Polling and Politics: A Conversation with Frank Bruni, Kristen Soltis Anderson, and Nate Silver
On Friday, November 1, Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted an engaging online discussion featuring Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster and fellow contributing Opinion writer, and Nate Silver, the author of “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything” and the insightful newsletter Silver Bulletin. The trio delved into the intricacies of polling and the political landscape as Election Day approached in the intense race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Their conversation has been thoughtfully edited for brevity and clarity.
Frank Bruni:
Kristen, Nate, I appreciate you both joining me today. With Election Day looming on the horizon, it seems that uncertainty reigns supreme. Democrats are naturally inclined to worry, while MAGA Republicans exude confidence, mirroring their leader. How about you two? Nate, given your recent guest essay where you suggested your instincts hinted at a Trump victory, I’m curious to know if your gut feelings have evolved since then. Have they changed?
Nate Silver:
The crux of that article — and the headline — was that I don’t believe my gut instincts should be taken seriously in this context. Many interpreted it as my secret prediction, but that wasn’t the intent. A gut feeling a week before an election often boils down to an emotional reaction or an unconscious assimilation of the prevailing atmosphere — Republicans typically project more confidence, which can influence perceptions. I don’t think either of these factors will enhance the accuracy of predictions.
Kristen Soltis Anderson:
When asked about my prediction for the outcome, I often refrain from giving a definitive answer, which understandably frustrates many. People crave certainty; they want to prepare themselves mentally and emotionally for what might come. Unfortunately, I must emphasize that one should remain ready for a broad spectrum of outcomes.
Nate Silver:
Interestingly, the predictive models have shown a lack of significant movement lately. Harris had experienced a decline in mid-October, but now the prediction markets seem to be aligning more closely with those models, indicating a race that feels roughly 50-50. Perhaps there’s a dawning realization among observers that this contest is close and fraught with uncertainty.
Frank Bruni:
Nate, you’ve touched upon that dreaded 50-50 statistic. Kristen, your remarks about frustration resonate with me. Let’s address the discomfort surrounding the concept of a “tie.” I find it deeply unsettling and frankly, quite abhorrent. A tie feels utterly unsatisfying — how can it even exist? As a narrative, the Harris-Trump showdown fails to captivate: Chapter 1, it’s a tie. Chapter 5, still a tie. Chapter 10 … yet another tie! Is this truly a plausible scenario? I implore you both to provide some clarity. Not just for my sake, but for readers who share my disquiet. Can you offer some tie therapy and perhaps share your insights on the likelihood of outcomes that might diverge significantly from a tie?
