These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content test

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

Pollster Who Claimed Harris Would Win Iowa Forced to Face the Music…

Pollster Who Claimed Harris Would Win Iowa Forced to Face the Music…

Another election, another round of epic polling failures. For years, the media and polling firms have pushed predictions as if they were gospel. Yet each cycle seems to expose their flaws even more. This election was no different.

Pollsters confidently predicting a “close race” between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t close at all. Trump didn’t just win—he won by a landslide, taking both the electoral and popular votes. And now the media is left scrambling to explain why their beloved polls were, once again, completely wrong.

Among all the inaccurate polls, one stood out for how shockingly off-base it was. Just days before the election, this poll claimed Harris was leading Trump in a reliably red state. The media jumped on this poll, in an effort to deflate Trump’s momentum. Trump won that state by a wide margin.

Now, this “respected” pollster is losing major ground.

Pollster J. Ann Selzer is “reviewing her data” to determine why her pre-election poll, which set off a multi-day media firestorm, inaccurately showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading in Iowa…

Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., who conducted the poll, declared Harris had clearly “leaped into a leading position” ahead of Election Day…

Selzer had egg on her face when the Fox News Decision Desk called Iowa for Trump on Tuesday night with the former president holding a commanding lead. [Source: Fox News]

J. Ann Selzer, often praised as one of the “best pollsters in politics,” missed the mark in a spectacular fashion. Her final Iowa poll suggested a seven-point swing from Trump to Harris, showing Harris up by 47% to Trump’s 44%.

The media celebrated this as a groundbreaking shift, with Rachel Maddow and others declaring it a sign of Harris’s newfound popularity. “If anybody is accurate, it’s likely to be Ann Selzer,” Maddow gushed. CNN panelists echoed the sentiment, describing Selzer’s track record as “always right.”

But on election night, when Iowa overwhelmingly went to Trump, Selzer’s poll looked less like good data and more like wishful thinking. Fox News called Iowa for Trump early, with the former president leading by a comfortable margin. Iowa voters, it turns out, weren’t swayed by Harris’s progressive platform.

Instead, they backed Trump in numbers that completely contradicted Selzer’s forecast. Trump supporters were quick to mock Selzer’s erroneous polling, with co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita posting, “Enjoy retirement,” in response to the wildly inaccurate numbers.

Now, Selzer is in the hot seat, scrambling to explain her poll’s inaccuracy. She issued a statement expressing disappointment and said she would be “reviewing data from multiple sources” to understand what went wrong. But some observers aren’t buying it.

How could someone with Selzer’s reputation misread the mood in Iowa, a reliably red state, to such an extent? Critics argue that Selzer’s poll may have reflected more than just flawed methodology. Was it an honest mistake, or were her results influenced by a media narrative that desperately wanted Harris to appear competitive?

Shawn Carney, founder of the pro-life organization 40 Days for Life, suggested that the pollsters and media were pushing a narrative they wanted to believe. “The media ran with this narrative because it’s what they wanted to believe was true,” Carney said. He argued that pollsters like Selzer made arrogant assumptions, including the idea that women’s votes are driven by single issues like abortion.

The Iowa poll, in Carney’s view, demonstrated just how out of touch some pollsters are with the real concerns of everyday Americans, who are more focused on economic stability, safety, and family.

It’s no secret that the media loves polling. They can craft entire narratives around numbers that reinforce their perspective, and that’s exactly what happened with Selzer’s Iowa poll. The idea that Harris was closing the gap with Trump in a Midwestern state like Iowa fit neatly with the media’s hopes.

Talking heads on MSNBC, CNN, and The View were ecstatic, using the poll to claim that Harris’s support was rising across the Midwest. But it was all smoke and mirrors. When the real votes were counted, the supposed swing to Harris turned out to be a mirage.

The media’s reliance on polling as a news story in itself is an ongoing problem. Instead of reporting on real issues that matter to voters—like inflation, crime, and border security—media outlets use polls to try and set the narrative.

But each election cycle exposes how unreliable these polls can be. For the average American, this election was a clear example of why they should take pre-election polling with a big grain of salt.

For J. Ann Selzer and other pollsters, this election was a wake-up call. The “scientific” process of polling has lost credibility with voters who are tired of hearing predictions that don’t match reality. Iowa’s decisive vote for Trump sent a message: voters want solutions, not spin.

The media, eager to push a story of Harris’s growing popularity, bought into polling that didn’t hold up. Now, the credibility of major polling firms is in question, and voters are left wondering whether they can trust polls at all.

Selzer may review her data and come up with explanations for her error, but that won’t change the outcome. Trump’s victory in Iowa—and across the nation—shows that Americans are looking for more than progressive talking points. Pollsters and pundits would do well to remember that.

Author: Bo Dogan


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More


Most Popular

Most Popular


You Might Also Like

Former Agent Outs Biden’s–Suddenly He’s Facing Surprise Indictment

Former Agent Outs Biden’s–Suddenly He’s Facing Surprise Indictment

Criticizing Democrats seems to come with a price tag these days—and not just in political currency. Consider…
Trump Gives Big Warning to “Allies”–Do This and You’ll Regret it

Trump Gives Big Warning to “Allies”–Do This and You’ll Regret it

The winds of change are already sweeping across America. With President-elect Donald Trump poised to re-enter the White…
After Pentagon Fails Another Audit–Bernie Sanders Says THIS About Elon Musk!

After Pentagon Fails Another Audit–Bernie Sanders Says THIS About Elon Musk!

The Pentagon has done it again. For the seventh year in a row, the Department of Defense (DoD)…
Trump Drives Final Nail in Biden’s Coffin–Joe’s Biggest “Win” Is Done

Trump Drives Final Nail in Biden’s Coffin–Joe’s Biggest “Win” Is Done

President Joe Biden’s economic policies have been nothing short of catastrophic. Instead of focusing on relief…