Pollsters just can’t get it right on Trump — will Harris flip the script? 

Recent polls suggest a “too close to call” race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. This has been the case for several weeks, as both candidates work to convince voters in seven key states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada) that their votes are needed to secure victory. 

Relying on polls has been an exercise in futility. Pollster shave worked diligently to enhance their methodologies and sampling procedures such that they can provide an accurate picture of where the candidates are positioned as Election Day draws nears. Yet some people remain reticent about sharing whom they will vote for — and perhaps they even give false answers. 

In 2016, pollsters badly missed the mark, grossly undercounting support for Trump as he narrowly defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Those victories allowed him to win the Electoral College votes needed to secure the White House, despite her popular vote win. 

In 2020, pollsters were still off with support for Trump. They once again undercounted his support, with him outperforming the polls nationally, as well as in some key states such as Wisconsin, which ended up being much closer when the votes were counted. 

But after two presidential election cycles, pollsters have likely learned their lesson, adjusting for Trump being undercounted when polls are taken.  

The political landscape has changed over the last eight years. In 2016, admitting to voting for Trump was something many people were unwilling to do, even under the guise of anonymity that pollsters offered. As a political outsider, television personality and businessman, many voters were willing to give Trump a chance, even if they were unwilling to admit it publicly. 

In 2020, after a somewhat tumultuous presidency, many swing voters who had supported Trump were no longer willing to do so. The result of this shift was a victory by Joe Biden, including the blue wall of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that Trump narrowly won in 2016. 

In early 2024, it looked as if many voters were left with two unappealing choices. One was an aging president who appeared to lack the vigor and mental acuity to lead effectively for another four years, or a sequel to the Trump presidency that offered significant drama, with many in his administration warning that he is not fit to serve. 

Then the Democratic Party rapidly pivoted from Biden to Kamala Harris in July, after a debate performance between Trump and Biden that exposed Biden’s limitations. This effectively gave Harris just a few weeks before the Democratic National Convention to organize her committees and campaign. 

Harris’s polling numbers moved upward almost immediately, and have stayed mostly in line with Trump since then. At this late date, independents remain persistently ambivalent between Trump and Harris. 

However, if the pollsters corrected for Trump’s past undercounting, what they are likely not accounting for this time around are Republicans who are quietly voting for Harris. Given that the seven battleground states will be won by a few thousand votes each, such people could be the difference between Trump winning or losing.   

What has hurt Trump more than anything is that many former people that he put on his staff are consistently saying that a second Trump presidency would be bad for the nation, and label Trump with terms like "’fascist’, ‘conman’, ‘predator’ and ‘cheat.’" If one or two such people made such statements, they could be written off as disgruntled staffers. Yet with numerous such people, including his chief of staff, John Kelly, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and national security adviser John Bolton among them, people who are paying attention are realizing that while a Harris presidency may not be appealing from a policy point of view, a Trump presidency would be dangerous to the wellbeing of the country. 

Trump has labeled some such people "lowlifes" and "total degenerates," yet he was the person who appointed them to his staff and to positions within his administration. This begs the question: what does that say about the appointer? 

It is unusual, even unheard of, for so many prominent and respected Republicans to offer their support to a Democratic presidential candidate. Some (Liz Cheney) even actively campaigned with Harris, and several, including Adam Kinzinger, spoke at the Democratic convention. 

These people, many lifelong Republicans, have not suddenly become enamored with the Democrats’ party mission. What they have become is concerned, bordering on fearing, what our nation would experience under a second Trump presidency. 

If such peoples’ votes stick with Harris, the pollsters will once again be off — in this case, undercounting support for Harris, or overcounting support for Trump. The pollsters have struggled the past two presidential elections. Although some may hope otherwise, there is no evidence that they will do any better this time around. 

Within just a few days, we will all know if this was the case.   

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.