An Iowa pollster makes a bombastic claim about a controversial poll that showed Kamala winning the deep-red state after Trump’s triumphant victory

The Iowa pollster who made a wildly inaccurate prediction that Kamala Harris would win in the deep-red state now claims her mistake actually helped Donald Trump.

J. Ann Selzer – formerly known for her predictions in The Hawkeye State – admitted that her research was completely wrong and may have even emboldened the MAGA nation.

“I told more than one news source that the findings from this latest poll could actually energize and energize Republican voters who thought they were likely to win,” she wrote Thursday. “Maybe that did happen.”

Selzer added that she “thought about how we got to where we are today.”

The admission comes as a bombshell as election results continue to show good news for Trump as Arizona and Nevada are expected to give him more than 300 electoral votes, with Republicans favoring to retain the House of Representatives.

J. Ann Selzer, the formerly respected Iowa pollster whose prediction that Kamala Harris would win the deep-red state completely flopped, admits she may have helped Donald Trump win

Selzer, a famed pollster known for her accurate predictions in Iowa, admitted that her research in Iowa was completely wrong. Furthermore, she believes that posting a poll in which Harris had Trump ahead by three in a state that Democrats had not won since 2008 could have roiled the MAGA nation.

According to Selzer’s research, Harris led Trump by three in a state that Democrats had not won since former President Obama’s first victory in 2008.

“My philosophy in public opinion research is to do my very best to reveal the truth about a future event, in this case Election Day,” she wrote.

‘Without fear or favour, we used the same methodology as the last poll this year to show a healthy Trump lead in both 2020 and 2016. These turned out to reflect the mood of the electorate quite well, although both came under fire taken by Iowans who were hesitant. the findings could be true.”

She continued her attempt to defend her methodology, which came as a complete shock to voters the weekend before the election.

“The findings of the survey we produced for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom did not reflect what Iowa voters ultimately decided at the voting booth today,” she said.

“I’ll be looking at data from multiple sources in hopes of figuring out why that happened, and I’m excited about what that process can teach me.”

Selzer’s poll for Register and Mediacom, days before the election, predicted Harris would win by +3 percentage points. But Donald Trump defeated the vice president by more than +13 points in the Hawkeye State.

Selzer’s polling in the days before the election was an unusual error for the longtime pollster, and it gave many liberals false hope that Harris was performing better than expected.

They attributed this to anger among Iowa women, both liberal and conservative, over the state’s crackdown on abortion.

Selzer, who had accurately predicted Iowa’s election results since 2008, predicted Kamala Harris would win Iowa by +3 points. She went on to lose state by more than +13 points

Trump easily won the state of Iowa as he cruised to victory in the presidential race on Tuesday night, also winning all seven swing states and the national popular vote

Iowa has become a Republican-leaning state, with Trump winning the state by +9 percent over Joe Biden in 2020 and +10 percent over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

However, the state has not always been reliably red, swinging +9 percent and +6 percent toward Barack Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, respectively.

Selzer — who was mercilessly mocked after Iowa went to Trump — had accurately predicted each of these outcomes going back to 2008, giving her a Nostradamus-like reputation that drew attention to her incorrect Harris poll last week.

The humiliation also prompted Register editor-in-chief Carol Hunter to issue a statement to readers explaining why they published the poll.

“The Des Moines Register is closely monitoring the disparity between the results of the latest Iowa Poll and election results,” Hunter said in a statement.

“Throughout its 81 years, the Iowa Poll’s mission has been to reflect the unvarnished opinions of Iowans, without pressure or interpretation from politicians, media or others.

“With few exceptions, the last poll in Iowa before the election has closely tracked the actual vote.

“Register editors will work closely with pollster J. Ann Selzer to review any methodologies and other factors that may have influenced the difference.

Donald Trump easily won Iowa in Tuesday’s presidential election – just as he did in 2016 and 2020

Senator Marco Rubio ripped into the Des Moines Register poll released just days before the presidential election that showed Trump losing to Vice President Kamala Harris

“The Iowa Poll measured Iowans’ opinions on everything from agricultural policy to traffic cameras to the quality of mental health care in the state. We want to make sure it accurately reflects the feelings of Iowans moving forward.”

Trump spent Thursday assembling a team for his second term, naming campaign chairwoman Susie Wiles as White House chief of staff.

Two Senate races remain uncalled, with Democrats maintaining their leads in Arizona and Nevada, which would give Republicans a 52-to-48 seat majority, a gain of three seats.

Democrat Ruben Gallego leads Trump ally Kari Lake in Arizona by two points, with 76% of the vote to take Kyrsten Sinema’s seat.

In Nevada, incumbent Jacky Rosen leads Republican Sam Brown by just over a point with 91% of the vote, while Nevada polling expert Jon Ralston declaring it’s game over for Brown.

The House of Representatives results continue to evolve slowly, with Republicans holding 211 seats, seven of which are unable to maintain their majority.

Democrats have won 195 seats and hold the lead in 14 of the uncalled races, which would put them at 209, a loss of four seats from their 2022 minority position.

Lakshya Jain, a polling analyst for Split Ticketgave Democrats no more than a 15% chance of late voting, giving them the comebacks needed to win a shocking majority.