Election 2024 is in the rearview mirror. Pollsters won’t be bombarding voters anymore. Today’s entertainment is liberal heads exploding on social media or the latest Democrat threatening but not actually following through on everything from drinking cyanide to setting themselves on fire to leaving the country if Donald Trump won the election.

So far, few have followed through on their promises, although a handful have left the country. Good riddance to them.

Trump did win, bigly, in a landslide of sorts. He won the Electoral College handily, 312 to 226. Trump also won the popular vote, 49.9% to 48.3%. As a divided country, the popular vote will always be close. In his 49-state Electoral College landslides, Ronald Reagan only garnered 54% to 55% of the popular vote.

Interestingly, President-elect Trump has already selected his cabinet three weeks post-election, and some states are barely finished counting ballots. This explains why the popular vote percentage between the two candidates has continuously narrowed since the election. Wait long enough and at this rate, Vice President Kamala Harris will eventually lead the popular vote.
 
Opinion polls are a campaign season staple. Engaged voters watch the polls like day traders monitor the stock market. The daily mood of a large portion of the electorate hinges on where their favored candidate ranks in the latest opinion poll and how their popularity is trending.

The ultimate poll was conducted on Nov. 5, election day. In that poll, in the actual election, Trump received 50.0% and Harris 48.3%, or Trump +1.7%.

How accurate were the polls? How did this number compare to the final polls before the election? Which are the winners, and which lost bigly?

Fox News and CNBC were the closest, finding Trump +2 in their final polls. They deserve limited applause; however, since their last polling dates were Oct. 11-14 and Oct. 15-19, respectively, several weeks before the election, they missed important events that may have influenced voter decisions.

Trump worked at McDonalds on Oct. 20. Trump’s Joe Rogan interview was posted on Oct. 26. Trump’s garbage truck ride was on Oct. 30. These three sensational news events undoubtedly affected voting.

There were two big polling winners. In their final pre-election national poll, published on Nov. 1, Rasmussen Reports gave Trump a 3-point lead. AtlasIntel showed Trump +1.8 in their final poll of Nov. 1-2. They both approximated Trump’s final margin of +1.7, AtlasIntel the closest.

These timely polls, shortly before the election, were spot on.

As there are winners and losers, who lost in the polling?

The RealClearPolitics average gave Harris +0.1 in the popular vote. Rather than sharing the blame among all the pollsters, which polls skewed the average toward Harris?

The final Ipsos poll results were Harris +2, NPR/PBS/Marist Harris +4, Forbes/HarrisX Harris +2, Yahoo News Harris +1, and Morning Consult Harris +2.

Tied results came from TIPP, [TIPP's final tracking poll, published early on Nov. 5 showed Trump leading by 0.3 point, which would place its final call for Trump as accurate], the New York Post, NBC News, and Emerson.

Polling at the state level was wildly off the mark. In New Jersey, two polls, Rutgers-Eagleton and Cygnal predicted Harris +20 and +12, respectively. The final margin was far less, Harris +4.9.

Kansas polling was also markedly wrong. The Fort Hays St University poll showed Trump +5, with the result being Trump +16.6.

These polls all underestimated Trump’s popularity and ultimate election.

The biggest loser was the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll. On Nov. 2, pollster Ann Selzer claimed, “Kamala Harris leapfrogs Donald Trump to take lead near Election Day.” Trump was +4 in September, and on the eve of the election, Harris was +3, a 7-point swing.

When the votes were tallied, Trump had won Iowa by more than 13 points. The difference between the pre-election poll and reality was 20 points. This was more than a swing and a miss; it was like showing up in the wrong city for the game. Was this deliberate misinformation, wishful thinking, or incompetence?

 
YouTube screengrab

Corporate media, looking for anything hopeful ahead of the election, were giddy over the Iowa poll. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was delighted by this “shock result.” "If this is accurate, and if anybody is accurate, it’s likely to be Ann Selzer in the Iowa poll. If this is accurate, it implies that Harris might be winning Iowa," Rachel Maddow gushed.

How did that turn out? About as well as Maddow’s fantasies of Trump-Russia collusion and Trump allegedly not paying his taxes. Bupkis.

Maddow’s joy over the Iowa poll was short-lived, however. “MSNBC primetime viewership plunged 54% in the days after Donald Trump won the White House as the network’s audience tuned away from its left-leaning coverage.” Garbage in, garbage out. Or live by the lie, die by the lie.

Taking a break from chestfeeding, Mayor Pete, (now Joe Biden's Transportation secretary), joyfully tweeted, “Iowa, you have shocked the nation.” Pete Buttigieg was really shocked on Wednesday morning when he realized that Donald Trump would be the next president.

This Iowa poll went so well for Ms. Selzer that, post-election, she is moving on “to other ventures and opportunities.” Perhaps MSNBC or The View has an empty seat for her.

Why are some pollsters spot on and other prognosticators, like financial analyst Jim Cramer, constantly wrong, as he is with his financial predictions? Cramer, in mid-October, predicted, “I don’t see how he (Trump) wins.” The day before the election, Cramer curbed his enthusiasm but was still pro-Harris, “Jim Cramer says Monday’s market action suggests some traders anticipate a Harris win.”

One reason for inaccurate results is polling methodology, specifically oversampling Democrats. This can produce more favorable but inaccurate results. Extrapolating a survey sample of a few thousand to 150 million voters requires a representative sample of the electorate.

Polling results may influence voter turnout, the all-important metric for determining winners and losers. In other words, why are the polls conducted? Are they intended to reflect or influence popular opinion?

Depending on the polling results, if one’s candidate is behind, voting may seem like a lost cause. Conversely, if one’s candidate is ahead, voting may seem unnecessary.

In hindsight, most of these polls were bogus, deliberate misinformation to prop up Harris’s failing campaign and gin up Democrat voter enthusiasm. In other words, election interference.

USA Today reported, “Kamala Harris advisers: Internal polling never showed VP ahead.” Yet corporate media lied to the American public. And in their next breath, they claim, without a bit of irony, that Donald Trump is a “threat to democracy.”

All professions, from surgeons to financial advisors, have a wide range of outcomes. Pollsters are no exception. Kudos to Rasmussen Reports and AtlasIntel, the two most accurate pollsters for Election 2024. These are the polls to pay attention to in upcoming elections. And ignore legacy corporate media as they are nothing but propagandists.


Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer. Follow me on Twitter @retinaldoctor, Substack Dr. Brian’s Substack, Truth Social @BrianJoondeph, LinkedIn @Brian Joondeph and email brianjoondeph@gmail.com.