In a stunning Election Night victory, President-elect Donald Trump outperformed expectations, securing a decisive win over Kamala Harris in both the Electoral College and the national popular vote. Trump’s triumph has caught pollsters and political analysts off guard.
Leading National Poll outlets such as FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver’s projections, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have all shown Vice President Kamala Harris with a narrow lead in the national popular vote.
According to FiveThirtyEight, Harris led by 1.2 percent, while Nate Silver’s analysis suggested a 1 percent advantage. The Washington Post and New York Times also reported slight leads of 2 percent and 1 percent respectively. RealClearPolitics placed Harris ahead by a marginal 0.1 percent. NPR-Marist and Morning Consult also forecasted stronger support for Harris, with lead margins of 4 points and 2 points respectively.
Pollsters had also forecasted a narrow victory for Kamala Harris, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. However, Trump proved to be the stronger contender in these key regions, winning five of the seven states that had been considered toss-ups.
As of publication, he was also leading in Nevada and Arizona, with both states yet to be officially called.
The pollsters’ failures have drawn sharp criticism from historians and analysts. Rick Perlstein, a historian who has chronicled the rise of American conservatism, lamented the growing reliance on polling, calling it a “compromised enterprise.” He suggested that the media’s reliance on polling data for election predictions has only led to misleading coverage.
Allan Lichtman, a historian who accurately predicted 11 of the past 12 presidential elections using his “keys to the presidency” system, also admitted to his incorrect forecast of a Harris victory. Lichtman promised to reassess his methodology.
