The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into Elliott’s newsletter piece arguing the conventional wisdom on polling error might have it backwards this cycle — that the polls could be understating Democratic support, not overstating it, as the polls did in 2020 and 2024. They break down two structural reasons why that could be happening. Then, the podcast closes with a state-by-state tour of the FiftyPlusOne election forecast that’s moved sharply toward Democrats in both chambers.This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* Polling bias is not predictable from cycle to cycle. In 2022, many election forecasters ended up making worse predictions than they otherwise woudl have by adding extra support for Republicans to “unskew” the polls.* Weighting by recalled 2024 vote could be quietly inflating support for Republicans. Pollsters increasingly weight samples to match the results of the last election, using respondents’ self-reported vote. But people can misremember or change their reported vote — if disaffected Trump voters are the ones now declining to admit they voted for him, the remaining self-identified “Trump voters” skew more MAGA than the actual 2024 coalition. Elliott’s simulations suggest this could be suppressing the Democrats’ generic-ballot margin by up to a point.* Named-candidate polling shows Democrats running ahead of the generic ballot. A YouGov/Economist survey using actual candidate names in each district showed Democrats up 11 points among likely voters, versus 8 points on CBS’s standard generic-ballot question over the same period (also fielded by YouGov) — a gap directionally consistent with but larger than the historical average overperformance for high-quality candidates.* The 50+1 forecast now gives Democrats a 97% chance of winning the House, up sharply from where it stood in prior weeks, and a 65% chance in the Senate, where polls have moved toward Democrats in most competitive states.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com.You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com.And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David react to the first night of “Trumpapalooza,” the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, and explain why its proponents misunderstand what low-turnout Republican voters actually want. We also dig into Trump’s promise to send every adult American a $5,000 check if the GOP keeps Congress. Plus, we walk through the standards The Downballot and FiftyPlusOne use to decide which polls are worth reporting on (and, for readers, taking seriously).This video is free to watch, but it was not free to produce. If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our livestreams, so you can directly shape our conversations on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* What “Trumpapalooza” boosters get wrong about low-turnout Trump voters. According to Elliott’s analysis of 11,000 interviews from our monthly Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll this year, lower-propensity voters whom Republicans hope to activate via the convention are more anti-Trump—and are more focused on affordability—than Republicans who are already highly likely to vote in November. Even if two days of wall-to-wall Trump content were to motivate them, that might backfire on the GOP.* Not all polls are created equal, and not all deserve to be shared. David has new advice over at The Downballot walking through which polls are worth covering, and he swaps notes with Elliott about his own rules at FiftyPlusOne. Be especially aware of “informed ballot” polls masquerading as proper poll numbers, and just say no to pollsters who amplify conspiracy theories about elections.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com.You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com.And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is reunited with David (who is back from a short break to recover from knee surgery) to discuss how Trump continues to alienate voters ahead of the midterms. Polls also show more Republicans than ever are saying they regret voting for Trump in 2024 — and GOP candidates for the House and Senate are scrubbing mentions of the president from their campaign websites.If you value this podcast and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions keep the show ad-free, fund the newsletter, and ensure we have the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* A new UMass Amherst poll shows just 84% of Trump 2024 voters sticking with him in a hypothetical do-over election. That compares to 94% of Harris voters staying with Harris. Similarly, Navigator Research finds 18% of Trump’s voters say they regret their vote, chiefly over Iran, the cost of living, and corruption and abuse of power by the White House.* 2026 is looking like an above-average reaction against the party in power. In Gallup’s latest poll, U.S. adults now lean 49% toward the Democrats and just 39% toward Republicans — the biggest gap for Democrats since the peak of the financial crisis in 2008. Trump and the Republicans have essentially speedrun George W. Bush’s entire second term in 19 months.* Trump is picking the 20% side of every issue. From tweeting his support for data centers by saying “let Data Reign” to renaming Lake Ontario to lavishly spending on the White House ballroom, Donald Trump is constantly taking positions that are opposed by the vast majority of voters. Now Republican candidates for Congress have started distancing themselves from him. Ralph Alvarado and Andy Barr in deep-red Kentucky both scrubbed mentions of Trump from their campaign websites, and Carlos de la Cruz quietly demoted himself on his site from “Trump conservative” to “proven conservative.”Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly livestream on Substack. We’ll be back next week!As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com.You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com.And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is joined by Rajiv Sethi , professor of economics at Barnard College, Columbia University, and author of the Substack Imperfect Information (currently on hiatus as he finishes a forthcoming book), for a deep dive into prediction markets. We talk about how they work, which types of markets work better than others, whether they beat statistical modelers at forecasting elections, and whether markets will soon replace the pollsters and journalists.A couple of big takeaways from the conversation:* Markets are well calibrated probabilistically, but are not a 1:1 substitute for statistical forecasters. When information is sparse, markets cannot provide highly accurate forecasts of future events. And they can’t provide a standardized method for understanding the weight assigned to different types of information in anticipating outcomes, which limits their use journalistically.* But markets can be very useful when other models can’t function, such as when Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 election, and forecasters had to spend a few weeks updating their models. Markets kept producing continuous probability estimates through that uncertainty. Rajiv made the point that prediction markets were able to react to new information during the COVID-19 pandemic when epidemiological models were still getting trained.* There is an under-studied potential bandwagon effect with the markets. Highly visible odds undoubtedly have an effect on consumers (and voters) psychologically, even if they are hard to detect. Market prices from Kalshi are now contractually embedded in CNN's election coverage — Rajiv and Elliott discussed whether that visibility could itself depress turnout for whichever side is being priced as the underdog. (If you are studying this, reach out to me!)* No, markets aren't going to replace polls or journalism. Rajiv makes the great point that markets depend on polls, since traders seek out measurements of opinion. And we know that traders even commission their own private polls, like the French "whale" who contracted surveys from the Trafalgar Group in 2024. If public polling actually became scarcer, Rajiv expects markets would get more volatile and less accurate.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com.And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is joined by Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, to dig into a truly wild week in polling. This week truly had it all: one “pollster” that turned out to be entirely fictional, a real pollster that admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices, and two firms that our investigation found were doing polls for campaigns but passing them off as non-partisan, public surveys. Plus, we talk about how to navigate the polling landscape given the increasingly low barrier to entry in public opinion research.Here are the big takeaways:* A firm called “Median Strategies” faked polls in California and Wisconsin. The firm told the LA Times it had invented its results as a “social experiment,” then scrubbed its anonymously registered website once reporters started asking for methodological details. Mary explains why FiftyPlusOne never reported on this organization’s “polls” and the screening questions she asks every pollster before she shares their numbers at 50+1.* A pollster called The Public Sentiment Institute admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices to boost numbers for one candidate — who coincidentally paid for the company’s polls, which it didn’t disclose. TPSI says they “leaned” respondents who had selected voting for Jay Collins toward James Fishback — whose campaign, it turns out, had paid them about $1,500 shortly before the polls came out. Collins finished in the mid-20s, and Fishback got 10%.* Fake polls have always been around. But it’s easier than ever to conduct surveys that are both real and unprofessional or low-quality. A firm called Research 2000 faked Daily Kos’s daily Obama approval tracker for over a year before they got caught. Now, in 2026, AI tools make it trivial for enterprising young coders to fabricate release paperwork and even topline and crosstab data — and anonymous prediction markets create an avenue for payoff. Mary says that social media accounts that collect and republish polls should only publish verified results, and link to their sources (instead of posting screenshots of polls to go viral). Better yet, just go to FiftyPlusOne.news for all your polling needs.Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show!If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast.You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so:If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com.And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe