Polling Predictions vs. Election Reality: A Model of Mistrust

Contact Your Elected Officials

In the 2024 presidential race, pollsters insisted the competition was too close to call in key swing states, with six out of seven states showing Harris and Trump within a 1% margin. Certainly, if these are unbiased polls the error would expect to swing in either direction. Based on these polls, a roughly equal likelihood existed for each candidate to outperform the polling predictions, especially within a typical 2-3% margin of error. But what actually happened?

The Results were not Random

On Election Day, Trump outperformed the final polls in all seven swing states by an average of 2.43% per state. While this figure falls near the margin of error, the pattern defies probability; it’s statistically unlikely for all seven states to lean in one direction if the polls were truly unbiased.

Looking Beyond the Swing States

Expanding the analysis to the 31 states which had polling data published right up until election day (from FiveThirtyEight), the trend becomes even clearer: in 29 of those states, Trump exceeded poll predictions. Harris only surpassed the polls in two states. The average difference in election performance relative to the final poll results in those 31 states was 2.86% in Trump’s favor, when each state is weighted equally. When weighted by the number of electoral votes in each state, Trump outperformed the last poll results by an average of 3.77%. This broad skew raises questions about the methods and reliability of pre-election polling data.

Unpacking Bias in Polls

If poll data were unbiased, we’d expect performance differences to form a bell curve centered around zero, about as wide as the margin of error of the poll. But as seen in this Figure, the distribution of actual performance relative to polls was anything but normal. This deviation suggests potential flaws in polling methodologies or, possibly, an agenda to shape rather than reflect public opinion.

Models vs Reality: Polls vs Vote Counts

Polls, like scientific models, aim to represent complex systems—in this case, predicting voter behavior based on limited data. However, these polls are an estimate based on assumptions or expectations, not an exact measure. The final results serve as a reality check, highlighting gaps in polling accuracy. So, is the issue simply a methodological inadvertent bias due to incorrect assumptions, or do pollsters consciously skew data to influence public perception?

Parallels with Climate Models

This discrepancy in polling accuracy resembles issues in climate change modeling. Both polling and climate predictions simplify complex systems to predict outcomes, relying on a limited set of variables while potentially overlooking critical factors. Just as climate models struggle with countless variables influencing global temperatures or CO2 levels, pollsters face the challenge of predicting voter behavior based on algorithm inputs and limited data sets. What variables need to be measured? How much weight should each variable be given? How are interactions between variables compensated for? Whether it’s polls or climate models, there are guaranteed to be variables that would be impactful to the system but remain unknown or unmeasured.

The election system is big, but not as overwhelming as the earth’s climate system. Polls also have an actual definitive result within a reasonable timeframe, meaning the actual election is going to give us certain data with which to evaluate the usefulness of the previous models (polls). Even with such a relatively small system, the polls are off the mark. How much more so with models of climate change.

“Hockey Stick” Graphs

Plotting the final election results against pre-election polling data yields a “hockey stick” effect—a sharp deviation between stable polling predictions and actual voter outcomes. This parallels the well-known “hockey stick” shape seen in climate data, where models show recent spikes in temperatures after centuries of stability. The problem with this type of graph is that results from a model (polls) are on the same graph as actual measured data (vote counting). Just as the hockey stick CO2 graphs include estimates of historical CO2 levels based on indirect measurements of ice core samples filtered through model “algorithms” alongside more recent measurements CO2 taken in real time. Both cases raise the question: are we witnessing actual huge changes in previously stable trends, or simply exposing inaccuracies in predictive models? 

Final Thoughts

As polling organizations analyze the model-reality gap, it’s important for consumers to approach polling data critically to regain public trust. But do we need polls? Polls risk influencing voter behavior, potentially altering the outcome they aim to predict. If a candidate initiated a campaign for supporters to decline to participate in polls, the trustworthiness of polls could be intentionally quashed. Perhaps we would be in a better place if voters did not have the distractions of the polls, preserving a more independent decision-making process based on candidates’ values and policies.

Are we relying on models—or on real insights to guide our decisions?

Mack Ransom
Mack Ransomhttps://www.drmackshack.com/
Dr. Mack Ransom explores overlooked scientific and cultural connections, blending his passion for science, Christian faith, and the pursuit of truth through his posts on Dr. Mack's Commentary Shack.

Obama Floats ‘New Forms of [State-Controlled] Journalism’

Notorious nemesis of civil liberties one and all, Barack Obama, ]apparently endorses a heavy state hand in the “regulation” of information.

Privilege Is Financial, Not Racial

If we stay divided by race, we’ll keep fighting each other while the true elites of all races thrive unseen, counting their wealth in comfort.

California Repeats Illinois’ History, PROSECUTE Newsom!

California may have improperly licensed 62,000 illegal aliens as Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) truck drivers.

The Stage Is Set For A US-Instigated Security Dilemma Between The Eurasian Rimland & Heartland

The US sends mixed signals on the Sino-Russo alliance after Trump downplayed concerns while Hegseth said he was ordered to “re-establish deterrence.”

Chambers of Horror

Using a shutdown to legislate is like using a flame thrower to light a candle, it provides light momentarily but destroys everything in its path.

Vance Warns Holiday Travel Could Be ‘Disaster’ If Government Does Not Reopen

Vice President JD Vance warned on Thursday that holiday travel will be a “disaster” if the government shutdown does not end.

Trump Admin Cuts Quota for Refugees, Prioritizes Afrikaners

Trump admin slashed quota for refugees and prioritized Afrikaners “and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands.”

DHS: 8,000 Percent Jump in Death Threats Against ICE Officers

DHS reports an 8,000% surge in death threats against U.S. immigration officers, raising alarm over safety concerns for federal personnel.

Federal Judge Weighs Forcing USDA to Pay SNAP Benefits Despite Shutdown

A judge weighed forcing the USDA to use a $5 billion fund to prevent a lapse in the national food stamp program amid looming funding shortfalls.

US, South Korea Finalize Trade Deal Reducing Tariffs, Boosting American Investment

The U.S. and South Korea finalized a major trade deal on Oct. 29 as President Trump wrapped up the final hours of his Asian tour on the Korean Peninsula.

Trump, Japanese PM Sign Critical Minerals, Rare Earths Deal

The U.S. president visited Tokyo on the second leg...

Trump Hikes Canada’s Tariffs by 10 Percent for Not Pulling Anti-Tariff Ad Immediately

Trump announced he will increase tariffs on Canada by 10% after ad by provincial government of Ontario misrepresented President Reagan’s speech on tariffs.

Trump Rolls Back Emissions Rules on Copper Smelters

President Trump issued a proclamation aimed at reversing a Biden-era environmental rule that enforced stricter air emission standards on copper smelters.
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

MAGA Business Central