Politics is messy. If you look back at the 2014 presidential election polls across the globe, you aren't just looking at numbers; you're looking at a massive shift in how humanity picks its leaders. 2014 wasn't a presidential election year in the United States, which is a common mix-up people make. But man, was it a massive year for the rest of the world. From the high-stakes drama in Brazil to the absolute landslide in Indonesia and the complex landscape in Afghanistan, the polling data from that year tells a story of rising populism and deep-seated skepticism.
Pollsters had a rough go of it. They really did.
What Brazil’s 2014 Presidential Election Polls Got Right (and Very Wrong)
Brazil was the big one. Dilma Rousseff was fighting for her political life against Aécio Neves. If you were following the Datafolha or Ibope polls back then, you remember the tension. It was thick. For months, the numbers were basically a coin flip. One week Rousseff was up by two points; the next, Neves had the momentum.
The polls leading up to the October runoff were claustrophobic. They showed a country split right down the middle, reflecting a deep resentment over the economy and the lingering shadows of the "Car Wash" corruption scandal. On the eve of the election, Datafolha had Rousseff at 52% and Neves at 48%. Honestly, that’s about as close as a statistician ever wants to get to a "we don't know" without actually saying it. When the results came in—51.6% for Rousseff—the pollsters breathed a sigh of relief. They’d nailed the margin, but they’d missed the boiling anger under the surface that would eventually lead to Rousseff’s impeachment just two years later.
Polls are a snapshot, not a crystal ball. They captured the preference but missed the volatility of the Brazilian street.
✨ Don't miss: Removing the Department of Education: What Really Happened with the Plan to Shutter the Agency
The Indonesian Surge: Jokowi vs. Prabowo
Over in Indonesia, the 2014 presidential election polls were doing something entirely different. They were tracking the rise of Joko Widodo, or Jokowi, the "man of the people" who didn't come from the traditional military or political elite. This was a big deal.
Early on, Jokowi had a massive lead. We’re talking 20 or 30 points in some early 2014 surveys. But then the machine started working. Prabowo Subianto, his opponent, ran an incredibly aggressive campaign. By July, the "quick counts"—which are basically exit polls conducted by private agencies—were showing the gap closing to within 3-5%.
The Quick Count Chaos
Indonesia has this unique thing where several different polling groups release "quick counts" hours after the polls close. In 2014, it was a disaster for public trust. Some agencies showed Jokowi winning; others, usually those with ties to Prabowo's camp, claimed Subianto had the lead. It created this weird, temporary reality where both candidates claimed victory. It took weeks for the official General Elections Commission (KPU) to confirm Jokowi won with about 53% of the vote.
This was a lesson in pollster bias. If the person paying for the poll has a stake in the outcome, the "undecideds" suddenly start leaning one way in the data. It's a trick as old as time, but 2014 saw it play out on a massive, digital scale.
🔗 Read more: Quién ganó para presidente en USA: Lo que realmente pasó y lo que viene ahora
Afghanistan and the Statistics of Ghost Voters
You can't talk about 2014 without mentioning Afghanistan. This was the first democratic transition of power in the country’s history. Ashraf Ghani versus Abdullah Abdullah.
Polling in a conflict zone is, frankly, a nightmare. How do you get a representative sample when half the country is inaccessible due to security risks? You don't. You guess. Most of the pre-election data suggested a very tight race, but the second-round runoff was swamped by allegations of systemic fraud. The polls said one thing, the ballot boxes said another, and the country ended up in a power-sharing "National Unity Government" brokered by the U.S. because the data was too compromised to trust.
Why the US Midterms Skewed the 2014 Conversation
Even though the US didn't have a presidential race, the 2014 presidential election polls often get searched by people looking for the 2016 precursors. In 2014, the GOP took the Senate. The polls largely predicted a Republican wave, but they underestimated the depth of it.
RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight were looking at states like Iowa and North Carolina. The polls suggested tight races. The reality? Republicans won by much wider margins than the polling averages suggested. This was the first real "canary in the coal mine" for the polling failures that would shock the world in 2016. Pollsters were missing "unlikely" voters—people who were mad, didn't usually vote, but showed up because they were fed up with the status quo.
💡 You might also like: Patrick Welsh Tim Kingsbury Today 2025: The Truth Behind the Identity Theft That Fooled a Town
The Technical Breakdown: Why the Numbers Failed
Why do polls miss? It’s usually not just "bad math."
- Non-response bias: People who answer their phones are different from people who don't. In 2014, we were right in the middle of the "death of the landline." Cell phone sampling was expensive and difficult.
- The Shy Tory Factor: Or in Brazil's case, the "Shy Neves" voter. People often tell pollsters what they think is the socially acceptable answer, then vote their anger in the privacy of the booth.
- Turnout Models: This is where the magic (or the mistake) happens. A pollster has to guess who will actually show up. If you guess that 60% of young people will vote and only 40% do, your poll is garbage before you even start.
Lessons We Still Haven't Learned
Looking back at the 2014 presidential election polls across these different nations, a pattern emerges. Polls are great at measuring the "polite" electorate. They are terrible at measuring a movement.
In Romania’s 2014 election, Klaus Iohannis pulled off a stunning upset against Victor Ponta. Most polls had Ponta winning comfortably. What did they miss? The diaspora. Hundreds of thousands of Romanians living abroad stood in line for hours at embassies to vote. The polls didn't account for them because they weren't "at home" to be called.
Actionable Insights for Reading Polls Today
If you’re looking at polling data—whether it's historical 2014 data or stuff coming out this morning—you have to be a skeptical consumer.
- Check the Sample: Did they talk to "Registered Voters" or "Likely Voters"? Likely voter screens are more accurate but can be biased by the pollster’s own assumptions.
- Look for the "Undecideds": If a poll shows 15% undecided a week before an election, the poll is basically useless. Those 15% will decide the winner, and they usually break toward the challenger, not the incumbent.
- Aggregate, Don't Cherry-Pick: Never trust a single poll. Use sites that average them out. Even then, remember that if all pollsters are using the same flawed methodology (like relying on old phone lists), the average will be just as wrong as the individual parts.
- Ignore the "Margin of Error": Most people think a 3% margin of error means the poll is accurate within 3 points. It actually only accounts for random sampling error. It doesn't account for bad questions, lying respondents, or missed demographics. In reality, the "true" margin of error is often double what's reported.
The 2014 cycle proved that the world was changing faster than the math could keep up with. From the streets of São Paulo to the polling stations in Jakarta, the "average" voter became a myth, replaced by a much more complex, much more frustrated reality that no phone call could fully capture.