Send us a text

If some of the last 2024 presidential election polls were pointing to a decisive Kamala Harris win, then why did it become clear so early in the evening that Harris would, in fact, lose? Were the polls wrong...again? In this episode, Dr. W. Joseph Campbell discusses how polls work, the history of polling errors, and why it matters. He also takes on Selzer's Iowa poll that showed Kamala Harris's unexpected surge in Iowa days before the election, only for Donald Trump to secure a decisive win, echoing the shockwaves of 2016. We dissect the historical miscalculations that have shaped voter trust and question whether inherent biases, flawed methodologies, or media narratives are distorting the truth.

Harry Truman's stunning 1948 victory and the unexpected triumph of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016 are some examples of polling error that we discuss. These moments show how fragile the balance is between the pursuit of precision in polling and the pillars of free speech. We talk about how these errors have an impact on voter engagement and democratic processes, and how challenging it is to read and engage with potentially faulty polls in an entrenched electoral culture.

Finally, we discuss the reasons why Trump's support has historically been underestimated and the implications for media narratives in shaping electoral momentum. Polling is an art and a science. It's not going away, so we should temper our expectations.

Recommended:
Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in U.S. Presidential Elections
Better But Not Stellar
Polls Were Largely Accurate in Anticipating Trump-Harris Race

Related:
Counterpoint Podcast

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube

Email: [email protected]

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock