Can we trust the polls for the US election?

Published

8 months ago

October 5, 2024

admin

Ask most party strategists, US pollsters or pundits and they’ll tell you the 2024 presidential election could be the closest in decades, if not a century.

Given Joe Biden’s 2020 win was decided by fewer than 45,000 votes in just three battleground states, that’s quite the claim.

However, it is what the polls suggest. The contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is super tight, both nationally and in the key states.

So, how much can we trust the polls?

It’s a question many are raising after they famously got it so wrong four years ago.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research called it the biggest polling miss in 40 years, showing Mr Biden’s lead over Mr Trump in the final two weeks of the campaign twice as large as it was when the votes were counted.

In 2012, pollsters significantly under-estimated Barack Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney. But, while Mr Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton shocked many people, the error on the national polls was relatively small by comparison.

Of course, all polls come with uncertainty, some inbuilt error, and they are only a snapshot of the current situation, not a prediction of the outcome on polling day.

Crucially, though, there is evidence they also become a more reliable predictor of the outcome the closer we get to the election. It may seem obvious, but a year out from voting the polls are on average seven points different from the final tally for each candidate. By the last week of the campaign, this falls to less than three points.

Every day the polls tell us a little bit more about the result.

So, how should we read them?

One key thing to remember is the uncertainty around the estimated support for the candidates.

Uncertainty: ‘Margin of error’

While pollsters publish a percentage figure for each, they also report a ‘margin of error’ to indicate the amount that support might vary.

For example, if a poll puts Mr Trump on 46% with a three-percentage point margin of error, it means that his support among the voting public should lie between 43% and 49%. If the same poll has Ms Harris on 49%, then her support should lie between 46% and 52%.

All this tells us is that the contest is close and either candidate could be leading.

Similar caution is required when looking at trackers using polling averages.

You might think that averaging the polls would reduce uncertainty, since random errors should cancel out. But some pollsters are consistently more accurate than others, while some may be systematically wrong in one direction. Adding them all together can reinforce those biases.

Predicting the turnout: Context matters

Who votes in an election is also critical to the outcome but predicting that is a tough ask for pollsters. Roughly a third of eligible Americans do not cast a ballot in presidential elections, and it isn’t all the same people each time.

Context matters. It can make people more or less likely to vote. For example, potential changes to abortion laws seems to have mobilised many Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections.

The policies and performance of a candidate can also change the likelihood of more partisan voters to turnout.

The Electoral College: Why state contests can be crucial

The same considerations are needed when looking at state polls and arguably they are more crucial to determining which candidate is most likely to win the election.

The outcome of a presidential race is decided state by state, by the Electoral College, and the difference between that and the national vote has been growing.

Read more: What is the Electoral College?

In 2000 and in 2016, the candidate with the most votes nationally lost the election because they didn’t win a combination of states that delivered the highest tally in the Electoral College.

This is why battleground state polls get so much attention and they are factored into the models of statisticians trying to forecast the outcome.

Of course, they have the same uncertainty and potential flaws as national polls. And the bad news is their recent performance hasn’t been great.

In 2016 they suggested Ms Clinton would sweep the key states needed for a comfortable win in the Electoral College. In 2020, they fared even worse.

Some states have proven particularly difficult to poll accurately. In 2016 and 2020, the biggest misses were in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

These, especially Pennsylvania, which of the group carries the most Electoral College votes, are all potentially decisive in 2024.

So, what can the polls tell us?

The answer is plenty if you are looking for a steer on how people feel about a certain candidate or policy.

But, if you’re trying to work out who’s ahead in the race to be president, then all you can confidently say is the contest is really close and could come down to a small number of votes in a few states.

US

Federal judges rule Trump tariffs can stay in place for now – as president rages at trade court’s ‘country threatening decision’

Published

3 hours ago

May 30, 2025

admin

Federal judges rule Trump tariffs can stay in place for now - as president rages at trade court's 'country threatening decision'

A federal appeals court has ruled that Donald Trump’s sweeping international tariffs can remain in place for now, a day after three judges ruled the president exceeded his authority.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has allowed the president to temporarily continue collecting tariffs under emergency legislation while it considers the government’s appeal.

It comes after the Court of International Trade blocked the additional taxes on foreign-made goods after its three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs – not the president.

The judges also ruled Mr Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The CAFC said the lower trade court and the Trump administration must respond by 5 June and 9 June, respectively.

Trump calls trade court ‘backroom hustlers’

Posting on Truth Social, Mr Trump said the trade court’s ruling was a “horrible, Country threatening decision,” and said he hopes the Supreme Court would reverse it “QUICKLY and DECISIVELY”.

After calling into question the appointment of the three judges, and suggesting the ruling was based on “purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP’,” he added: “Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!

“The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly.

“If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!”

The US president unveiled the controversial measures on “Liberation Day” in April, which included a 10% tariff on UK imports and caused aggressive sell-offs in the stock market.

Mr Trump argued he invoked the decades-old law to collect international tariffs because it was a “national emergency”.

Tariffs ‘direct threat’ to business – Schwab

The trade court ruling marked the latest legal challenge to the tariffs, and related to a case brought on behalf of five small businesses that import goods from other countries.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center – a nonprofit representing the five firms – said the appeal court would ultimately agree that the tariffs posed “a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses”.

US treasury secretary Scott Bessent also told Fox News on Thursday that the initial ruling had not interfered with trade deal negotiations with partners.

He said that countries “are coming to us in good faith” and “we’ve seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours,” before saying he would meet with a Japanese delegation in Washington on Friday.

US

‘Harvard isn’t Harvard anymore’: The crucible of free speech lacking the freedom it once had

Published

5 hours ago

May 30, 2025

admin

'Harvard isn't Harvard anymore': The crucible of free speech lacking the freedom it once had

Harvard graduates have a lot to say. In a sign of the times, now isn’t the time to say it.

That much was clear when I sought student opinion at the gates of America’s oldest university. There is a reluctance to talk about Trump.

“He needs to come back to this country,” said a Harvard dad of his son, politely declining an interview on the youngster’s behalf.

The young man, British, falls into the category of international student – a vulnerable species, currently, in America’s elite university system.

For him, saying the ‘wrong’ thing carries the risk of an exclusion order to go with his graduation certificate. Dad knows best.

It is the modern reality at the gates of Harvard – this iconic seat of learning and crucible of free speech and ideas isn’t as free as it was. For now, at least.

It’s fair to say Harvard had other things on its mind this week, with Thursday’s ‘commencement’ day and graduation parades winding their route through surrounding streets in a ‘town and gown’ spectacle.

There were bagpipes and brass bands to lead students in their crowning moment. It was an emotional thank you and goodbye to Harvard, with a celebration soundtrack of music and ‘mwah’.

And yet, there was a political undercurrent. There has to be, when a US institution is at war with its president.

Some students wore a white flower on their lapel as a symbol of solidarity with Harvard’s international students.

In giving his speech at the podium, Harvard president Alan Garber was given a standing ovation when he noted that graduates hail from “around the world, just as it should be”.

As graduates and families gathered in Harvard Yard, the university’s defiance against Trump was playing out simultaneously in court, where the latest hearing took place on government efforts to stop the enrolment of foreign students.

Leo Gerden, a 22 year-old student from Sweden, was graduating in economics and government. We chatted while he stiffened himself with a Starbucks for the celebrations ahead.

What were his thoughts, as someone fitting the profile picked on by the government of his host country?

“I feel like the entire Harvard is under attack, because without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard anymore,” he said.

“He’s trying to crush us, but we have shown over the last couple of weeks that he won’t do that easily. The uncertainty itself is going to cause a lot of harm.

“People are definitely reconsidering their plans right now, whether it was coming to America, going to any university, because they might be next on Trump’s target list.”

The distraction is widely shared across campus, so is the sentiment – not that it’ll trouble the White House.

Places like Harvard don’t lean Trump, and he’ll lose few votes in this fight.

It is a conflict to shape the future of US education – it’s politics, but it’s much more.

US

Former Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs assistant breaks down as she tells trial of alleged sexual assaults: ‘I thought I was going to die with this’

Published

6 hours ago

May 30, 2025

admin

Former Sean 'Diddy' Combs assistant breaks down as she tells trial of alleged sexual assaults: 'I thought I was going to die with this'

A former employee of Sean “Diddy” Combs broke down in tears as she described being sexually assaulted by the hip-hop star on several occasions – telling the court the alleged abuse was “the most traumatising, worst thing that’s ever happened to me”.

Three weeks into the trial, Mia* is the second alleged victim to testify against Combs, following his former partner Cassie’s evidence alleging years of physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

While Cassie waived her right to anonymity, Mia did not want to be identified and is appearing in court in Manhattan, New York, under a pseudonym.

She started by telling the court about witnessing Combs, 55, being violent towards Cassie, before moving on to talk about her own experiences.

Diddy trial day twelve – as it happened

Mia told the court she once woke to find Combs on top of her and that he forced her to have sex against her will. Another time, he forced her to perform oral sex, she alleged.

He also once threw a bucket of ice on her head and slammed her arm into a door on another occasion, she said.

The court heard Mia had never told anyone about the alleged sexual assaults by Combs until she spoke to government investigators for this case.

“I was going to die with this,” she said, becoming tearful on the stand. “I didn’t want anyone to know ever.”

Telling the court she could not say “no” to her former boss, she said: “I knew his power. And his control. I didn’t want to lose everything that I worked so hard for.”

She also said she feared being attacked and was “always” worried about being physically hurt by Combs. “I didn’t want to die or get hurt.”

Mia said she felt “desperate”, “terrified and trapped” and described the alleged sexual assaults as “the most shameful thing of my life”, and “the most traumatising, worst thing that’s ever happened to me”.

Asked why she is speaking out now, she told the court: “Because I have to tell the truth.”

‘Chaotic and toxic’

Mia, faltering at times, said working for Combs came with extreme highs and lows.

Sometimes he would offer advice and act like her “protector”, she said. Other times, he would “humiliate” her and berate her for small mistakes, and work her so hard she had little sleep, she said.

“It was chaotic. It was toxic,” she told the court.

Combs’s employees were always on edge because his mood could “change in a split second”, causing everything to go from “happy to chaotic”, she said.

Mia told how she was barely at home once she started working for Combs. Like other employees, she often slept at his properties in LA, Miami and New York.

She told the court she was not allowed to leave without his permission and was not allowed lock her door, even though it seemed as if other members of the predominantly male security staff were able to do so.

“This is my house. No one locks the doors,” Combs allegedly said to her.

On one occasion, Mia said she worked without sleeping for five days, with prescription drugs getting her through it. It was only when she had a physical breakdown that Combs allowed her to sleep, jurors were told.

Mia’s testimony echoed that of prior prosecution witnesses, including several of Combs’s other former employees, as well as Cassie.

Cassie, an R’n’B singer and model whose legal name is Casandra Ventura, spoke for four days during the first week of the trial.

She told jurors her ex-partner subjected her to hundreds of “freak offs” – drug-fuelled marathons in which she said she engaged in sex acts with male sex workers while he watched and filmed them.

Heavily pregnant at the time, it was confirmed in court yesterday that she gave birth to her third child earlier this week.

Mia is the second of three women testifying about alleged sexual abuse by Combs. The third woman, using the pseudonym “Jane”, is also expected to testify about participating in freak offs.

Combs has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution.

During their opening statement, his lawyers conceded he could be violent at times, but said that did not make him a sex trafficker or racketeering leader. Combs denies using threats or his music industry clout to commit or cover up abuse.

What did Mia say about Cassie?

In the first part of her testimony, Mia told the court she saw Combs beating Cassie on several occasions and that she sustained injuries, including black eyes, other bruises, and fat lips.

The two became friends, she said, and are still friends today.

Mia described a party at Prince’s house that she and Cassie “snuck out” to, saying Prince’s security had to intervene when Combs turned up and started to attack her.

She also described a trip to a private island in Turks and Caicos, in the Caribbean, saying she remembers Cassie being “terrified” as Combs banged on her door “screaming”.

On another occasion during that trip, they used paddle boards to go out to sea to get away from him, she said – but the weather changed and the sky turned dark.

“I was trying to weigh if it was scarier to face Mother Nature or go back to Puff,” Mia said, using the name she knew him by. “We eventually went back to Puff.”

Combs was also abusive to Cassie at the Cannes Film Festival in 2012, the court was told. Mia alleged she saw him digging his nails into her as they watched a film.

Mia’s testimony will continue when the trial resumes on Friday.