J. Ann Selzer, long considered the gold standard of political polling in Iowa, announced she’s bowing out of the election forecasting game after a major miss in the 2024 presidential election. Her final poll predicted Kamala Harris edging out Donald Trump in Iowa—a state Trump ended up crushing with a 56% to 42.7% landslide. Oops.
In a guest column for the Des Moines Register, Selzer tried to soft-pedal the debacle: “Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course,” she admitted, before calling the polling miss “ironic.” Ironic? That’s like calling the Titanic’s maiden voyage a hiccup.
Selzer’s final pre-election poll had Harris up by 3 points in Iowa, defying almost every other credible survey that showed Trump with a commanding lead. The Trump campaign wasted no time dunking on her. Deputy Political Director Alex Latcham took the gloves off in a statement: “After four years under Kamala Harris, Hawkeye state voters are eager for President Trump to fix what Kamala Harris broke.” Latcham even managed to slip in a zinger about Social Security, quipping that Trump would “protect Social Security for retirees like Ann Selzer.” Brutal.
To her credit, Selzer acknowledged the miss, calling polling “a science of estimation” and adding that “science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist.” Sure, but when your “estimation” consistently leans left while Trump racks up wins, maybe it’s not science that’s the problem. It’s the bubble you’re polling from.
Selzer says she’ll keep working for private clients and explore “new ventures,” which sounds like code for quietly retreating from public embarrassment. Meanwhile, the Des Moines Register announced it would “review the disparity,” which translates to scrambling for excuses while ignoring the elephant-sized red wave that has been sweeping Iowa for years.
The real story here isn’t just a single bad poll—it’s how the Democratic establishment and its media allies have repeatedly misjudged the electorate. For years, they’ve relied on faulty polling to push narratives that collapse under the weight of actual voter behavior. Selzer’s stumble is just the latest example of an institution that refuses to learn from its mistakes because it doesn’t want to.
Here’s the reality Democrats don’t want to face: Americans are tired of their failures, and no amount of “science” from left-leaning pollsters can cover up the simple fact that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance offer the leadership voters crave. Selzer’s exit marks the end of an era for polling in Iowa, but the bigger story is the end of the Democrats’ fantasy that they can spin their way out of losing.
