Incorrect Iowa Pollster, Newspaper Face Another Fraud Lawsuit

Once deemed “the ‘it’ pollster of American politics,” J. Ann Selzer and her firm are facing another lawsuit over an exceptionally bad pre-election poll showing Vice President Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 3 percentage points — in blood red Iowa. 

Trump walloped Harris by 13 points (56% to 43%) on his way to easily winning a second nonconsecutive presidential term a la Grover Cleveland. Critics called into question the motivation of the 16-point “outlier” Iowa poll, conducted by West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co. for the Des Moines Register newspaper published just three days before November’s election. 

Trump late last month sued Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register and its Goliath corporate media parent, Gannett Co. Inc. in Polk County, Iowa, alleging “brazen election interference.” That lawsuit charges that the defendants “and their cohorts in the Democrat Party” hoped that the final Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll of the campaign season “would create a false narrative of inevitability for Harris in the final week of the 2024 Presidential Election.” In short, the complaint charges, the pollster and the paper violated Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act. 

Attorneys for the defendants say they will “vigorously defend the First Amendment.”

They’re on the defense again. 

‘Flat-out, Epically, Recklessly Wrong’

On Tuesday, the Center for American Rights (CAR) filed a similar lawsuit, also in Polk County District Court, alleging that “the misleading polling results deceived consumers, distorted public perception, and undermined confidence in the electoral process.” The complaint, filed on behalf of Iowa resident and Des Moines Register subscriber Dennis Donnelly, seeks class action certification on behalf of all subscribers to Iowa’s largest newspaper. 

Daniel Suhr, president of CAR, told The Federalist in an interview Tuesday that his public interest law firm’s lawsuit expands on President-elect Trump’s claims “to include damages for subscribers misled by the recklessly published polling.” He said there’s a difference between the media making honest mistakes and being intentionally misleading.  

“We need to put an end to the idea that there are no victims when news organizations engage in these things,” said Suhr, whose Chicago-based firm has filed complaints against other corporate media outlets claiming they have influenced and interfered in the election. “Our client pays good money to buy a product and the product that the Des Moines Register promises is the news, fair and accurate news. The company didn’t deliver on that promise.” 

“The Register promised integrity and accuracy but instead delivered the dictionary definition of fake news,” the attorney said in a press release. “The poll wasn’t just wrong — it was flat-out, epically, recklessly wrong. In doing so, they defrauded every subscriber who paid for trustworthy reporting.”

‘In No Way Fraudulent or Misleading’

Reached for comment Tuesday, Nick Kleinfeld, legal counsel for The Des Moines Register, said the newspaper and Gannett were reviewing CAR’s “frivolous, copy-cat lawsuit.” 

“This is the latest in disturbing attempts to pervert consumer protection laws to suppress political speech protected by the First Amendment,” Kleinfeld said in an email response to The Federalist. 

The attorney called the results of Selzer’s poll “unexpected,” but “in no way fraudulent or misleading” to the Register’s subscribers. Failing to report the results of the wildly off poll would have been the real disservice to the newspaper’s readers, Kleinfeld said. 

“The Des Moines Register and Gannett will vigorously defend this baseless lawsuit in order to stand up for speech protected by the First Amendment.”

‘Oracle of Iowa’

The poll was Selzer’s swan song of her “life’s work.” This swan had a bad case of the bird flu. Nearly two weeks after the election, after her bold claim that Harris “leapfrogs Donald Trump to take the lead near Election Day,” Selzer posted a farewell column in the newspaper that has published her polls for decades. She was leaving her “life’s work” for “other ventures and opportunities.” She claimed that she had informed the Register that she would not renew her contract after it expired with the early November poll. 

What a way to go out — projecting that a far-left Democrat incumbent had a bigger-than-swing-state lead in a conservative state that has solidly backed Trump and fellow Republicans for the better part of the past decade.  

“Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course.  It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite,” Selzer wrote in the Register column. 

Ironic doesn’t seem a big enough word. 

Many members of the fawning corporate media have described Selzer’s work as the “gold standard” of polling. She’s lauded for her accuracy in predicting winners in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. A real Nostradamus of political polling, her fans might tell you.  

“Every four years, J. Ann Selzer is the ‘it’ pollster of American politics … Time and again, her polls stood alone as the best measure of what happened on Election Day,” proclaims Selzer’s bio on the website of BigSpeak, a motivational speaker booking agency. As the site notes, Selzer has been referred to as “Queen Ann,” the “Princess of Polling,” and the “Duchess of Data.” FiveThirtyEight.com dubbed her “the Best Pollster in Politics.” 

So then how did the “oracle of Iowa” get her final presidential poll — just three days before the election — so wrong? 

Selzer’s review of her own poll, published in the Register on the same day she wrote her Old Pollsters Never Die column, showed “no likely single culprit has emerged to explain the wide disparity,” the newspaper’s Carol Hunter wrote. 

The piece seemed more of a defense of Selzer, the Register and the 80-year-old Iowa poll than an explanation of what went wrong, noting how thoroughly Selzer checked her work. 

“Thank you for reading and for caring about the accuracy of information you consume,” Hunter, who recently retired as executive editor of the newspaper, wrote. 

‘What are the Odds’?

On Tuesday, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) announced it will represent Selzer in a what it calls Trump’s “meritless” lawsuit that “violates long-standing constitutional principles.”

FIRE takes aim at the lawsuit’s use of Iowa’s consumer fraud law, which targets sellers who make false claims to move merchandise. A FIRE official could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening, but the nonprofit known for its free speech battles on college campuses issued a statement about Trump’s complaint. 

“Punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets,” said FIRE chief counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “This is America. No one should be afraid to predict the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment.”

But the First Amendment is no shield against “wrong and reckless” reporting to influence the outcome of an election, Suhr said. As James Piereson, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote in The New Criterion, the debate — and now the legal arguments — comes down to a basic question: “Was the Iowa poll an honest error, or one manipulated to achieve a foreordained result?” 

“Put differently: what are the odds of finding an honest sample of Iowa voters that showed Harris with a lead of three points when the actual result was a thirteen-point victory for her opponent? Those odds are slim to none,” wrote Piereson, who formerly taught political theory at Iowa State University.

The Des Moines Register poll, which missed the actual outcome of the Iowa presidential vote by 16 points, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent, “or by as many as five standard deviations from the true result as revealed on election day,” according to the lawsuit.

“What are the odds of drawing such a sample by legitimate means? Answer: roughly one time in 3.5 million trials,” Piereson asserts. “In other words, given these odds, the results in the Iowa poll likely did not come about by ‘honest error.’” 

‘Can Harris Win Iowa?’

As the research fellow notes, the poll suggested Harris was doing exceptionally well among women voters and was leading by 28 points among independent women and by 35 points with women over 65.

“The poll gave heart to the Harris campaign and caused concern among Trump supporters. It was taken in some quarters as a sign that Harris might pull off a surprising victory on election day due to a surge of support among female voters,” Piereson wrote. 

The headline on MSNBC’s website screamed, “Can Harris win Iowa? Surprising Iowa poll shows VP in the lead over Trump.”

“It could be an outlier poll, but just to emphasize … the reason we’re talking about it, this kind of poll, the Des Moines Register poll, has correctly predicted Iowa’s presidential results in every race since 2008,” the left-wing news outlet’s giddy anchor said at the time. 

At ABC News, the headline read: “Poll showing Harris up in Iowa throws ‘monkey wrench’ into election prognosis: Expert.” Maybe, just maybe, said expert suggested, the Register poll indicted something happening in the critical swing states to bolster Harris’ chances. 

“There aren’t many people who think Donald Trump is going to suddenly lose the state that he won by eight points [in 2020], but it might indicate some of the weakness he has with voters in other states, including Wisconsin and Michigan,” said Rick Klein, ABC News Washington bureau chief and political director, responding to the poll. 

There was no weakness. Trump swept all seven swing states on his way to a definitive electoral college victory. 

‘Was This Intentional?’

“It’s hard for anybody to say they saw this coming,” Selzer told the Des Moines Register about her poll findings in early November. “She [Harris] has clearly leaped into the leading position.”

She — Harris — clearly had not. Nobody saw “this” coming, because Selzer had produced a poll that even the outliers must have scoffed at. Her attorneys and the lawyers for the Register assert there was nothing wilful or reckless about Selzer’s poll. Discovery will tell, Suhr said. 

“The First Amendment is very clear. It doesn’t protect intentional or reckless fraud by media organizations,” The Center for American Rights attorney said. “We’re going to find out in the discovery process, was this intentional? Did anyone raise red flags? Were those people steamrolled? Those are all the questions that the subscribers and the American people deserve answered?” 

The lawsuits will have to make it past motions to dismiss first. Gannett has successfully sought to move the lawsuit to federal court in Iowa.  

Trump is coming off a huge legal victory against corporate media. ABC will cut a check for $15 million to Trump’s presidential library fund to bail out big-mouth anchor George Stephanopoulos for his false assertions that Trump had been found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll, according to the terms of the settlement. 

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.