海角大神

How did (most of) the political and media establishment get Tuesday鈥檚 election so wrong?

Inside the Beltway, and in enclaves of 鈥渆lite鈥� thought around the country, there was a strong sense up until the returns began to come in that Democrat Hillary Clinton would be the next president of the United States.

Even the Republican National Committee, which supported Donald Trump, thought Mrs. Clinton would win, as of late last week. The RNC鈥檚 assessment was based on 鈥渟ophisticated predictive modeling,鈥� shared with reporters privately last Friday.

And as late as 6:43 p.m. Tuesday evening, GOP consultant Frank Luntz tweeted this: 鈥淚n case I wasn鈥檛 clear enough from my previous tweets: Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. #ElectionNight.鈥�

Now, on the day after Mr. Trump鈥檚 stunning victory, the sober assessments of why most pundits got it wrong are rolling in.

鈥淲ell, what can we say 鈥� we blew it,鈥� wrote the trio of political analysts at Sabato鈥檚 Crystal Ball, at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

鈥淲e heard for months from many of you, saying that we were underestimating the size of a potential hidden Trump vote and his ability to win,鈥� wrote Larry Sabato, Kyle Kondik, and Geoffrey Skelley. 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 believe it, and we were wrong. The Crystal Ball is shattered.鈥�

Why polls zeroed in on Clinton victory

The question of how most analysts got it wrong will haunt the political industry for some time to come. The rise of cell-phone-only households and the growing reluctance of Americans to take part in voter surveys has made the work of pollsters increasingly difficult. Response rates have for years been in the single digits; getting an adequate sample is time-consuming and expensive.

Pollsters then guesstimate what turnout will look like, assessing key segments of the electorate and their propensity to vote. First-time voters and party-affiliated voters who vote for the 鈥渙ther party鈥� can lead to a skewed poll.

And so, given Trump鈥檚 success in turning previous nonvoters into enthusiastic supporters 鈥� and winning over traditionally Democratic constituencies, such as working-class white men 鈥� Trump managed to sew together a coalition that won him key states in the Electoral College, even while losing the popular vote.

All along, analysts held open the possibility that Trump could in theory carve a path to victory by winning some major swing states and then busting through Clinton鈥檚 鈥渂lue wall.鈥� Trump did that by winning Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, then reliable Democratic states in the rust belt, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and maybe Michigan, where the vote is still too close to call.

In the last week of the campaign, when polling expert Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com gave Trump a 1-in-3 chance of winning the election, many pundits focused on the two-thirds chance of a Clinton victory. Other analysts who aggregate polls gave Clinton an even wider shot.

Then there were the mainstream media, with many outlets appearing to favor Clinton. (Early on, the Huffington Post labeled Trump a 鈥渞acist鈥� and 鈥渕isogynist鈥� in every article about him, a practice it is now ending.) That media bubble served both to antagonize and energize Trump supporters, and helped create something among journalists and pundits that social scientists call 鈥渃onfirmation bias鈥� 鈥� the propensity to see only evidence that supports one鈥檚 belief.

Still, the reality is that the polls weren鈥檛 wildly off. The final average at RealClearPolitics.com for the national popular vote showed Clinton ahead by 3.2 percentage points. At time of writing, she led the popular vote by 0.2 percent.

By election eve, key Electoral College battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania had tightened into tossups. And remember, polls have a margin of error of somewhere around plus or minus 3 percentage points, which means a 2-point lead isn鈥檛 necessarily a lead at all.

'Government is not working for you'

So how did Trump pull it off?

鈥淗e was an imperfect candidate with a near-perfect message,鈥� says Republican strategist Ford O鈥機onnell. 鈥淓veryone was focused on his flaws, and the words that came out of his mouth. But his message was powerful.鈥�

His message was, essentially, 鈥済overnment is not working for you,鈥� says Mr. O鈥機onnell. 鈥淧eople want safety and security, both in defending the country and economically. He struck a responsive chord.鈥�

The 鈥渉idden vote鈥� that Trump tapped into included not just working-class white men but also married white women, O鈥機onnell notes. Trump also scored well among college-educated white men.

In addition to Trump鈥檚 message, hard work was critical to his success, says Van Mobley, an economic historian at Concordia University in Mequon, Wisc., and a Trump supporter.

Still, even he was surprised by the outcome. 鈥淣o one really expected the upper Midwest to break as hard for Trump as it did,鈥� Mr. Mobley says. 鈥淏ut Trump campaigned extraordinarily hard, and had the right message to move voters.鈥�