Iowa Pollster Has Egg on Her Face After 16% Miss Days Before Election

Another election, another epic polling failure. The pattern has become all too familiar: media outlets and their favorite polling firms hype predictions as if they’re ironclad, yet every election cycle exposes just how flawed they are. This year was no exception.

For months, we heard about a supposed “close race” between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. And what happened? Trump didn’t just win; he won by a landslide, taking both the electoral and popular votes. Now, the media is scrambling, trying to make sense of why their trusted polls were once again so utterly wrong.

One poll, in particular, stands out as a prime example of how misguided these projections have become. Days before the election, a major pollster claimed Harris was leading Trump in a state that has traditionally leaned red. Predictably, the media pounced on it, eager to undercut Trump’s momentum. But when the ballots were counted, Trump claimed that state with room to spare. The pollster behind this debacle is now in full-blown damage control mode.

Let’s talk about J. Ann Selzer, often praised as one of the “best pollsters in politics.” In her final poll for Iowa, Selzer suggested a shocking swing to Harris, with numbers showing her up by three points in a state Trump was expected to dominate. The media ran with it, thrilled by the idea of Harris gaining ground in a red state. “If anyone’s accurate, it’s Ann Selzer,” declared Rachel Maddow, with CNN’s commentators following suit, heralding Selzer as a pillar of polling accuracy.

But election night told a very different story. Iowa went to Trump early, and Fox News called the race well before the night was over. Selzer’s polling wasn’t just slightly off; it was a glaring miss, completely missing the pulse of Iowa voters, who were far from buying into Harris’s progressive agenda. Instead, they backed Trump in overwhelming numbers, leaving Selzer’s prediction in tatters.

Trump’s team didn’t hesitate to respond, either. Co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita even took a jab at Selzer on social media, tweeting, “Enjoy retirement,” a pointed remark on the polling industry’s declining credibility.

Now, Selzer is feeling the heat, and she’s announced she’ll be “reviewing her data” to determine what went wrong. But for many, her poll’s failure raises questions that go beyond mere methodology. How could a pollster with such a strong reputation misread a red state’s mood so drastically? Critics argue that this might not be a simple case of flawed data but rather a product of bias—a poll driven by a media narrative hoping to paint Harris as competitive in regions where her support was, in reality, shaky at best.

Shawn Carney, the founder of the pro-life organization 40 Days for Life, was quick to weigh in, suggesting that the poll reflected more of what the media wanted to see than what was actually happening on the ground. According to Carney, media and polling firms are guilty of pushing narratives they’re eager to believe, often assuming that single-issue policies will drive voters to the polls. Carney argues that polls like Selzer’s show just how out of touch these institutions are with everyday Americans, whose concerns revolve around bread-and-butter issues like economic stability, safety, and family—not progressive talking points.

The media’s love affair with polling is part of the problem. These numbers, often treated as gospel truth, allow them to craft narratives that support their ideological leanings, and that’s exactly what happened with the Selzer poll. Headlines and TV segments gushed over the idea that Harris was closing the gap with Trump in Iowa, a Midwestern state that wasn’t budging. The poll painted a picture the media wanted to see, but when the actual votes rolled in, the supposed “swing” was nowhere to be found.

For Selzer and the other polling firms, this election should be a wake-up call. Polling, once considered a rigorous and scientific process, is losing its credibility as average Americans grow wary of election predictions that don’t pan out. Iowa’s decisive support for Trump sent a clear message: voters aren’t interested in narratives crafted by media elites. They want to hear solutions to real-world issues.

This election cycle should serve as a reminder to pollsters and pundits alike. Americans are tired of the spin, the selective data, and the breathless headlines. Polls are meant to reflect public opinion—not manufacture it. And if the polling industry can’t catch up with that reality, voters will continue to disregard these so-called predictions as little more than wishful thinking from a bubble that has lost touch with Main Street America.