Democrats should not be taken aback by the results of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. The accuracy of the polls has once again proven itself this cycle. Although Kamala Harris excelled in the debate and appeared to have an advantage in energy and momentum, polling aggregates consistently indicated Donald Trump was leading. And Trump’s numbers only improved in October, weeks prior to the Election.
By the way, I cast my vote for Harris.
It’s easy to see why many were swept up in the excitement surrounding her campaign. The impressive crowd sizes, the media buzz, the star-studded list of celebrity endorsements, and the numerous blunders and missteps from the Trump campaign all contributed to a compelling narrative that captured our attention and support and gave us optimism. But, polling data told a different story.
It’s important to recognize that numerous individual polls showed both candidates with potential victories, in the battleground states and with the popular vote nationally.
But, even many of us who considered polling data tended to focus on favorable polls while disregarding others that didn’t align with our preferences.
However, a discerning observer understands the value of examining polling aggregates for a more comprehensive view. This approach provides clarity and insight into electoral trends, making it essential for accurately understanding election outcomes.
Poll aggregation: The process of combining multiple polls to create a more accurate and comprehensive picture of public opinion on a particular issue or candidate. By averaging results from various legitimate pollsters, poll aggregation helps to minimize the effects of biased pollsters, outliers, and sampling errors, leading to more reliable predictions and insights. This technique is especially important during election cycles when public sentiment can shift rapidly and dramatically.
Consider this: just 10 days before the election, CNN released a poll showing Harris leading in Arizona by one point. However, I remained cautious and not overly optimistic because I had thoroughly analyzed the polling aggregate. This comprehensive approach provided a more reliable perspective and helped me base my expectations on well-rounded data rather than isolated figures.
In examining the latest 18 Arizona polls from reputable sources within the Real Clear Politics (RCP) aggregate, it’s clear that Trump held a significant advantage. Harris secured victory in only 3 of these polls, while Trump won 12 and there were 3 ties. Notably, even Data for Progress, known for its Democratic leanings, showed Trump ahead. As the election approached, Trump’s lead in Arizona grew stronger—an unfavorable trend for Harris.
The RCP aggregate predicted a Trump victory in Arizona by a margin of 3 percentage points. However, as votes continue to be tallied, expect Trump to win by approximately 4 to 4.4 percent. This suggests that RCP’s prediction will be off by just a little over one percentage point—a minor deviation that underscores the power of aggregate polling.
Harris’s campaign in Pennsylvania arguably generated the most optimism, largely due to her reputedly superior ground game and the state’s history of voting for Democrat presidential candidates in seven of the last eight elections.
Her massive rallies there were a testament to her hopeful outlook in the Keystone State. However, despite these promising signs, poll aggregates told a different story all along.
In Pennsylvania, which was widely considered a must-win state for both candidates, Harris managed to prevail in only one of the last 11 polls conducted there. And although there were four ties during that period, Trump emerged victorious in six instances.
Pennsylvania was a reach, even if just a tiny one, for Harris heading into Election Night.
RealClearPolitics (RCP) projected Trump winning Pennsylvania by a narrow margin of 0.6 percent—a prediction that seemed a bit overly optimistic for Harris’s camp. Ultimately, Trump’s victory margin was two percentage points, showing RCP’s forecast was off by just 1.4 percent. This minor discrepancy underscored how close this polling aggregate was in predicting election the outcome in Pennsylvania.
In the battlegrounds, RCP predicted the winner in 5 of the 7 states. And in states where Harris was projected to win, her leads were +0.5 percent or less.
On Election Night, despite Trump not having a guaranteed victory, he remained the favored candidate, even as Harris appeared to gain momentum in the week leading up to the election. This clearly indicates that while a candidate’s enthusiasm plays a role, hardcore polling data holds even greater importance in predicting outcomes.
*Arizona – RCP had Trump +3; will likely win +4
Pennsylvania – RCP had Trump +0.6; won +2
North Carolina – RCP had Trump +1; won +3
Georgia – RCP had Trump +1.4; won by 2.3
Wisconsin – RCP had Harris +0.4; Trump won +0.8
Michigan – RCP had Harris +0.5; Trump won +1.4
*Nevada – RCP had Trump +0.6, he is +3.4; Look for Trump to win by +2.6 to 3
*National – RCP had Harris +0.1; Trump will likely win +1.5 to +2
* Votes still being tallied
Among the seven RCP battleground aggregates and national polling, even the least accurate polling aggregate will deviate by just over two percentage points, which is significantly better than the typical 3.5 percent margin of error.
Was there any reason to be optimistic for Harris?
Given that the candidates were within 1.3 percentage points in six of the seven battleground polling aggregates and in the national popular vote, there was a compelling reason for optimism regarding Harris’s chances. If Harris had exceeded poll expectations by the same margin as Trump, she would have secured victory in six of the seven crucial battlegrounds and claimed the presidency. It’s important to recognize that polls often exhibit a slight unintentional bias, whether leaning right or left. In 2024, they leaned left, suggesting they slightly overestimated support for Democratic candidates.
While a Harris victory was conceivable, it’s important to recognize that she was undeniably an underdog during most of her campaign due to
her performance in aggregate battleground polling. This data underscores the challenges she faced from Day 1.
