Introduction
Polling in modern elections is becoming increasingly difficult to trust, especially when considering the unique factors that shape elections in the U.S. The focus on the popular vote in many media reports often distorts the reality of how elections work, particularly when the Electoral College system is what ultimately decides the presidency. This disconnect between the reported polling numbers and the actual electoral dynamics is creating confusion and skepticism, especially in a post-2016 world.

1. Trump and the Popular Vote: A Consistent Loss
In 2016, Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by around 2.5 million votes. In 2020, he lost by over 7 million votes to Joe Biden. Despite these losses in terms of raw numbers, Trump won the Electoral College in 2016, which shows how misleading popular vote polls can be in predicting the actual outcome. Given the structure of the U.S. electoral system, focusing on national popular vote totals tells us very little about how the race will ultimately play out.

2. The Flaws in National Polling
When polls report that races are “neck and neck” on a national level, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the true state of the race. Trump isn’t expected to come close to winning the popular vote in 2024, so when polls report figures like “48 to 48,” they are failing to account for the way the Electoral College works. The only polls that matter are those reflecting battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia. National polls, when used without context, can give a misleading picture of the election.

3. The Impact of Selective Polling
Polling locations also matter. If you’re polling in certain areas of key swing states, the results will look very different depending on which regions are targeted. For example, polling only rural areas in Pennsylvania without factoring in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh will produce skewed results. Accurate polling needs to represent the diversity of a state’s voters, and many current polls fail to do this effectively.

4. Media Narratives: Selling a Close Race
One of the most frustrating aspects of election coverage is how the media often pushes the narrative of a “close race,” even when the underlying data suggests otherwise. This is driven by the need for compelling stories, as close races attract more attention and viewership. Some argue that this portrayal creates an alternate reality in which people believe the race is tighter than it truly is, preparing the ground for potential manipulation or contested results.

5. Misleading Data and Voter Perception
There’s a strong case to be made that the media and polling institutions have been wrong before—and not just in 2016. Historically, polls leading up to blowout elections, such as Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984, also presented a much closer race than the final outcome. The systemic issue here is that polling can be misleading, either due to faulty methodology or an over-reliance on assumptions that no longer hold true in a rapidly changing political environment.

6. The Dark Side of Election Manipulation and Lawsuits
The concern isn’t just with inaccurate polling but also with the broader strategies aimed at manipulating election results. There have been numerous efforts to suppress votes, especially from marginalized communities and even military personnel overseas. These lawsuits and tactics represent an ongoing threat to the democratic process, and they often go underreported in the media.

Conclusion: A Need for a Polling and Media Reckoning
If the 2024 election ends up being a decisive victory for one candidate, there will need to be a serious reckoning with how media and polling institutions approach election coverage. Why do polls continue to get it wrong? Why do we keep being fed narratives that don’t reflect the reality on the ground? Ultimately, voters deserve better information—data that reflects not just popular sentiment but the true dynamics of the Electoral College and voter behavior in battleground states.