Politics
Everyone is talking about what went wrong in the election. It wasn’t the polls.

On Election Night, I was nervous. I’m a pollster and a former political data journalist. I knew that if the polls whiffed again — like they did in 2020 — Americans would write off polling as irreparably broken.
Now, there’s enough data to reach a verdict — and, despite what you may have been hearing, the polls did well. No, the data wasn’t perfect, and the industry still faces long-term challenges. But we’ve proven that we can get close to the mark — which is the best we can reasonably expect from polling.
We’ve proven that we can get close to the mark — which is the best we can reasonably expect from polling.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s compare the average of pre-election polls — computed by FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics — to the latest results in swing states where NBC News has projected a winner.
- In Pennsylvania, the 538 average had Harris up 0.2 and the RCP average had Trump up 0.4. The latest numbers show Trump, the projected winner, up 2.1.
- In Michigan, the 538 average had Harris up by 1 and the RCP average had her up by 0.5. The results show Trump, the projected winner, up 1.4.
- In Wisconsin, the 538 average had Harris up by 1 and the RCP average had her up by 0.4. The results show Trump, the projected winner, up 0.8.
- In North Carolina, the 538 average had Trump up 0.9 and the RCP average had him up 1.2. The results show Trump, the projected winner, up 3.3.
- In Georgia, the 538 average had Trump up 0.8 and the RCP average had him up 1.3. The results show Trump, the projected winner, up 2.2.
- In Nevada, the 538 average had Trump up 0.3 and the RCP average had him up 0.6. The results show Trump, the projected winner, up 3.3.
In the states that decided the election, the polls were generally off by 1 to 3 points. In the national popular vote, the RCP average had Trump ahead by 0.1 and he’ll likely win by 1 or 2 points. For polls — blunt instruments that typically use less than a thousand interviews to estimate how an entire state or nation feels — a 1- to 3-percentage-point error is great.
Polls in competitive Senate races were only slightly less accurate. Some results haven’t been finalized yet, but so far the key Senate races only saw two uncomfortable misses: overestimating Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada and underestimating Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas by roughly 5 points each. In the other toss-ups where 538 and RCP computed an average, the polls missed by just a couple percentage points. Again, it’s unrealistic to expect polls to nail every result — a 1- to 3-point error is about as good as it gets.
- In Nevada’s Senate race, the 538 average had Rosen up 5.7 over Republican Sam Brown, and the RCP average had her up 4.9. The latest results show Rosen, the projected winner, up 1.4.
- In Michigan’s Senate race, the 538 average had Democrat Elissa Slotkin up 3.6 over Republican Mike Rogers, and the RCP average had her up 2.3. The results show Slotkin, the projected winner, up by 0.3.
- In Ohio, the 538 average had Republican Bernie Moreno up 0.8 over Democrat Sherrod Brown, and the RCP average had the Republican up 1.7. The results show Moreno, the projected winner, up by 4.
- In Wisconsin, the 538 average had Democrat Tammy Baldwin up 2.2 over Republican Eric Hovde, and the RCP average had her up 1.8. The results show Baldwin, the projected winner, up 0.9.
- In Montana, the 538 average had Republican Tim Sheehy up 6.9 over Democrat Jon Tester, and the RCP average had the Republican up 7.7. The results show Sheehy, the projected winner, up 7.4.
- And in Texas, the 538 average had Cruz up 4 over Democrat Colin Allred, and the RCP average had Cruz up 4.4. The results show Cruz, the projected winner, up 8.6.
These results are solid and should keep the polling industry alive. But we don’t have a clean bill of health just yet.
Surveys are still plagued by nonresponse: Almost 99% of people who are selected for a poll don’t complete it. Some of the groups we need to learn about the most — young voters, Latino voters, the politically disengaged — are the toughest to poll.
These results are solid and should keep the polling industry alive. But we don’t have a clean bill of health just yet.
Some pollsters might also be “herding.” That happens when a less-than-principled pollster gets an unexpected result, they might toss it in the garbage or tinker with their statistical models until their poll matches the average. That might explain why a suspicious number of Pennsylvania polls showed Trump and Harris exactly tied.
And, while the polls didn’t err by much, they did consistently lowball Trump by a couple points. Ideally, the polls would be unbiased — underestimating Harris roughly half the time, rather than only missing Trump voters.
Pollsters have partial solutions to each of these problems. We use statistical tools, such as weights, to ensure that less responsive groups are given the right amount of influence. Those same weights can create the illusion of “herding” — that is, some pollsters adjusted their sample to get the right number of Trump and Biden 2020 supporters, which naturally brought their results closer to the average. And, while the polls missed some of Trump’s edge in 2024, the error was significantly smaller than in 2020.
We don’t have full solutions to these problems. Nobody knows how to transform America into a nation of eager survey-takers or how to prevent anxious, underfunded firms from subconsciously pushing their results towards the average. And we haven’t found that last slice of the Trump vote. But I hope that on Tuesday, we bought our industry a little more time to solve these issues. I’d like to think we earned it.
David Byler
David Byler is chief of research at Noble Predictive Insights, a non-partisan polling firm anchored in the Southwest. He was previously a data columnist for the Washington Post.
Politics
Inside the DNC’s money problems
The Democratic National Committee has fallen far behind in the cash race.
After a brutal 2024 election and several months into rebuilding efforts under new party leadership, the DNC wildly trails the Republican National Committee by nearly every fundraising metric. By the end of June, the RNC had $80 million on hand, compared to $15 million for the DNC.
And the gap — nearly twice as large as it was at this stage in Trump’s first presidency — has only grown in recent months, a Blue Light News analysis of campaign finance data found, fueled by several distinct factors.
Major Democratic donors have withheld money this year amid skepticism about the party’s direction, while the small-dollar donors who have long been a source of strength are not growing nearly enough to make up the gap. And the party has quickly churned through what money it has raised in the first half of the year, including spending more than $15 million this year to pay off lingering expenses from Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.
The DNC has less cash this summer than it did at any point in the last five years.
“I understand that donors want some kind of a reckoning,” said Steve Schale, a Florida-based Democratic strategist. “But I also think that the kind of state party building that I think [DNC Chair] Ken [Martin] wants to do at the DNC is really vital to our success. And so I hope people kind of get over themselves pretty quick.”
The fundraising troubles reflect ongoing questions about the DNC’s direction under Martin, who was elected earlier this year, and comes as the DNC has faced months of bitter infighting. Continued cash shortages could limit the party’s ability to rebuild for a new cycle. And the DNC’s money woes stand in particularly stark contrast to Republicans, who have leveraged President Donald Trump’s fundraising prowess to raise record sums.
“Chair Martin and the DNC have raised more than twice what he had raised at this point in 2017, and our success in cycles thereafter is well documented. Under Ken, grassroots support is strong,” DNC Executive Director Sam Cornale said in a statement. “It’s now time for everyone to get off the sidelines and join the fight. Rebuilding a party is hard — rebuilding relationships and programs take time and will require all hands on deck to meet this moment.”
The DNC’s money woes stand out among major Democratic groups, Blue Light News’s analysis found: Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms are near financial parity with their Republican counterparts, and several major donors who have withheld funds from the DNC are still giving to those groups.
“Donors see the DNC as rudderless, off message and leaderless. Those are the buzzwords I keep hearing over and over again,” said one Democratic donor adviser, granted anonymity to speak candidly about donors’ approach.
The DNC, on the other hand, touts Democrats’ success in state and local elections this year as proof the party’s investments are paying off. The group also began transferring more funds to state parties this year, and argues it is better-positioned financially than it was at this time in 2017, when it also significantly trailed the Trump-powered RNC.
Some Democrats attribute the slowdown among donors primarily to the need for a break after 2024, and the challenges of being the party out of power. Large donors would rather bump elbows with high-profile figures like a president or House speaker; Democrats cannot put on those kinds of fundraising events right now. The DNC also struggled for cash during Trump’s first presidential term, and that did not stop Democrats from taking back the House in 2018, or winning the presidency in 2020.
Still, the longer the DNC struggles to build up cash, the harder it will be to close that gap heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond. And the fact that other party committees are not seeing the same financial struggles puts more responsibility on Martin and his team to figure out a way to right the ship.
“Obviously, the sooner the DNC and other Democratic-aligned groups can get investment, the better. It’s better for long-term programs on the ground, it’s better to communicate our message early on,” said Maria Cardona, a DNC member and Democratic strategist. “However, I think you’re going to see donors coming into those things because they are starting to see Democrats fighting back, and that’s what they want.”
Just 47 donors gave the maximum contribution to the DNC in the first half of the year, according to the Blue Light News analysis of the party’s filings with the Federal Election Commission. Over the same period in 2021, more than 130 donors gave a maximum contribution. (In 2017, when the party was similarly struggling with large donors, the figure was 37.)
That means dozens of the DNC’s biggest donors from early last cycle have not yet given to it this year — accounting for several million dollars the party group has missed out on this time.
Many of those biggest donors have continued to contribute to other Democratic groups and candidates, indicating they are still aligned with the party and willing to dole out cash — though often not as much, and not to the DNC.
In the run-up to the DNC chair election earlier this year, several large donors publicly preferred Ben Wikler, the Wisconsin Democratic Party chair, to Martin, who long served as the leader of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and also led the Association of State Democratic Parties.
“If Ken [Martin] really wanted to impress donors, he’d go do 20 or 30 salon events with donors and let them yell at him,” said the Democratic donor adviser. “If you take that on the chin, make some changes, then I think we could see some movement. But [he’s] not going to do that.”
With large donors lagging, the DNC has touted record grassroots fundraising from online donors. On ActBlue, the primary Democratic online fundraising platform, the group raised $33.8 million over the first six months of the year, up from $27 million over the same time in 2021.
But the total number of online donors was roughly the same in both periods — suggesting online donors are giving more than they were four years ago, but the group’s donor base has not expanded substantially.
Most DNC donors this year were contributors to Harris’ campaign or the DNC last cycle, according to the Blue Light News analysis. Another 14 percent of donors had no record of donations on ActBlue last cycle, suggesting the DNC is finding new small donors — but not nearly fast enough to make up for the drop-off among large donors.
In fact, the rate of online giving to the DNC has slowed in recent months. The party’s best online fundraising month was March, when it raised $8.6 million on ActBlue from 254,000 donors; in June, the party raised $4.1 million on the platform from 157,000 donors.
And reaching those online donors comes at a cost: The DNC has spent $5.7 million on online fundraising this year, according to its FEC filings. On Meta, which includes Facebook and Instagram, it is one of the largest political spenders this year, according to the platform’s data. The total spent on fundraising expenses so far is nearly as much as the DNC has sent to state parties this year.
Another set of major expenses also stands out for draining the DNC’s coffers: continuing to pay off expenses from Harris’ failed 2024 presidential bid.
Her campaign ended last year’s election with roughly $20 million in unpaid expenses, according to people familiar with its finances, although none of Harris’ campaign committees or affiliates ever officially reported debt. The DNC has spent $15.8 million total on coordinated expenses with the Harris campaign this year, including $1.3 million in June. A party spokesperson declined to comment on future campaign-related payments.
Elena Schneider contributed to this report.
Politics
Conservatives mock Comey over Taylor Swift video

Conservatives are mocking former FBI Director James Comey over a post he made on his Substack on Sunday in which he discussed his admiration for pop superstar Taylor Swift. The post features a video of Comey calling Swift “a truly inspirational public figure” and noting her recent appearance on NFL stars’ Jason and Travis Kelce’s…
Read More
Politics
Trump criticizes ‘fake news,’ Democrat, Zelensky in series of posts

President Trump late Sunday in a pair of posts on Truth Social ripped the media and a prominent Democrat for criticisms of his summit on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump met with Putin in Alaska, and will meet Monday with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as he seeks to find a way to end…
Read More
-
Uncategorized9 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show9 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics9 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate
-
Politics9 months ago
How Republicans could foil Harris’ Supreme Court plans if she’s elected
-
Economy9 months ago
Fed moves to protect weakening job market with bold rate cut
-
Politics9 months ago
RFK Jr.’s bid to take himself off swing state ballots may scramble mail-in voting
-
Politics6 months ago
Former ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship6 months ago
Pete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse