Paul Krugman, Elliott Morris, and David Nir on the blue wave

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into Elliott’s newsletter piece arguing the conventional wisdom on polling error might have it backwards this cycle — that the polls could be understating Democratic support, not overstating it, as the polls did in 2020 and 2024. They break down two structural reasons why that could be happening. Then, the podcast closes with a state-by-state tour of the FiftyPlusOne election forecast that’s moved sharply toward Democrats in both chambers.This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* Polling bias is not predictable from cycle to cycle. In 2022, many election forecasters ended up making worse predictions than they otherwise woudl have by adding extra support for Republicans to “unskew” the polls.* Weighting by recalled 2024 vote could be quietly inflating support for Republicans. Pollsters increasingly weight samples to match the results of the last election, using respondents’ self-reported vote. But people can misremember or change their reported vote — if disaffected Trump voters are the ones now declining to admit they voted for him, the remaining self-identified “Trump voters” skew more MAGA than the actual 2024 coalition. Elliott’s simulations suggest this could be suppressing the Democrats’ generic-ballot margin by up to a point.* Named-candidate polling shows Democrats running ahead of the generic ballot. A YouGov/Economist survey using actual candidate names in each district showed Democrats up 11 points among likely voters, versus 8 points on CBS’s standard generic-ballot question over the same period (also fielded by YouGov) — a gap directionally consistent with but larger than the historical average overperformance for high-quality candidates.* The 50+1 forecast now gives Democrats a 97% chance of winning the House, up sharply from where it stood in prior weeks, and a 65% chance in the Senate, where polls have moved toward Democrats in most competitive states.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">paid subscribers to </a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">Strength In Numbers</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe"> get to participate in our live Q&A!</a> If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a target="_blank" href="http://gelliottmorris.com/">gelliottmorris.com</a>.You can also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a target="_blank" href="https://the-downballot.com/">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into Elliott’s newsletter piece arguing the conventional wisdom on polling error might have it backwards this cycle — that the polls could be understating Democratic support, not overstating it, as the polls did in 2020 and 2024. They break down two structural reasons why that could be happening. Then, the podcast closes with a state-by-state tour of the FiftyPlusOne election forecast that’s moved sharply toward Democrats in both chambers. This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast. A couple of big takeaways from the conversation: * Polling bias is not predictable from cycle to cycle. In 2022, many election forecasters ended up making worse predictions than they otherwise woudl have by adding extra support for Republicans to “unskew” the polls. * Weighting by recalled 2024 vote could be quietly inflating support for Republicans. Pollsters increasingly weight samples to match the results of the last election, using respondents’ self-reported vote. But people can misremember or change their reported vote — if disaffected Trump voters are the ones now declining to admit they voted for him, the remaining self-identified “Trump voters” skew more MAGA than the actual 2024 coalition. Elliott’s simulations suggest this could be suppressing the Democrats’ generic-ballot margin by up to a point. * Named-candidate polling shows Democrats running ahead of the generic ballot. A YouGov/Economist survey using actual candidate names in each district showed Democrats up 11 points among likely voters, versus 8 points on CBS’s standard generic-ballot question over the same period (also fielded by YouGov) — a gap directionally consistent with but larger than the historical average overperformance for high-quality candidates. * The 50+1 forecast now gives Democrats a 97% chance of winning the House, up sharply from where it stood in prior weeks, and a 65% chance in the Senate, where polls have moved toward Democrats in most competitive states. Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into Elliott’s newsletter piece arguing the conventional wisdom on polling error might have it backwards this cycle — that the polls could be understating Democratic support, not overstating it, as the polls did in 2020 and 2024. They break down two structural reasons why that could be happening. Then, the podcast closes with a state-by-state tour of the FiftyPlusOne election forecast that’s moved sharply toward Democrats in both chambers.This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* Polling bias is not predictable from cycle to cycle. In 2022, many election forecasters ended up making worse predictions than they otherwise woudl have by adding extra support for Republicans to “unskew” the polls.* Weighting by recalled 2024 vote could be quietly inflating support for Republicans. Pollsters increasingly weight samples to match the results of the last election, using respondents’ self-reported vote. But people can misremember or change their reported vote — if disaffected Trump voters are the ones now declining to admit they voted for him, the remaining self-identified “Trump voters” skew more MAGA than the actual 2024 coalition. Elliott’s simulations suggest this could be suppressing the Democrats’ generic-ballot margin by up to a point.* Named-candidate polling shows Democrats running ahead of the generic ballot. A YouGov/Economist survey using actual candidate names in each district showed Democrats up 11 points among likely voters, versus 8 points on CBS’s standard generic-ballot question over the same period (also fielded by YouGov) — a gap directionally consistent with but larger than the historical average overperformance for high-quality candidates.* The 50+1 forecast now gives Democrats a 97% chance of winning the House, up sharply from where it stood in prior weeks, and a 65% chance in the Senate, where polls have moved toward Democrats in most competitive states.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">paid subscribers to </a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">Strength In Numbers</a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer"> get to participate in our live Q&amp;A!</a> If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a href="http://gelliottmorris.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">gelliottmorris.com</a>.You can also <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a href="https://the-downballot.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_2" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

The blue wave is getting bigger

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David react to the first night of “Trumpapalooza,” the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, and explain why its proponents misunderstand what low-turnout Republican voters actually want. We also dig into Trump’s promise to send every adult American a $5,000 check if the GOP keeps Congress. Plus, we walk through the standards The Downballot and FiftyPlusOne use to decide which polls are worth reporting on (and, for readers, taking seriously).This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* What “Trumpapalooza” boosters get wrong about low-turnout Trump voters. According to Elliott’s analysis of 11,000 interviews from our monthly Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll this year, lower-propensity voters whom Republicans hope to activate via the convention are more anti-Trump—and are more focused on affordability—than Republicans who are already highly likely to vote in November. Even if two days of wall-to-wall Trump content were to motivate them, that might backfire on the GOP.* Not all polls are created equal, and not all deserve to be shared. David has new advice over <a target="_blank" href="https://www.the-downballot.com/p/how-the-downballot-reports-on-and">at The Downballot</a> walking through which polls are worth covering, and he swaps notes with Elliott about his own rules at FiftyPlusOne. Be especially aware of “informed ballot” polls masquerading as proper poll numbers, and just say no to pollsters who amplify conspiracy theories about elections.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">paid subscribers to </a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">Strength In Numbers</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe"> get to participate in our live Q&A!</a> If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a target="_blank" href="http://gelliottmorris.com/">gelliottmorris.com</a>.You can also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a target="_blank" href="https://the-downballot.com/">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David react to the first night of “Trumpapalooza,” the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, and explain why its proponents misunderstand what low-turnout Republican voters actually want. We also dig into Trump’s promise to send every adult American a $5,000 check if the GOP keeps Congress. Plus, we walk through the standards The Downballot and FiftyPlusOne use to decide which polls are worth reporting on (and, for readers, taking seriously). This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast. A couple of big takeaways from the conversation: * What “Trumpapalooza” boosters get wrong about low-turnout Trump voters. According to Elliott’s analysis of 11,000 interviews from our monthly Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll this year, lower-propensity voters whom Republicans hope to activate via the convention are more anti-Trump—and are more focused on affordability—than Republicans who are already highly likely to vote in November. Even if two days of wall-to-wall Trump content were to motivate them, that might backfire on the GOP. * Not all polls are created equal, and not all deserve to be shared. David has new advice over at The Downballot walking through which polls are worth covering, and he swaps notes with Elliott about his own rules at FiftyPlusOne. Be especially aware of “informed ballot” polls masquerading as proper poll numbers, and just say no to pollsters who amplify conspiracy theories about elections. Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David react to the first night of “Trumpapalooza,” the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, and explain why its proponents misunderstand what low-turnout Republican voters actually want. We also dig into Trump’s promise to send every adult American a $5,000 check if the GOP keeps Congress. Plus, we walk through the standards The Downballot and FiftyPlusOne use to decide which polls are worth reporting on (and, for readers, taking seriously).This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* What “Trumpapalooza” boosters get wrong about low-turnout Trump voters. According to Elliott’s analysis of 11,000 interviews from our monthly Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll this year, lower-propensity voters whom Republicans hope to activate via the convention are more anti-Trump—and are more focused on affordability—than Republicans who are already highly likely to vote in November. Even if two days of wall-to-wall Trump content were to motivate them, that might backfire on the GOP.* Not all polls are created equal, and not all deserve to be shared. David has new advice over <a href="https://www.the-downballot.com/p/how-the-downballot-reports-on-and" rel="noopener noreferrer">at The Downballot</a> walking through which polls are worth covering, and he swaps notes with Elliott about his own rules at FiftyPlusOne. Be especially aware of “informed ballot” polls masquerading as proper poll numbers, and just say no to pollsters who amplify conspiracy theories about elections.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">paid subscribers to </a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">Strength In Numbers</a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer"> get to participate in our live Q&amp;A!</a> If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a href="http://gelliottmorris.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">gelliottmorris.com</a>.You can also <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a href="https://the-downballot.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_2" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

Republicans who think "Trumpapalooza" will work misunderstand why Trump won in 2024

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is joined by Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, to dig into a truly wild week in polling. This week truly had it all: one “pollster” that turned out to be entirely fictional, a real pollster that admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices, and two firms that our investigation found were doing polls for campaigns but passing them off as non-partisan, public surveys. Plus, we talk about how to navigate the polling landscape given the increasingly low barrier to entry in public opinion research.Here are the big takeaways:* A firm called “Median Strategies” faked polls in California and Wisconsin. The firm told the LA Times it had invented its results as a “social experiment,” then scrubbed its anonymously registered website once reporters started asking for methodological details. Mary explains why FiftyPlusOne never reported on this organization’s “polls” and the screening questions she asks every pollster before she shares their numbers at 50+1.* A pollster called The Public Sentiment Institute admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices to boost numbers for one candidate — who coincidentally paid for the company’s polls, which it didn’t disclose. TPSI says they “leaned” respondents who had selected voting for Jay Collins toward James Fishback — whose campaign, it turns out, had paid them about $1,500 shortly before the polls came out. Collins finished in the mid-20s, and Fishback got 10%.* Fake polls have always been around. But it’s easier than ever to conduct surveys that are both real and unprofessional or low-quality. A firm called Research 2000 faked Daily Kos’s daily Obama approval tracker for over a year before they got caught. Now, in 2026, AI tools make it trivial for enterprising young coders to fabricate release paperwork and even topline and crosstab data — and anonymous prediction markets create an avenue for payoff. Mary says that social media accounts that collect and republish polls should only publish verified results, and link to their sources (instead of posting screenshots of polls to go viral). Better yet, just go to FiftyPlusOne.news for all your polling needs.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">paid subscribers to </a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">Strength In Numbers</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe"> get to participate in our live Q&A!</a> If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a target="_blank" href="http://gelliottmorris.com/">gelliottmorris.com</a>. You can also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a target="_blank" href="https://the-downballot.com/">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is joined by Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, to dig into a truly wild week in polling. This week truly had it all: one “pollster” that turned out to be entirely fictional, a real pollster that admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices, and two firms that our investigation found were doing polls for campaigns but passing them off as non-partisan, public surveys. Plus, we talk about how to navigate the polling landscape given the increasingly low barrier to entry in public opinion research. Here are the big takeaways: * A firm called “Median Strategies” faked polls in California and Wisconsin. The firm told the LA Times it had invented its results as a “social experiment,” then scrubbed its anonymously registered website once reporters started asking for methodological details. Mary explains why FiftyPlusOne never reported on this organization’s “polls” and the screening questions she asks every pollster before she shares their numbers at 50+1. * A pollster called The Public Sentiment Institute admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices to boost numbers for one candidate — who coincidentally paid for the company’s polls, which it didn’t disclose. TPSI says they “leaned” respondents who had selected voting for Jay Collins toward James Fishback — whose campaign, it turns out, had paid them about $1,500 shortly before the polls came out. Collins finished in the mid-20s, and Fishback got 10%. * Fake polls have always been around. But it’s easier than ever to conduct surveys that are both real and unprofessional or low-quality. A firm called Research 2000 faked Daily Kos’s daily Obama approval tracker for over a year before they got caught. Now, in 2026, AI tools make it trivial for enterprising young coders to fabricate release paperwork and even topline and crosstab data — and anonymous prediction markets create an avenue for payoff. Mary says that social media accounts that collect and republish polls should only publish verified results, and link to their sources (instead of posting screenshots of polls to go viral). Better yet, just go to FiftyPlusOne.news for all your polling needs. Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is joined by Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, to dig into a truly wild week in polling. This week truly had it all: one “pollster” that turned out to be entirely fictional, a real pollster that admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices, and two firms that our investigation found were doing polls for campaigns but passing them off as non-partisan, public surveys. Plus, we talk about how to navigate the polling landscape given the increasingly low barrier to entry in public opinion research.Here are the big takeaways:* A firm called “Median Strategies” faked polls in California and Wisconsin. The firm told the LA Times it had invented its results as a “social experiment,” then scrubbed its anonymously registered website once reporters started asking for methodological details. Mary explains why FiftyPlusOne never reported on this organization’s “polls” and the screening questions she asks every pollster before she shares their numbers at 50+1.* A pollster called The Public Sentiment Institute admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices to boost numbers for one candidate — who coincidentally paid for the company’s polls, which it didn’t disclose. TPSI says they “leaned” respondents who had selected voting for Jay Collins toward James Fishback — whose campaign, it turns out, had paid them about $1,500 shortly before the polls came out. Collins finished in the mid-20s, and Fishback got 10%.* Fake polls have always been around. But it’s easier than ever to conduct surveys that are both real and unprofessional or low-quality. A firm called Research 2000 faked Daily Kos’s daily Obama approval tracker for over a year before they got caught. Now, in 2026, AI tools make it trivial for enterprising young coders to fabricate release paperwork and even topline and crosstab data — and anonymous prediction markets create an avenue for payoff. Mary says that social media accounts that collect and republish polls should only publish verified results, and link to their sources (instead of posting screenshots of polls to go viral). Better yet, just go to FiftyPlusOne.news for all your polling needs.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">paid subscribers to </a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">Strength In Numbers</a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer"> get to participate in our live Q&amp;A!</a> If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a href="http://gelliottmorris.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">gelliottmorris.com</a>. You can also <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a href="https://the-downballot.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_2" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

A troubling trend of fake polls and lying pollsters, with FiftyPlusOne’s Mary Radcliffe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into why the Wisconsin governor’s primary polls overestimated Francesca Hong by 20 points, why the “the polls are overestimating the left” narrative falls apart pretty quickly (look at Minnesota), and why late primaries are bad for democracy (and frustrating for election forecasters).Here are the big takeaways:* Hong’s miss is a 90th-percentile polling miss, not proof the industry is broken. The pre-election average had her up about 20 on David Crowley, and she lost by one. In the Senate and governor primaries Elliott and Mary Radcliffe analyzed going back a decade, the average poll misses the margin between the top two by 13 points, and misses of 20-plus happen about 10% of the time. What’s genuinely unusual is the direction: in all eight of the 20-point misses in the database, the polls underestimated the leader — Tammy Duckworth by 20 in the 2016 Illinois Senate primary, Sam Brown in Nevada in 2024 — and the previous record for overestimating an eventual loser was 19 points, in the 2024 Puerto Rico governor’s race. (Lamar Alexander in 2014 and Spencer Cox were both overestimated by 15-plus and won anyway.) Evergreen reminder: polling primaries is hard.* We should judge candidates by their absolute performance, not performance relative to the polls. If nobody had polled Wisconsin, the only available take Tuesday night would have been “wow, that was close.” Instead, polls set up a prior for everyone that Hong would win big — so when she didn’t, the election gets cast as a “disappointment for the left.” David argues for rooting our grading of candidates by their actual performance. Elliott says you could also use the fundamentals. But be consistent: you can throw out the polls as junk and trash them when they’re wrong, but then you can’t say candidates “underperformed” based on polls.* At a D+7 national environment, Wisconsin and Minnesota are at worst lean D, and maybe likely. With a generic ballot running D+7 to D+8, Minnesota a couple points bluer than the country and Wisconsin about a point redder, a win by under five points for either Democratic candidate would be a surprise. Especially considering in Wisconsin the Republican nominee for governor, Tom Tiffany, is a Freedom Caucus member, election denier who voted against recognizing Biden’s win days after January 6, one of only 18 House members to oppose the resolution condemning QAnon, and very far right on abortion. Democrats will spend heavily making all of that central to their campaign — while Trump has, at best, a 40-42% approval rating in the state. <a target="_blank" href="https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/talking-with-g-elliott-morris-about?r=a9pj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web">Maybe this is bluer than people think</a>?Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">paid subscribers to </a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">Strength In Numbers</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe"> get to participate in our live Q&A!</a>If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a target="_blank" href="http://gelliottmorris.com/">gelliottmorris.com</a>. You can also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a target="_blank" href="https://the-downballot.com/">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into why the Wisconsin governor’s primary polls overestimated Francesca Hong by 20 points, why the “the polls are overestimating the left” narrative falls apart pretty quickly (look at Minnesota), and why late primaries are bad for democracy (and frustrating for election forecasters). Here are the big takeaways: * Hong’s miss is a 90th-percentile polling miss, not proof the industry is broken. The pre-election average had her up about 20 on David Crowley, and she lost by one. In the Senate and governor primaries Elliott and Mary Radcliffe analyzed going back a decade, the average poll misses the margin between the top two by 13 points, and misses of 20-plus happen about 10% of the time. What’s genuinely unusual is the direction: in all eight of the 20-point misses in the database, the polls underestimated the leader — Tammy Duckworth by 20 in the 2016 Illinois Senate primary, Sam Brown in Nevada in 2024 — and the previous record for overestimating an eventual loser was 19 points, in the 2024 Puerto Rico governor’s race. (Lamar Alexander in 2014 and Spencer Cox were both overestimated by 15-plus and won anyway.) Evergreen reminder: polling primaries is hard. * We should judge candidates by their absolute performance, not performance relative to the polls. If nobody had polled Wisconsin, the only available take Tuesday night would have been “wow, that was close.” Instead, polls set up a prior for everyone that Hong would win big — so when she didn’t, the election gets cast as a “disappointment for the left.” David argues for rooting our grading of candidates by their actual performance. Elliott says you could also use the fundamentals. But be consistent: you can throw out the polls as junk and trash them when they’re wrong, but then you can’t say candidates “underperformed” based on polls. * At a D+7 national environment, Wisconsin and Minnesota are at worst lean D, and maybe likely. With a generic ballot running D+7 to D+8, Minnesota a couple points bluer than the country and Wisconsin about a point redder, a win by under five points for either Democratic candidate would be a surprise. Especially considering in Wisconsin the Republican nominee for governor, Tom Tiffany, is a Freedom Caucus member, election denier who voted against recognizing Biden’s win days after January 6, one of only 18 House members to oppose the resolution condemning QAnon, and very far right on abortion. Democrats will spend heavily making all of that central to their campaign — while Trump has, at best, a 40-42% approval rating in the state. Maybe this is bluer than people think? Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into why the Wisconsin governor’s primary polls overestimated Francesca Hong by 20 points, why the “the polls are overestimating the left” narrative falls apart pretty quickly (look at Minnesota), and why late primaries are bad for democracy (and frustrating for election forecasters).Here are the big takeaways:* Hong’s miss is a 90th-percentile polling miss, not proof the industry is broken. The pre-election average had her up about 20 on David Crowley, and she lost by one. In the Senate and governor primaries Elliott and Mary Radcliffe analyzed going back a decade, the average poll misses the margin between the top two by 13 points, and misses of 20-plus happen about 10% of the time. What’s genuinely unusual is the direction: in all eight of the 20-point misses in the database, the polls underestimated the leader — Tammy Duckworth by 20 in the 2016 Illinois Senate primary, Sam Brown in Nevada in 2024 — and the previous record for overestimating an eventual loser was 19 points, in the 2024 Puerto Rico governor’s race. (Lamar Alexander in 2014 and Spencer Cox were both overestimated by 15-plus and won anyway.) Evergreen reminder: polling primaries is hard.* We should judge candidates by their absolute performance, not performance relative to the polls. If nobody had polled Wisconsin, the only available take Tuesday night would have been “wow, that was close.” Instead, polls set up a prior for everyone that Hong would win big — so when she didn’t, the election gets cast as a “disappointment for the left.” David argues for rooting our grading of candidates by their actual performance. Elliott says you could also use the fundamentals. But be consistent: you can throw out the polls as junk and trash them when they’re wrong, but then you can’t say candidates “underperformed” based on polls.* At a D+7 national environment, Wisconsin and Minnesota are at worst lean D, and maybe likely. With a generic ballot running D+7 to D+8, Minnesota a couple points bluer than the country and Wisconsin about a point redder, a win by under five points for either Democratic candidate would be a surprise. Especially considering in Wisconsin the Republican nominee for governor, Tom Tiffany, is a Freedom Caucus member, election denier who voted against recognizing Biden’s win days after January 6, one of only 18 House members to oppose the resolution condemning QAnon, and very far right on abortion. Democrats will spend heavily making all of that central to their campaign — while Trump has, at best, a 40-42% approval rating in the state. <a href="https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/talking-with-g-elliott-morris-about?r=a9pj&amp;utm_campaign=post&amp;utm_medium=web" rel="noopener noreferrer">Maybe this is bluer than people think</a>?Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">paid subscribers to </a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">Strength In Numbers</a><a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer"> get to participate in our live Q&amp;A!</a>If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at <a href="http://gelliottmorris.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">gelliottmorris.com</a>. You can also <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/podcast" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app</a> to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to <a href="https://the-downballot.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">the-downballot.com</a>.And if you’re coming from David’s site, <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe" rel="noopener noreferrer">subscribe here</a> to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_2" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

Can we trust the polls in 2026?

I was very kindly joined by David Nir of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.the-downballot.com/">The Downballot</a> on Tuesday to talk about the (successful, IMO!) <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/building-a-new-home-for-political-data-journalism">launch</a> of Strength In Numbers this week, and give a sneak peek at <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/announcing-the-strength-in-numbersverasight">our first poll publishing tomorrow</a> (Wednesday, May 14).The first few minutes will be familiar to readers because we are giving a wider audience on the Substack App the low-down on what we do here at Strength In Numbers. But the rest will be fresh for you.We talk about:* Why I think data-driven news is more necessary now than ever* Incentives for and against accuracy in political news coverage* How to improve journalism about polling* Why it matters that Donald Trump is unpopular* What’s in store for the first Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll coming out tomorrow…To watch the video from this live conversation, click the play button above.And if you haven’t yet subscribed to The Downballot, you can sign up below: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

I was very kindly joined by David Nir of The Downballot on Tuesday to talk about the (successful, IMO!) launch of Strength In Numbers this week, and give a sneak peek at our first poll publishing tomorrow (Wednesday, May 14). The first few minutes will be familiar to readers because we are giving a wider audience on the Substack App the low-down on what we do here at Strength In Numbers. But the rest will be fresh for you. We talk about: * Why I think data-driven news is more necessary now than ever * Incentives for and against accuracy in political news coverage * How to improve journalism about polling * Why it matters that Donald Trump is unpopular * What’s in store for the first Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll coming out tomorrow… To watch the video from this live conversation, click the play button above. And if you haven’t yet subscribed to The Downballot, you can sign up below: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

I was very kindly joined by David Nir of <a href="https://www.the-downballot.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Downballot</a> on Tuesday to talk about the (successful, IMO!) <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/building-a-new-home-for-political-data-journalism" rel="noopener noreferrer">launch</a> of Strength In Numbers this week, and give a sneak peek at <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/announcing-the-strength-in-numbersverasight" rel="noopener noreferrer">our first poll publishing tomorrow</a> (Wednesday, May 14).The first few minutes will be familiar to readers because we are giving a wider audience on the Substack App the low-down on what we do here at Strength In Numbers. But the rest will be fresh for you.We talk about:* Why I think data-driven news is more necessary now than ever* Incentives for and against accuracy in political news coverage* How to improve journalism about polling* Why it matters that Donald Trump is unpopular* What’s in store for the first Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll coming out tomorrow…To watch the video from this live conversation, click the play button above.And if you haven’t yet subscribed to The Downballot, you can sign up below: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_2" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

Live with David Nir to chat about Strength In Numbers

This is just a quick post to draw your attention to two things:First, I’ve just uploaded an initial release of my index of economic growth to the Strength In Numbers <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/i/159456631/political-economic-index">data portal</a>. Trump’s approval rating — now at net -6 — is also updated there. I plan to make revisions to the model powering the economic index, <a target="_blank" href="https://github.com/elliottmorris/Economic-data-tracker">which I’ve released publicly online</a>, and to very soon incorporate it into a Cost Of Ruling Index that captures both political and economic conditions. Stay tuned for that.And second, I just wrapped up a live Substack conversation with Chris Cillizza, formerly of CNN, where we talked about polling, Trump, and how to cover this moment in American politics. It was fun and I’m hoping to do more of these live conversations in the future; I find they are easier than TV and enjoy the interactivity with you readers. There is a link to the recording at the top of this email, and you can also listen to it as a podcast if you open this email in the Substack app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

This is just a quick post to draw your attention to two things: First, I’ve just uploaded an initial release of my index of economic growth to the Strength In Numbers data portal. Trump’s approval rating — now at net -6 — is also updated there. I plan to make revisions to the model powering the economic index, which I’ve released publicly online, and to very soon incorporate it into a Cost Of Ruling Index that captures both political and economic conditions. Stay tuned for that. And second, I just wrapped up a live Substack conversation with Chris Cillizza, formerly of CNN, where we talked about polling, Trump, and how to cover this moment in American politics. It was fun and I’m hoping to do more of these live conversations in the future; I find they are easier than TV and enjoy the interactivity with you readers. There is a link to the recording at the top of this email, and you can also listen to it as a podcast if you open this email in the Substack app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

This is just a quick post to draw your attention to two things:First, I’ve just uploaded an initial release of my index of economic growth to the Strength In Numbers <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/i/159456631/political-economic-index" rel="noopener noreferrer">data portal</a>. Trump’s approval rating — now at net -6 —&nbsp;is also updated there. I plan to make revisions to the model powering the economic index, <a href="https://github.com/elliottmorris/Economic-data-tracker" rel="noopener noreferrer">which I’ve released publicly online</a>, and to very soon incorporate it into a Cost Of Ruling Index that captures both political and economic conditions. Stay tuned for that.And second, I just wrapped up a live Substack conversation with Chris Cillizza, formerly of CNN, where we talked about polling, Trump, and how to cover this moment in American politics. It was fun and I’m hoping to do more of these live conversations in the future; I find they are easier than TV and enjoy the interactivity with you readers. There is a link to the recording at the top of this email, and you can also listen to it as a podcast if you open this email in the Substack app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&amp;utm_campaign=CTA_2" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe</a>

A conversation about Donald Trump’s poll numbers with Chris Cillizza

Independent, data-driven analysis of politics, public opinion polls, and elections. From author, journalist, and pollster G. Elliott Morris. <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com?utm_medium=podcast">www.gelliottmorris.com</a>

News

Politics

Independent, data-driven analysis of politics, public opinion polls, and elections. From author, journalist, and pollster G. Elliott Morris. www.gelliottmorris.com

Independent, data-driven analysis of politics, public opinion polls, and elections. From author, journalist, and pollster G. Elliott Morris. <a href="https://www.gelliottmorris.com?utm_medium=podcast" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.gelliottmorris.com</a>

Share The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris

Sign up to save your podcasts

The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris

The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris episodes

About The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris

Best of The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris