If you spent any time on social media or watching the news in late 2024, you probably felt like you were watching a high-stakes coin toss that somehow took three months to land. Everyone had a theory. One day, the "vibes" were with Kamala Harris; the next, Donald Trump’s base looked impenetrable. It was a chaotic mess of data and "gut feelings."
So, who was predicted to win the 2024 election? Honestly, it depends on which "expert" you asked and—more importantly—when you asked them.
🔗 Read more: Is It a Tornado Warning? What to Do When the Sky Turns Green
For a long time, the narrative was that this was Harris’s to lose. Then the momentum shifted. By the time people actually headed to the booths on November 5, the "smart money" was basically throwing its hands up in the air.
The Pollsters and Their "Margin of Error" Nightmare
The final stretch of the election was a statistician's worst nightmare. If you look at the big names like The New York Times/Siena College, their final national poll showed a dead heat: 48% to 48%. It was the ultimate "toss-up."
But "toss-up" is kinda a boring prediction, isn't it?
People want certainty. They want to know who is going to be in the White House. Because the polls were so close, different models started leaning on tiny variations to call a winner. 538 (now under ABC News) ended their forecast giving Harris a 50% chance of winning compared to Trump’s 49%. Basically, they said, "We have no clue, but maybe Harris by a hair."
Then you had Nate Silver, the guy who basically turned election data into a professional sport. His "Silver Bulletin" model actually leaned toward Trump in the final days, giving him a 51.5% chance of victory.
Why the polls felt so "off"
The reality? Trump didn't just win; he swept all seven swing states. He won the popular vote. He got 312 Electoral College votes to Harris's 226.
When you compare that to the "razor-thin" predictions, it feels like the pollsters failed. Again. But if you talk to data nerds, they'll tell you the results were actually within the "margin of error." Most polls had a margin of about 3% to 4%. Trump ended up winning the popular vote by about 1.5%. Technically, the polls weren't "wrong"—they were just useless at predicting a winner because the race was always going to be decided by a few thousand people in places like Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Allan Lichtman and the 13 Keys Fiasco
If there’s one person who probably wants to delete their 2024 search history, it’s Allan Lichtman.
Lichtman is a history professor who became a legend for correctly predicting almost every election since 1984. He doesn't use polls. Instead, he uses a system called the "13 Keys to the White House." These are true/false questions about things like the economy, social unrest, and "incumbent charisma."
Lichtman was very loud and very confident: He predicted Kamala Harris would win.
He argued that because there was no major third-party threat (after RFK Jr. dropped out and endorsed Trump) and because the economy wasn't technically in a recession, the "keys" favored the Democrats. He got hammered for this after the results came in. Critics pointed out that while the macro economy looked good on paper, regular people were still feeling the sting of $5 eggs and $4 gas.
Lichtman’s miss was a huge blow to the idea that historical "patterns" can predict modern, polarized elections. It turns out, "keys" don't mean much when the locks have been changed.
The Betting Markets vs. The Pundits
While the news anchors were playing it safe, the betting markets were screaming. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi became a huge part of the conversation this cycle.
For weeks leading up to the election, bettors were putting massive amounts of money on a Trump victory. At one point in October, Trump’s odds on Polymarket shot up to over 60%, even while the polls showed a tie.
"The betting markets are more accurate because people have skin in the game," was the common refrain from the "crypto-bro" crowd.
Turns out, they were right this time. But was it because they knew something the pollsters didn't? Or was it just a massive influx of pro-Trump bettors driving up the price? Probably a bit of both. The markets accurately captured the "undercurrent" of momentum that the traditional media was too scared to call.
What Most People Get Wrong About the 2024 Prediction
The biggest misconception is that there was a "hidden" group of voters that nobody saw coming.
That’s not quite true. Everyone knew about the "Latino shift" and the "working-class realignment." The experts just didn't think it would happen this fast or this much.
- The Gender Gap: Pundits predicted women would turn out in record numbers for Harris because of abortion rights. They did turn out, but it wasn't enough to offset Trump's massive gains with young men and minority voters.
- The "Shy Trump Voter": We've heard about this since 2016. In 2024, it wasn't that they were "shy"—it was that they were "unreachable." They don't answer phone calls from unknown numbers. They don't take surveys.
- The Incumbency Curse: Every major ruling party in the developed world lost ground in 2024. From the UK to France to Japan, voters were angry at whoever was in charge. Harris, as the sitting Vice President, was tethered to an unpopular administration, and no amount of "brat" memes could fix that.
Moving Forward: How to Read the Next One
So, what have we learned? Basically, stop trusting "point-in-time" predictions as if they are gospel.
If you want to be a more informed observer for the 2026 midterms or the 2028 race, you've got to look at the "noise" differently.
- Ignore national polls. They are fun for headlines but don't tell you anything about the Electoral College.
- Watch the "non-political" indicators. Look at consumer confidence and the price of gold rather than what a pundit says on a Sunday morning talk show.
- Assume the "underdog" is stronger than they look. In a fractured media environment, the person who "isn't supposed to win" usually has a much larger base than the data suggests.
Predictions are just educated guesses wrapped in fancy charts. At the end of the day, the only "expert" that actually mattered was the voter in a suburb of Grand Rapids who decided their grocery bill was more important than the latest "breaking news" alert.
To stay ahead of the curve, start following local county-level election data instead of national averages. That’s where the real shifts happen before the rest of the world notices. Focus on voter registration trends in key counties like Miami-Dade (Florida) or Maricopa (Arizona) to see where the actual movement is happening in real-time.