Donald Trump’s third presidential election victory has once again raised doubts about the reliability of polling, especially as the final results differed from the predictions made leading up to Election Day.
Despite forecasts suggesting a tightly contested race, Trump managed to secure key battleground states and appears poised to win the popular vote. His performance was particularly striking in blue states, where he reduced the margin of defeat compared to past elections.
These outcomes add to the growing concerns regarding the accuracy of polling data, which has been under scrutiny since Trump’s first presidential run in 2016. While some pollsters maintained that the results fell within the range of possibility, others noted the role the Electoral College played in magnifying the apparent margin of victory.
Suffolk University Expert Discusses Polling Variability in Trump Win
As David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, explained, an all-or-nothing Electoral College system can make a close victory appear much more decisive.
When looking at the final polling averages in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the numbers were not vastly off. Although votes are still being counted, Trump’s lead in these states is currently narrow—about 2 points in Pennsylvania, 1.5 in Michigan, and 1 in Wisconsin. While these states are close, the outcome matches what polls suggested in terms of the tightness of the race.
In other battleground states like Georgia and North Carolina, Trump won with slim margins, but still exceeded expectations based on final polling. He managed to maintain a 1 to 2 point lead in these regions, with polling showing a more even split between him and Harris.
His performance in Nevada and North Carolina also slightly outpaced predictions, with Trump holding around a 3-point lead in both states, though still within the usual margin of error. Arizona’s results were particularly surprising, with Trump leading by 6 points, a big difference from the polling averages of 2.5 to 2.1 points.
Jim Lee, CEO of Susquehanna Polling & Research, acknowledged that while pollsters did not get everything right, they were successful in capturing the close nature of the race, with Trump maintaining a slight edge in key states.
Heading into this election cycle, pollsters were already aware of the potential for discrepancies, given Trump’s track record of outperforming polls. His unexpected win in 2016, followed by a tight race in 2020, prompted pollsters to adjust their methodologies.
Changes included placing more emphasis on factors like educational background and working to better reach demographic groups that had previously been underrepresented in surveys. Nevertheless, polling errors persisted. Trump’s performance among Latino and young voters, for instance, outpaced expectations.
Polls had shown Harris leading by double digits among Latinos, yet Trump finally narrowed the gap. Similarly, while polls predicted Harris would perform well with young voters, her margin among 18-to-29-year-olds was far slimmer than expected.
John Cluverius, assistant director at the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, noted the continued struggle to reach younger voters, whose participation remains difficult to predict.
This, alongside the rising cost of conducting polls, has made it harder to obtain accurate data. Cluverius also suggested that it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions about how polling methods should evolve moving forward.
One of the major challenges for pollsters this year was predicting voter turnout. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake pointed to a higher-than-expected turnout among Trump supporters as a key factor in the polling discrepancies. Though pollsters can estimate voter intent and likelihood, predicting actual turnout remains an inexact science.
Moving forward, Cluverius stressed the need for pollsters to be transparent and adaptable, acknowledging that while polling may not be perfect, it is still the most reliable method for gauging public opinion. The continued evolution of polling techniques will be critical to improving their accuracy in future elections.
