Voters urged to question survey accuracy after recent polling misses
An opinion piece argues that recent polling failures, including a Siena College survey showing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani with 69% approval, may not reflect public sentiment. The author cites past instances like the 2024 Iowa poll that underestimated Donald Trump's margin, and warns that unreliable surveys can discourage voting or donations. The piece advises voters to seek information beyond polls before casting ballots.
The Siena poll that sparked this critique surveyed only 811 likely gubernatorial voters statewide, with just 227 New York City residents included—a fraction of the city’s 8.8 million population. The same survey found 69 percent approval for Mayor Mamdani but only 49 percent for his political affiliation, a discrepancy the author flags as a sign of unreliable small-sample results. Outside the city, approval dropped to 34 percent in suburbs and 41 percent upstate, with non-white voters undercounted.
Past polling failures loom large, notably the 2024 Des Moines Register survey showing Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa by 3–4 points, while Donald Trump won by 13. That miss prompted a lawsuit (later dropped) and the pollster’s resignation. The author warns that skewed surveys can depress turnout or donations, and that betting platforms now create incentives to manipulate polls, especially in smaller races.
This piece could shape how readers weigh pre-election surveys, potentially reducing trust in polling as a guide to candidate viability. If voters believe polls are unreliable, they may ignore useful signals or, conversely, become more engaged to counter perceived bias. Donors might hesitate, and campaigns could shift strategies. The broader impact is a more skeptical electorate, which may be healthy, but also risks dismissing legitimate data that helps inform civic participation.