The article discusses the potential for Donald Trump to defeat Kamala Harris in the upcoming presidential election, citing past polling errors that underestimated his support. It highlights factors contributing to polling inaccuracies, including the reluctance of Trump voters to participate. While Democrats hope to attract disillusioned Republicans, the author notes uncertainty about voter behavior. The piece emphasizes the evolving landscape of opinion research and the likelihood of unexpected outcomes in this closely contested election.
Donald Trump appears poised for a possible victory in the upcoming presidential election against Kamala Harris. Historically, during the 2016 and 2020 elections, polls consistently underestimated his support. Presently, Trump seems to be matching or even surpassing Harris in popularity across the nation and in critical swing states. If the past repeats, he could very well secure a decisive win on November 5.
The pressing question remains: have American pollsters adapted their methods to rectify earlier mistakes? In defense of their predictions, it’s noted that they accurately foresaw the national popular vote in 2016, anticipating a 3-point lead for Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Clinton led by just 2 points. However, in vital swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, polls significantly underestimated Trump’s appeal, wrongly predicting a slight victory for Clinton instead of his actual wins in these states.
Unrecognized Working-Class Support
To understand these miscalculations, the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) formed a committee to investigate. Their analysis identified three key reasons for the inaccuracies: first, numerous undecided voters leaned toward Trump only in the final week leading up to the election. Second, polling organizations undervalued the opinions of voters without a college degree. Since more educated individuals tend to participate in surveys, pollsters missed a substantial number of working-class perspectives. Trump notably mobilized a significant support base among white working-class voters, particularly in the Midwest. Third, some respondents did not disclose their Trump support, either due to late recognition or shame.
Andrew Smith, director of the polling institute at the University of New Hampshire, cites the miscalculation regarding education as the primary factor for the predicting errors in 2016. However, even after acknowledging this aspect, the issue persisted in 2020, where Biden appeared to hold an average lead of over 8 percentage points before election day—yet he only managed a narrow victory.
Following the 2020 election, AAPOR once again commissioned experts to assess polling performance. The findings were troubling, revealing that national and state-level predictions for Biden’s support were overestimated by roughly 4 percentage points—marking the most inaccurate polling forecasts in decades.
Experts struggled to pinpoint valid explanations for their shortcomings. The data accumulation was inadequate, and they recognized numerous factors that didn’t adequately justify the errors. For instance, they ruled out the idea that many Trump voters hesitated to express their political leanings.
Smith, a contributor to the AAPOR report, highlights one significant insight: many Trump supporters simply chose not to engage with pollsters. This aversion is understandable, given that Trump has repeatedly criticized “fake news” and unreliable polls over the years.
This reluctance may have kept polling firms from reaching many of Trump’s dedicated supporters. In response, pollsters have started asking voters how they would have voted in the 2020 election and weighting current survey data to mirror the proportion of Trump supporters from that election cycle—a technique known as “weighting on recalled vote.” The effectiveness of this approach, however, remains debated.
Smith observes that the phenomenon of “secret” Trump voters appears to be declining. In his 2020 surveys in New Hampshire, 52% of Trump supporters indicated they withheld yard signs due to concerns about vandalism. A recent follow-up showed this figure had dropped to 31%, suggesting increased confidence among Trump supporters to openly identify with him.
Democrats Target Disillusioned Republicans
The Democratic Party is also focusing on disenchanted Republicans, hoping many of them will vote in Harris’s favor. Her primary audience consists of conservatives who feel Trump has overstepped boundaries, particularly regarding his actions surrounding the Capitol incident. To appeal to these voters, Harris has been making public appearances alongside Liz Cheney, a former GOP leader turned vocal Trump critic.
During a joint event, Cheney emphasized that the choice is not merely between two parties, but between right and wrong. Many conservatives express a reluctance to publicly reject Trump while considering doing so in private. Cheney reassured them, stating, “You can vote with your conscience and keep it to yourself.” This sentiment may resonate with millions of Republicans as they head to the polls on November 5.
Nonetheless, the success of these Democratic aspirations is still uncertain. Smith remains cautious, suggesting that any hidden support for Harris likely comes from Republicans with high school education, who are less likely to evade pollsters. At the same time, Trump is leveraging his divisive rhetoric to broaden his appeal among lower-educated voters, including Latino and African American communities.
As polling methodologies evolve, with a notable shift from telephone surveys to online platforms, the landscape