Mad Poll Disease is making Democrats misread voter opinion
Now that Thanksgiving has passed in America, and everyone’s Trumpy uncle is on his way back to his conservative state, we still have our catastrophizing Democratic cousins to contend with. Triggered by the drumbeat of horrific poll results, they are panicking that Joe Biden is too old and unpopular to prevent a second Trump administration from taking power.
These cousins, and perhaps you too, are suffering from the latest strain of what I call Mad Poll Disease. It’s a perpetual state of anxiety – spread by the media’s obsession with using polls to forecast the outcome of the next election, instead of empowering voters with all the information they need to decidewhat they want that outcome to be and act, or vote, accordingly.
To cure Mad Poll Disease, start by making this your mantra: Horserace polling can’t tell us anything we don’t already know beforeelectionday about who will win theelectoralcollege.We know it will be close. We know it will be decided by six swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). Importantly, these states were so close that even the best polls couldn’t call all of them the day before the 2016, 2020 or 2022 elections.
In both 2016 and 2020, the margin of victory in most of them was less than one point. If you had clicked on FiveThirtyEight in June 2022, you would have thought Republicans had a 60% chance of controlling the Senate, in September that Democrats had a 70% chance of holding the Senate, and on election day, that Republican had a 60% chance of flipping it again. But in the real world, Democrats increased their Senate majority.
Trying to use horserace polls to project the winner in swing states is like trying to predict the weather nine months from now by taking the temperature outside today. Elections come down to turnout, and what that will look like on election day is truly anyone’s guess.Taking the temperature of how voters feel today doesn’t tell us how they’ll feel a year from now – much less whether they will act on those feelings by turning out to vote, or for whom they’ll vote if they do.
So why the scary numbers?
Pollsters want voters to tell them who they will vote for next November; voters want to tell pollsters how unsatisfied they are now with the direction of the country and their own lives. For most of this century, Americans have said the country was on the wrong track – and they have taken out those broader frustrations on whoever was president at the time. Low presidential approval ratings are now the norm in the United States (for old and young presidents alike), in a stark contrast to the last century.
And other world leaders aren’t faring well either. Of the seven countries regularly surveyed by Morning Consult, only the Swiss have positive feelings about their leader and their country’s direction.
But when it comes time to cast a ballot, voters understand the stakes. This is where we can really tell those cousins to take heart: ever since Trump’s shocking win in 2016, many Americans who thought elections didn’t matter realized that they very much do. Most Americans reject everything Trump and Maga stand for – taking away our freedoms, filling the government with incompetent lackeys, and ruling with hate and fear. An antiMaga majoritywas born, and it has turned out to vote in record numbers again and again. This has been a predictable weather pattern since 2018, but most pollsters and pundits fail to account for it.
Remember how 2022 was supposed to be a Red Wave, but it never materialized? Actually, it did – in 35 states. But in the other 15 states, where a prominent Maga candidate was running, we saw numbers more like the 2018 Blue Wave. Where voters understood the anti-Maga stakes, they turned out. This allowed Democrats to keep the Senate. When Democrats lost the House, it was by a much narrower margin than pundits expected. And it could have gone the other way had anti-Maga voters in California, New Jersey and New York understood what similar voters in the states with key Senate races understood – that staying home was voting for Maga to control the chamber.
As a practical matter, only Biden can decide not to run, and he shouldn’t base that decision on fear of bad polls. Polls can mislead us into making unforced errors. We hear a lot about how risky it is to run an 81-year-old candidate with bad poll numbers. What about how risky it would be to replace someone who has beaten Trump before, and who has already been defined by both left and right, with someone who hasn’t? It would be an absurd gamble – like doubling down on your bet when you haven’t seen any of your own cards yet.
It’s even more absurd to focus on this when we still have a year of news headlines in front of us. As we saw
To be clear, I’m not saying that Biden is going to win – just that there’s no reason to declare him likely to lose
after Roe v Wade was overturned, there is a huge difference between knowing intellectually that something could happen, and actually living in the world whereit is happening. It’s not news to most people that Trump will stand trial for multiple criminal indictments next year. But none of us can fully feelthe way we will about it once we are reminded every day of Trump’s crimes against the country.
To be clear, I’m not saying that Biden is going to win – just that there’s no reason to declare him likely to lose. But media outlets createthis narrative out of thin air when they choose to field and devote so many headlines to horserace polls a year out from the election. This saps our agency as voters by creating a false sense of inevitability about the final outcome. And it steals oxygen from coverage of why an election matters – the real stakes to voters’ lives.
We know what those stakes are because we have lived through some of them. We know how much worse Trump and Maga are promising to do. Our duty, not as Democratic partisans but as small-d democratic partisans, is to put in the work to make sure every voter understands the choice ahead.
Michael Podhorzer, the former longtime political director of the AFL-CIO, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the chair of the Analyst Institute, the Research Collaborative and the Defend Democracy Project, and writes the Substack Weekend Reading