Written by Scott Rasmussen

The shock Iowa poll by J. Ann Selzer (@jaselzer on X) highlighted the horrible state of the political dialogue in 21st century America. 

Rather than seeking information to consider, most people instinctively define a good poll as one that shows their team is winning. A bad poll is one that shows the opposite. So, when that Iowa poll came out, many Harris supporters were ready to claim that all other data should now be disregarded. This one data point proves she's going to win big!!! Many Trump supporters trashed the poll and sensed a conspiracy.

When confronted with evidence that challenges the conventional wisdom, a better approach would be to grasp an opportunity for re-evaluating what you think you know. That's especially true when the data is provided by a respected source like Selzer. Her solid track record spanning many elections is impressive.

For me, one detail that jumped out was Harris leading by 30 points among college educated respondents. In my own polling, Harris leads by about 30 among postgrads but has a very modest lead among those with bachelor's degrees. So, I wonder if the mix has too many postgrads? But, as a general rule, crosstab truthing is something to avoid.

At the end of the day, my guess is this is an outlier and Trump will still win Iowa. But it is a healthy thing to be reminded of how much uncertainty is involved in the process. People on both sides of the aisle are making guesses based upon assumptions that should be re-examined (more on that later).

This poll, and the reaction to it, are the reason I don't think public polls should be released during the final two weeks of a campaign. They are good hype for a local newspaper but add nothing to our public understanding. As I wrote four years ago, "Public pollsters act like a bartender who keeps pouring whiskey for a drunk customer and is then surprised when the customer wrecks his car on the way home." 

Scott Rasmussen is the president of RMG Research, Inc. and founder of the Napolitan Institute.