How the Elite Misjudged the Election and Overlooked Predictions of Donald Trump’s Victory
When it comes to election surveys, most Americans have a mix of anticipation and skepticism.
The abundance of polls and the potential for inaccuracies or biases in polling methods can make tracking polls a challenging and time-consuming task.
It would be helpful to have a single source that compiles all polls and provides an unbiased average to indicate trends.
RealClearPolitics is one such resource that I turn to every morning for articles representing various perspectives on current issues.
One of the features that impressed me the most was RCP’s comprehensive list of election surveys and their unweighted average, which I saw as a valuable tool for political enthusiasts like myself.
It was evident that RCP’s polling averages gained widespread acceptance across different media outlets.
However, there was pushback from establishment polling experts who disagreed with RCP’s unfiltered approach.
For instance, a New York Times article published shortly before the presidential election questioned the accuracy of polls suggesting a Trump landslide victory. The Times failed to recognize the shifting political landscape and dismissed the possibility of such an outcome.
The Times argued that skewed polls and biased betting markets were creating false perceptions of momentum for Trump, which could undermine confidence in the electoral system.
In defense of its own polling averages, the Times highlighted its practice of adjusting models and giving less weight to polls deemed biased, in contrast to RCP which includes all polls equally.
Interestingly, despite the criticism, RCP’s unweighted polling averages proved to be more accurate than the Times’ weighted averages once the actual election results were known.
For example, RCP’s final average was closer to the popular vote outcome compared to the Times’ average, demonstrating the effectiveness of including all polls without bias.
Ultimately, the Times’ objections and criticisms of RCP’s approach were proven to be unfounded as the election results contradicted their beliefs.
Looking ahead, RCP’s methodology for polling data and election predictions is more appealing to me than the Times’ approach.
Andy Puzder, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, served for 16 years as CEO of CKE Restaurants.
Twitter: @AndyPuzder