Staff Reports
Ann Selzer thought she could retire gracefully after the 2024 election, savoring her departure from the political polling world. However, she made a monumental error in judgment, the kind deserving of a front-row seat in the circus of ridiculousness that is modern polling. Donald Trump put her and the Des Moines Register on blast, suing them for releasing a hilariously outlandish poll that claimed Kamala Harris was leading Trump in Iowa days before the election. Spoiler alert: Trump won Iowa by a whopping 14 points, leaving Selzer’s credibility in tatters and providing a new benchmark for predictive incompetence.
In the months leading up to the election, Trump was riding a wave of popularity, boasting a staggering 16-point lead over Biden in Iowa as summer hit. Yet, miraculously, as the election neared, a poll mysteriously appeared declaring that Harris was just three points behind. Even the most liberal pollsters would have to admit that a shift of that scale doesn’t just happen without some behind-the-scenes magic tricks—or maybe a little bit of collusion. What’s truly baffling is how the Democrats caught wind of this poll hours before its release, raising eyebrows and leading to questions about who might have leaked it.
CNN's Scott Jennings Causes Another Panel Meltdown Over Comments About Ann Selzer's Trash Poll
https://t.co/coLXV0cCMZ— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 19, 2024
Selzer, in her defense, suggested that the attention brought by the poll could have invigorated the Republican base. Unlikely, many conservatives would argue, given that the actual numbers screamed otherwise. Trump’s camp alleges that the timing and the skewed data constitute election interference—classic move from a party desperate to shift narratives to protect their faltering campaigns. Furthermore, the media’s obsession with disseminating this poll left more than a few heads shaking, especially as liberal commentators shrugged it off as mere coincidence. Alas, mere accidents do not explain a 16-point margin of error—a gap so wide it could house a family of elephants.
The panel discussion surrounding this farce was a sight to behold. As Scott Jennings pointed out the absurdity of Selzer’s polling, the left-wing commentators squirmed, clutching their pearls, insisting that all polling can’t be trusted—sure, because when it comes to poll results, what’s a 16-point swing among friends? Most fair-minded observers know that under-sampling Republicans has become a popular pastime for pollsters on the left, but this particular blunder crossed a line, turning what should’ve been a routine polling error into a scandal.
The absurdity of Selzer’s findings goes beyond mere statistical negligence; it ventured into the realm of outright deceit. Even the most generous interpretation of polling could not justify such a drastic swing in voter sentiment that wasn’t backed by hard evidence. As insiders from the Harris campaign admitted, their confidence in winning Iowa stemmed more from wishful thinking than any concrete data. All the while, Trump continued building momentum, with Iowa solidly in his camp, demonstrating yet again that when it comes to American voters, the truth is often stranger than fiction.
As this comedy of polling errors unfolds, one must wonder about the fate of polling agencies that continuously miss the mark. Could there be consequences for such egregious blunders, or will Selzer ride off into the sunset after a final bow, possibly taking a few others with her? The true measure of accountability remains to be seen, but if the polls are this wrong, maybe it’s time to rethink how numbers are collected, reported, and believed.
