Related Articles
A new presidential poll has shocked the nation in the closing days of the 2024 election. Ann Selzer, a well-respected political pollster, released a survey on Saturday finding Vice President Kamala Harris had suddenly surged to a three percentage point-lead in Iowa.
The surprising outlier survey made headlines across the country as the VP has been widely expected to lose the Hawkeye State – by a lot.
Iowa has been solidly red for years. The state backed Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020 by almost ten percentage points. And Selzer’s September poll showed Trump beating Harris by four points. Her survey in June (when President Biden was still in the race) had Trump leading by 18 points.
A 21-point swing toward Harris, in a decidedly Republican state, would certainly be cause for concern for the Trump campaign – especially since the findings highlighted a glaring vulnerability for the former president – his support among women.
According to the Selzer poll, Harris leads Trump among women 56 to 36 percent. That rises to an astounding 63 to 28 percent among women over 65 years old.
These findings were seen as evidence of a ‘hidden Harris’ voter in the 2024 electorate that have so far flown under the radar – and are now poised to upend the race, because the sentiments of Iowans are often shared by others in the region.
If this ‘hidden Harris’ voter exists in other Midwestern states (like Michigan, Wisconsin and even Pennsylvania) then Trump would have a big problem on his hands.
Though, that’s a big if.
For one, everyone must be wary of reading too much into any single poll. While Ann Selzer has a strong track record of accuracy, no public opinion survey is infallible.
Additionally, there is significant contrasting evidence to consider, including DailyMail.com’s own findings.
In the days running up to the Selzer poll drop, the J.L. Partners/DailyMail national poll for October showed a 3-point Trump advantage. In September, Harris held a one-point lead.
Trump’s swelling support appeared to come from voters abandoning independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr and undecided voters finally making their choice. (Only one in fifty voters now say they have not yet made up their minds.)
Though, the Mail did detect another trend that may suggest Selzer is on to something.
When we asked women how they felt about Trump, the plurality called him ‘corrupt,’ while Harris was seen as ‘strong’.
More specifically, the Mail’s poll of undecided voters in Pennsylvania in October found one of their biggest hesitations in voting for Trump was ‘what it would mean for women’s rights.’
With Republicans, like former Congresswomen Liz Cheney and Barbara Comstock, backing Harris – and with voters remaining stubbornly loyal to ex-GOP candidate Nikki Haley long after she dropped out of the primary race – it is plausible that right-leaning women could go to the vice president.
And, indeed, since December 2023, Harris’s advantage among women in the Mail’s poll has grown steadily, from one percentage point late last year, to six-points in August 2024, to 14-points in late October.
That is a significant gender gap – but it is balanced by Trump +22 lead among men. And, ultimately, that is why I don’t see clear evidence that Harris can win solely on the backs of women.
Of course, the Mail’s poll was among voters nationally. Could it be that Selzer’s ‘hidden Harris’ voter effect is only occurring in the Midwest?
Again, there is reason to be skeptical.
On the same day that the Selzer poll was released, another Iowa survey was published by an equally reliable operation, Emerson College Polling.
This survey of 800 likely Iowa voters found 53 percent supported Trump and 43 percent backed Harris – and that the former president carried a majority among both genders.
‘Both female and male voters in Iowa support Trump, women by a five-point margin, 51 percent to 46 percent, and men by a significant 17-point margin, 56 percent to 39 percent,’ Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said.
Selzer’s finding and the Emerson’s results cannot both be accurate.
Perhaps an explanation for the discrepancy is found in how Selzer conducted her survey.
Typically, after pollsters collect their results they ‘weight’ the numbers to ensure their findings are representative of the overall electorate.
For instance, if only five percent of the poll respondents were young voters a pollster may inflate their influence to more accurately reflect the real percentage of young voters in the voting population.
