WASHINGTON – President-elect Donald Trump is calling for an investigation into Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer over a controversial pre-election survey that showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in the deeply conservative state of Iowa.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump criticized the Nov. 1 poll conducted by Selzer for the Des Moines Register, which showed Harris with a 47% to 44% lead over Trump. The poll was released just days before the election, leading to significant backlash from Republican circles. Trump ultimately defeated Harris in Iowa by a 13-point margin, securing 56% of the vote to her 42.7%.
Trump slammed the poll’s findings, suggesting they caused “great distrust and uncertainty at a very critical time” in the campaign. “She knew exactly what she was doing,” Trump wrote about Selzer, 68, who announced on Sunday she would be stepping away from political polling.
In his Truth Social post, Trump also accused Selzer of potentially committing “ELECTION FRAUD” and called for a full investigation into the poll’s inaccuracies. He criticized both Selzer and the Des Moines Register newspaper, claiming their poll had misled the public and given Democrats “false hope” ahead of what was ultimately a national Republican victory.
“An investigation is fully called for!” Trump declared.
Poll’s Failure Stirs Controversy
The poll had drawn significant attention as one of the final surveys before the election, especially given the Republican Party’s dominant position in Iowa. The discrepancy between Selzer’s prediction and the final election result, which saw Trump win the state by a commanding 13 points, has raised questions about the accuracy of polling methods in the final stages of the campaign.
Selzer, in a 19-page analysis published on Sunday, admitted she was “puzzled” by the results, which represented the “biggest miss” of her career. In her review, she explored seven factors that could have contributed to the unexpected result, although she acknowledged that there was no clear explanation for why the poll had gone so wrong.
“Nothing is more rewarding than figuring out what went wrong,” Selzer wrote, stressing that polling is a “science of estimation” that sometimes leads to humbling outcomes.
Despite the detailed analysis, Des Moines Register Executive Editor Carol Hunter noted that “no likely single culprit has emerged to explain the wide disparity” between Selzer’s pre-election poll and the final results.
Trump’s Response and Calls for Accountability
Trump’s reaction to the poll results has been sharp, with his spokesman Steven Cheung accusing Selzer of attempting to mislead the public “for the benefit of Kamala Harris.” Cheung stated, “President Trump was very clear in his Truth Social post,” in response to questions about whether Trump was calling for a criminal investigation.
Selzer, who has built a reputation as one of the most trusted pollsters in the industry, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Trump’s statements or Cheung’s accusations.
In her announcement of her departure from public opinion polling, Selzer reflected on the science of polling and her career, acknowledging that her historical accuracy may have led to an overconfidence in her methods. “It’s a science of estimation, and science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist,” she wrote in her farewell message to the public.
The Larger Polling Debate
Selzer’s pre-election survey, which caused waves in the final days of the campaign, is just one of many polls that have sparked debates over the reliability of public opinion measurements, particularly in the final stages of campaigns. As polling becomes an increasingly contentious issue in U.S. elections, Trump’s call for an investigation has amplified concerns about transparency and accountability in the polling industry.
Despite the controversy, Trump’s decisive victory in Iowa highlights the potential pitfalls of relying on late-stage polling, which can sometimes fail to capture the true sentiment of voters in swing states.
The dispute over Selzer’s poll comes amid broader skepticism about polling accuracy and its influence on election outcomes, leaving both pollsters and political candidates to face increasing scrutiny in future races.
