters who have simply refused to answer our questions," explained GOP pollster Whit Ayres. "We call, ‘I'm from the New York Times or The LA Times or The Washington Post, and I'm doing a survey,’ and they go, ‘Well, to hell with you,’ click.”
However, the polling process was not without its setbacks. A notable misstep came from revered pollster Ann Selzer, who ended her long association with the Des Moines Register after her firm released a poll just days before Election Day that indicated Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump by 3 points in Iowa. The findings were met with disbelief; even Harris’ campaign cautioned against overinterpreting the numbers. Ultimately, Trump won Iowa by more than 13 points.
Since the ill-fated predictions of a Hillary Clinton landslide in 2016, pollsters have struggled to accurately count Trump’s base. This challenge is distinctive to Trump-led elections, in contrast to the relatively precise polls during the 2018 and 2022 midterms. Presidential election years typically see higher turnout, particularly among Trump’s supporters, who generally harbor distrust towards institutions and are often hard to reach for surveys.
“The very same Trump voters who don't trust experts, don't trust the media, don't trust science — also don't trust pollsters,” emphasized Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. “And we found in several states that simply, they were opting out.”
To remedy this, researchers this year "jumped through a lot of hoops," according to Ayres, to more effectively engage Trump voters and enhance predictive accuracy. They reconfigured their electorate models, placed greater weight on certain demographic groups, and refined their outreach to non-college-educated voters, who typically lean Republican.
As a result, final polling aggregates illustrated a toss-up in five swing states, with Trump enjoying notable leads in Arizona and Nevada. The polls also successfully captured Trump's appeal among white voters and Harris' lack of support among Black and Latino men, both of which were pivotal to Trump’s significant win.
The president-elect ultimately secured all battleground states, a result that pollsters attributed to undecided voters leaning disproportionately—and unexpectedly—toward Trump. "If you look at the past, undecideds tended to not favor Republicans," noted GOP pollster Brent Buchanan. "This year, Trump benefited from undecideds."
The election night outcomes, while within the predictions provided by pollsters, were nevertheless surprising due to their sweeping nature. Leading up to November 5, many journalists and analysts anticipated a protracted resolution process given the tight margins in swing states.
Although the final vote counts matched the margins of error in polling aggregates across those states, they still understated Trump's support by roughly 3 points. This discrepancy could be attributed to late-deciding voters who made their choices after the final surveys were conducted.
In the campaign's final week, Trump secured a highly sought-after endorsement from Joe Rogan, which Maslin linked to Trump’s last-minute momentum. Buchanan's models indicated that Trump was ahead by 3 points among voters who decided in the campaign’s final stretch.
Pollsters have predominantly identified Trump himself as a key factor behind the inaccuracies observed in 2016 and 2020. "It's a Trump issue, not a Republican issue," affirmed Ayres, who has spent 40 years in GOP polling. Looking ahead to 2028, the first presidential election in twelve years without Trump, Ayres predicted that "we can reasonably expect whatever problems we had getting Trump voters to go away."
Others remain more cautious about future polling reliability. "It's not like, ‘Oh, great, fine, polling was pretty good this time we can put this to bed,’” Maslin remarked. “No, of course not. It's an ongoing question. It will continue to be, and it should be.”
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
After missing the mark in 2016 and 2020 by consistently underestimating Trump's support, the polling landscape shifted in 2024. This time, the outcomes align more closely with aggregate predictions for both the popular vote and key swing states, falling within the margin of error.
Pollsters contend that they have finally managed to capture the elusive Trump voter segment, which has historically skewed results in past elections. "In the past, we have had a lot of Trump supporters who have simply refused to answer our questions," explained GOP pollster Whit Ayres. "We call, ‘I'm from the New York Times or The LA Times or The Washington Post, and I'm doing a survey,’ and they go, ‘Well, to hell with you,’ click.”
However, the polling process was not without its setbacks. A notable misstep came from revered pollster Ann Selzer, who ended her long association with the Des Moines Register after her firm released a poll just days before Election Day that indicated Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump by 3 points in Iowa. The findings were met with disbelief; even Harris’ campaign cautioned against overinterpreting the numbers. Ultimately, Trump won Iowa by more than 13 points.
Since the ill-fated predictions of a Hillary Clinton landslide in 2016, pollsters have struggled to accurately count Trump’s base. This challenge is distinctive to Trump-led elections, in contrast to the relatively precise polls during the 2018 and 2022 midterms. Presidential election years typically see higher turnout, particularly among Trump’s supporters, who generally harbor distrust towards institutions and are often hard to reach for surveys.
“The very same Trump voters who don't trust experts, don't trust the media, don't trust science — also don't trust pollsters,” emphasized Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. “And we found in several states that simply, they were opting out.”
To remedy this, researchers this year "jumped through a lot of hoops," according to Ayres, to more effectively engage Trump voters and enhance predictive accuracy. They reconfigured their electorate models, placed greater weight on certain demographic groups, and refined their outreach to non-college-educated voters, who typically lean Republican.
As a result, final polling aggregates illustrated a toss-up in five swing states, with Trump enjoying notable leads in Arizona and Nevada. The polls also successfully captured Trump's appeal among white voters and Harris' lack of support among Black and Latino men, both of which were pivotal to Trump’s significant win.
The president-elect ultimately secured all battleground states, a result that pollsters attributed to undecided voters leaning disproportionately—and unexpectedly—toward Trump. "If you look at the past, undecideds tended to not favor Republicans," noted GOP pollster Brent Buchanan. "This year, Trump benefited from undecideds."
The election night outcomes, while within the predictions provided by pollsters, were nevertheless surprising due to their sweeping nature. Leading up to November 5, many journalists and analysts anticipated a protracted resolution process given the tight margins in swing states.
Although the final vote counts matched the margins of error in polling aggregates across those states, they still understated Trump's support by roughly 3 points. This discrepancy could be attributed to late-deciding voters who made their choices after the final surveys were conducted.
In the campaign's final week, Trump secured a highly sought-after endorsement from Joe Rogan, which Maslin linked to Trump’s last-minute momentum. Buchanan's models indicated that Trump was ahead by 3 points among voters who decided in the campaign’s final stretch.
Pollsters have predominantly identified Trump himself as a key factor behind the inaccuracies observed in 2016 and 2020. "It's a Trump issue, not a Republican issue," affirmed Ayres, who has spent 40 years in GOP polling. Looking ahead to 2028, the first presidential election in twelve years without Trump, Ayres predicted that "we can reasonably expect whatever problems we had getting Trump voters to go away."
Others remain more cautious about future polling reliability. "It's not like, ‘Oh, great, fine, polling was pretty good this time we can put this to bed,’” Maslin remarked. “No, of course not. It's an ongoing question. It will continue to be, and it should be.”
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
