In the run-up to the US presidential election, both domestic voters and international audiences were told that the election would be an uncertain affair. It was claimed that Harris had “momentum” and a good chance of defeating Donald Trump – with several polls even showing her as the clear favorite to win by several percentage points.

As we know, that didn’t happen – at all. Trump won all seven battleground states and won 312 electoral votes – compared to a measly 226 for Harris. Despite losing big states like California, Trump also won the most popular votes in the US election. The result can probably be described without exaggeration as a landslide victory for Trump.

In the aftermath of the election, there have been many attempts to explain it away. Some claim that the pollsters and those behind the polls “underestimated” Trump’s voters. Others claim that they failed to “reach out” to Trump’s voter base, and that is why they were so wrong.

Some also argue, somewhat sweepingly, that the purpose of the polls was never to give an accurate picture of the situation or predict the outcome of the election, but only to show “patterns”, “attitudes” and “more or less qualified assessments” – and that therefore one should not react to the fact that in many cases they gave a seriously misleading picture of Harris’ and Trump’s real support among the American people.

People prefer a winner

Overall, there is much to suggest a very different and more sinister explanation for why the polls “happened” to be wrong about the outcome of the election. Rather, it may be that they have been systematically used as an active tool to influence elections.

Officially, of course, they say that they are only “investigating” what voters intend to vote for. In practice, there is evidence that these results have been both exaggerated and skewed in various ways in favor of the Democrats, making it appear that Kamala Harris was on her way to victory, when in fact she had almost no chance.

The reason would be very simple and logical – to try to shape public opinion to get the more politically insecure masses to go out and vote for Harris – and at the same time to make the more moderate Trump supporters feel resigned and stay home – because their candidate could not win this time either.

Psychologically, the strategy is not difficult to understand. A candidate who is portrayed as a winner or with a strong tailwind will attract more supporters than a candidate who is portrayed as a perceived loser. If voters perceive that their candidate has no real chance of defeating the opponent, many will abstain from voting – while many of those who are politically uncertain will tend to join the “winning team”.

Peer pressure is real

Despite the fact that there is often a lack of transparency in the activities and practices of pollsters and analysts, they enjoy an almost sacrosanct position in media coverage – or at least are widely interpreted as neutral, as actors without ulterior motives.

This view may be considered naive. These are not actors driven by a sense of justice, but by political ambitions and financial interests, and of course this does not only apply to the US presidential election. Opinion polls can strongly shape people’s views on many controversial issues – whether it’s NATO membership, migration policy, government support for the LGBT lobby, or whether Swedish arms should be sent to Ukraine and Israel.

The impact of peer pressure on human behavior is very real. Standing out and going against the grain is perceived by many as something unpleasant – with the risk of attracting social stigma in various ways. This is a basic psychology that politically conscious actors are of course aware of, and therefore inclined to use to their advantage. If a reluctant citizen who is leaning towards voting for the Sweden Democrats reads at the same time that 9 out of 10 Swedes would never consider voting for the party, the decision to actually do so becomes psychologically more difficult.

In the case of the US presidential election, there is much to suggest that support for Trump’s campaign – and perhaps above all dissatisfaction with the ruling Democrats for a variety of reasons – was so strong among broad segments of the population that it was simply not possible to manipulate public opinion to his detriment to the extent necessary to determine the outcome of the election.

Nor did it seem to matter that the entire left-liberal media establishment did everything it could, year after year, to paint Trump as a criminal, rapist, racist, fascist, extremist, or generally irrational lunatic. The explanation seems to be that a growing number of Trump supporters simply don’t care – largely because their trust in those pushing such messages has already been so badly eroded that the attempts to character assassinate Trump have not been effective enough.

So the subtle influence of the pollsters is by no means omnipotent, but for the discerning observer it is definitely a factor to consider in how opinion is actually shaped in practice.

TNT Editorial Team