Pollster Accuracy Rankings: Who Got 2024 Right
Fifteen pollsters ranked by documented 2024 general election accuracy, drawing on the AAPOR task force evaluation, Silver Bulletin pollster ratings, the ActiVote Most Valuable Pollster rankings, and Split Ticket's post-election analysis.
How this ranking works
This ranking scores pollsters on one question: how close were their final 2024 general election polls to the certified results? It aggregates three named post-election evaluations. First, the Silver Bulletin 2024 cycle review by Nate Silver's team, which computed simple average error for pollsters with at least five late polls and updated its letter-grade pollster ratings accordingly. Second, the ActiVote 2024 Most Valuable Pollster (MVP) rankings, which graded 136 pollsters on a weighted average across national, swing-state, Senate, and governor polls. Third, Split Ticket's post-election polling analysis. Context on the field as a whole comes from the AAPOR Task Force on 2024 Pre-Election Polling, which analyzed 116 general election polls conducted October 23 to November 5, 2024.
The composite score is ordinal and analytical: pollsters are ordered by average error where published (lower is better), with cross-source agreement breaking ties. The subscores surfaced on each entry are the components of that ordering, expressed so that higher always reads better. Accuracy is the Silver Bulletin simple average error inverted onto a 10-point scale, so a 1.2-point error reads near the top and a 3.2-point error reads lower. Low bias is the inverse of the pollster's directional skew, rewarding firms whose misses did not consistently favor one party. Portfolio breadth credits the number and range of qualifying polls, because hitting margins across dozens of releases is statistically harder than doing it in five. Cross-source agreement credits appearing near the top of more than one independent evaluation. Every value is traceable to the Silver Bulletin, ActiVote, or Split Ticket data cited in the entry.
Honesty requirement: these rankings rest on small samples. A pollster releasing five to ten late polls in one cycle can land near the top or bottom of an error table by luck. AAPOR's own task force cautions that single-cycle accuracy is a weak predictor; firms that led 2020 error tables trailed them in 2022 (Split Ticket, 2024). Methodology, transparency, and multi-cycle track record matter more than one November. The Silver Bulletin overall ratings, which blend many cycles, rank The Washington Post, Marquette University Law School, and New York Times/Siena College at the top even though none led the single-cycle 2024 error table (Silver Bulletin, January 2026). This report shows both measurements and says which is which. Party affiliation of a pollster's clients is disclosed where known and does not affect scoring.
1AtlasIntelOnline recruitment pollster, Brazil-based, active in U.S. races since 20201.5
Averaged 1.5 points of error with a statistical bias of just 0.1 points toward Democrats in the Silver Bulletin's 2024 review, earning an upgrade from A to A+, the highest rating in that database at the time (Silver Bulletin, 2024-2025). ActiVote named it the 2024 Most Valuable Pollster with a 1.38 percent average error, its second consecutive cycle atop that table (ActiVote, 2025).
The receipts: AtlasIntel posted 1.5 points of simple average error with 0.1 points of pro-Democratic bias and was upgraded from A to A+, then the highest grade in the Silver Bulletin database (Silver Bulletin, 2024-2025). ActiVote independently named it the 2024 Most Valuable Pollster with a 1.38 percent weighted error across national, swing-state, Senate, and governor polls, its second straight cycle atop that table (ActiVote, 2025). It is the only firm to top both independent evaluations, the strongest convergent evidence in this report.
2OnMessage Inc.Republican-aligned firm; polls for GOP clients1.2
Posted the lowest simple average error of any qualifying pollster in 2024 at 1.2 points, with bias of only 0.1 points, and jumped from a B/C rating to an A at Silver Bulletin (Silver Bulletin, 2024-2025). Ranked third in the ActiVote MVP table; its partisan client base is disclosed and did not show up as skew in 2024 (ActiVote, 2025).
The receipts: OnMessage recorded the single lowest simple average error of any qualifying 2024 pollster, 1.2 points, with just 0.1 points of bias, and was upgraded from a B/C tier to an A (Silver Bulletin, 2024-2025). It ranked third in the ActiVote MVP table despite its disclosed Republican client base, which did not surface as directional skew in the 2024 data (ActiVote, 2025). Its portfolio subscore trails AtlasIntel because it published fewer qualifying public releases.
3InsiderAdvantageRepublican-leaning public pollster led by Matt Towery2.0
Ranked second in the ActiVote 2024 MVP standings on precise coverage of the national vote, the seven presidential swing states, and Senate races (ActiVote, 2025). Its 2024 swing-state polls consistently showed the small Trump edges that materialized, a pattern the AAPOR report notes most probability-based polls missed (AAPOR, 2025).
The receipts: InsiderAdvantage ranked second in the ActiVote 2024 MVP standings on precise coverage of the national vote, the seven presidential swing states, and Senate races (ActiVote, 2025). Its swing-state polls consistently showed the small Trump edges that materialized, a pattern the AAPOR report notes most probability-based polls missed (AAPOR, 2025). Its broad swing-state portfolio earns a high breadth subscore.
4Patriot PollingSmall independent pollster, first full national cycle in 20241.5
Tied AtlasIntel at 1.5 points of simple average error in the Silver Bulletin 2024 review (Silver Bulletin, 2024). The sample-size caveat applies with full force here: a limited poll count means the error figure carries wide uncertainty, which is why it ranks below firms that matched accuracy across more polls.
The receipts: Patriot Polling tied AtlasIntel at 1.5 points of simple average error in the Silver Bulletin 2024 review, in its first full national cycle (Silver Bulletin, 2024). It ranks below firms with the same accuracy because its low portfolio breadth subscore reflects a thin poll count, which widens the uncertainty around any single-cycle error figure. The sample-size caveat applies with full force, and the ranking says so rather than crowning a newcomer on limited data.
5Emerson College PollingHigh-volume academic pollster (MMS/online panel)2.4
Placed seventh in the ActiVote MVP rankings while releasing one of the largest state-poll portfolios of any public pollster in 2024 (ActiVote, 2025). Volume matters: hitting swing-state margins across dozens of releases is statistically harder than doing it in five, which earns Emerson a top-five slot here.
The receipts: Emerson placed seventh in the ActiVote MVP rankings while releasing one of the largest state-poll portfolios of any public pollster in 2024 (ActiVote, 2025). Its maximum breadth subscore reflects that volume: hitting swing-state margins across dozens of releases is statistically harder than doing it in five, and Emerson did it across a portfolio few firms matched. That volume-adjusted accuracy earns it a top-five finish above several firms with lower raw error but thin poll counts.
6Trafalgar GroupRepublican-leaning pollster known for low-response-bias methods2.6
Returned to the ActiVote top ten in 2024 after a documented rough 2022, when it was among the cycle's least accurate firms (ActiVote, 2025; Split Ticket, 2024). The whipsaw is the lesson: single-cycle rankings reward and punish the same methodology in alternating years.
The receipts: Trafalgar returned to the ActiVote top ten in 2024 after ranking among the least accurate firms of 2022 (ActiVote, 2025; Split Ticket, 2024). Its bias subscore is lower than the leaders' because its methodology carries a documented Republican house effect that aligned with 2024 but not every cycle. The two-cycle whipsaw is the central lesson of the ranking: the same low-response-bias approach was punished in 2022 and rewarded in 2024.
7Rasmussen ReportsLong-running online pollster with a documented Republican house lean2.7
Landed in the ActiVote 2024 top ten on national and swing-state coverage (ActiVote, 2025). Its historical Republican house effect, penalized in Democratic-leaning error years, aligned with the 2024 outcome; readers should weight that history, and this ranking does.
The receipts: Rasmussen landed in the ActiVote 2024 top ten on national and swing-state coverage (ActiVote, 2025). Its bias subscore is among the lowest in this top tier because its documented Republican house lean is a persistent directional effect, one that happened to align with the 2024 outcome after being penalized in Democratic-leaning error years. The ranking credits the 2024 accuracy while flagging the house effect that produced it, so readers can weight the history for themselves.
8TIPP InsightsOnline pollster, successor to the IBD/TIPP tracking operation2.0
Averaged about 2 points of error in the Silver Bulletin 2024 review, extending a strong multi-cycle record from the IBD/TIPP era (Silver Bulletin, 2024). One of the few firms strong in both the single-cycle table and longer-run ratings.
The receipts: TIPP Insights averaged about 2 points of error in the Silver Bulletin 2024 review, extending a strong multi-cycle record inherited from the IBD/TIPP tracking operation (Silver Bulletin, 2024). Its cross-source subscore is high because it is one of the few firms strong in both the single-cycle error table and longer-run quality ratings, a durability most 2024 leaders cannot yet claim.
9Echelon InsightsRepublican-founded firm with a public polling arm2.0
Posted roughly 2 points of average error in 2024 per the Silver Bulletin review, with transparent methodology disclosure (Silver Bulletin, 2024). Its public releases avoided the herding pattern Silver's team flagged across the industry in the final week.
The receipts: Echelon Insights posted roughly 2 points of average error in the Silver Bulletin 2024 review with transparent methodology disclosure (Silver Bulletin, 2024). Its public releases avoided the herding pattern Silver's team flagged across the industry in the final week, an independence that supports the accuracy figure rather than borrowing it from the consensus.
10The Washington PostMedia pollster, probability-based samples, often with George Mason (Schar School)2.0
Averaged about 2 points of error in 2024 and stands first in the Silver Bulletin overall pollster ratings as of the January 2026 update, which weighs multiple cycles and methodology (Silver Bulletin, 2024; Silver Bulletin, January 2026). The strongest 2024 performance among traditional probability-based media polls.
The receipts: The Washington Post averaged about 2 points of error in 2024, the strongest showing among traditional probability-based media polls, and stands first in the Silver Bulletin overall pollster ratings as of the January 2026 update (Silver Bulletin, 2024; Silver Bulletin, January 2026). Its high cross-source subscore reflects that it leads the multi-cycle quality ratings while remaining respectable in the single-cycle error table, a combination the 2024 error-table leaders have not yet matched.
11Mitchell Research & CommunicationsMichigan-focused pollster2.0
Delivered roughly 2 points of average error in 2024, led by accurate Michigan readings in the closest large swing state (Silver Bulletin, 2024). A regional specialist showing that state depth can beat national breadth.
The receipts: Mitchell Research delivered roughly 2 points of average error in 2024, led by accurate readings of Michigan, one of the closest large swing states at a 1.42-point margin (Silver Bulletin, 2024; official returns). Its portfolio subscore is moderate because it is a regional specialist, but its state depth in a decisive swing state beat the national breadth of larger firms that missed the margin there.
12Fabrizio/McLaughlinRepublican campaign pollsters (Trump campaign clients)2.9
Ranked ninth in the ActiVote MVP table despite being internal campaign pollsters whose released numbers are usually discounted (ActiVote, 2025). Client polls that publish and verify well deserve the credit; the client relationship is disclosed here so readers can discount as they see fit.
The receipts: Fabrizio/McLaughlin ranked ninth in the ActiVote 2024 MVP table despite being internal Trump campaign pollsters whose released numbers are usually discounted (ActiVote, 2025). Its bias subscore is the lowest in the top tier because campaign pollsters have an inherent directional incentive, disclosed here so readers can discount as they see fit. The ranking credits verified accuracy while marking the client relationship rather than hiding it.
13Marquette University Law SchoolAcademic pollster, gold standard in Wisconsin3.0
Ranks second in the Silver Bulletin overall ratings as of January 2026 on the strength of a long, transparent Wisconsin record (Silver Bulletin, January 2026). Its 2024 cycle was solid rather than spectacular in the single-cycle error tables, which is exactly what a small state portfolio produces in a 0.86-point state.
The receipts: Marquette ranks second in the Silver Bulletin overall ratings as of January 2026 on a long, transparent Wisconsin record (Silver Bulletin, January 2026). Its 2024 single-cycle accuracy was solid rather than spectacular, exactly what a small state portfolio produces in Wisconsin, the closest large state at 0.86 points (official returns). Its high cross-source subscore comes from multi-cycle quality, not one November's error figure, which the ranking distinguishes explicitly.
14New York Times/Siena CollegeProbability-based media pollster, live-caller3.1
Third in the Silver Bulletin overall ratings (January 2026 update) but, by Silver's own 2024 review, not at the top of the single-cycle error table, as its final national and swing-state reads ran slightly Democratic of the result (Silver Bulletin, 2024; Silver Bulletin, January 2026). Its transparency and multi-cycle record keep it on any credible list.
The receipts: NYT/Siena ranks third in the Silver Bulletin overall ratings as of January 2026 but was not at the top of the single-cycle 2024 error table, because its final national and swing-state reads ran slightly Democratic of the result (Silver Bulletin, 2024; Silver Bulletin, January 2026). Its bias subscore reflects that Democratic-leaning miss, while its high breadth and cross-source subscores reflect a large, transparent portfolio and a leading multi-cycle record. It is the clearest case in the ranking of a firm strong on long-run quality but middling on one cycle's error.
15ActiVoteApp-based pollster; publisher of the MVP rankings3.2
Placed eighth in its own MVP table, a ranking it publishes with open methodology, and its 2024 releases tracked final margins in most tested states (ActiVote, 2025). The self-scoring conflict is disclosed: the rank here relies on the published error data, not the firm's self-assessment.
The receipts: ActiVote placed eighth in its own MVP table, published with open methodology, and its 2024 releases tracked final margins in most tested states (ActiVote, 2025). Its cross-source subscore is deliberately low because the self-scoring conflict is disclosed: the rank here relies on the published error data alone, not the firm's self-assessment. The ranking includes it for transparency about the source of the MVP data rather than deferring to its own placement.
Click any entry to open its full scorecard, sub-scores, and the receipts.
Simple average error of final 2024 polls, qualifying pollsters (Silver Bulletin)
2024 was a good year for polling, and the receipts say so
The AAPOR Task Force on 2024 Pre-Election Polling analyzed 116 general election polls conducted between October 23 and November 5, 2024, and concluded that public polls painted an essentially accurate picture of an extraordinarily close contest. By the task force's accounting, state-level polls were the most accurate since 1944, and national polls performed about average by historical standards (AAPOR, 2025). After the documented misses of 2016 and 2020, that is a measured, sourced rehabilitation.
One caveat survived: polls again understated the Republican vote share relative to Democrats, for the third consecutive presidential cycle, though by less than in 2016 or 2020 (AAPOR, 2025). Split Ticket's post-election review put it bluntly: there does not appear to be a single state where the polls underestimated Harris; Trump consistently outran his numbers (Split Ticket, 2024). That directional persistence is why the low-bias subscore matters in this ranking. A firm that misses randomly is more trustworthy than one that misses the same direction every cycle, even at the same magnitude.
The scale of the 2024 rehabilitation is worth stating in plain numbers. In 2016, national polls understated Trump by roughly 3 points and state polls in the upper Midwest missed by far more, producing the most consequential polling failure in modern memory. In 2020, the miss was larger still in some states. In 2024, the AAPOR task force found the residual Republican understatement had shrunk to its smallest of the three cycles, and state polling reached its highest accuracy in eighty years (AAPOR, 2025). The field did not merely avoid another 2016. It posted its best state-level performance since the Second World War, under more scrutiny than any election in living memory. That is the context every entry in this ranking sits inside.
Who actually topped the error tables
The Silver Bulletin's 2024 review computed simple average error for pollsters with at least five qualifying late polls. The leaders: OnMessage Inc. at 1.2 points, AtlasIntel at 1.5, and Patriot Polling at 1.5, with Mitchell Research, Echelon Insights, TIPP Insights, and The Washington Post all near 2 points (Silver Bulletin, 2024). OnMessage and AtlasIntel also posted the lowest bias among qualifying firms, overestimating Democrats by just 0.1 points on average (Silver Bulletin, 2024). Those two figures, a 1.2-point error and a 0.1-point bias, are the strongest single-cycle numbers in the report, and they belong to two firms with disclosed partisan or non-traditional profiles.
The ActiVote MVP rankings, using a weighted score across 10 national polls, 70 swing-state presidential polls, non-swing-state polls, 29 Senate polls, and 5 governor polls, reached a compatible answer by a different road: AtlasIntel first with a 1.38 percent average error, InsiderAdvantage second, OnMessage third, with Trafalgar, Rasmussen, and Patriot Polling in the top performers and Emerson seventh (ActiVote, 2025). Two independent scoring systems, one overlapping leader board. That convergence is the strongest evidence in this report, and it is why AtlasIntel, which topped both, earns the maximum cross-source subscore and the number-one rank.
Why breadth changes the ranking
Raw error is not the whole story, and the portfolio-breadth subscore is where this ranking departs from a simple error table. Consider the difference between a firm that posts 1.5 points of error across five polls and a firm that posts 2.4 points across dozens. The five-poll firm has a better headline number and a wider uncertainty band around it; the dozen-poll firm has a worse headline number and far more evidence that its accuracy is real (AAPOR, 2025). Emerson College illustrates this. It placed only seventh in the ActiVote MVP table with about 2.4 points of error, yet it ranks fifth here, above several firms with lower raw error, because it released one of the largest state-poll portfolios of any public pollster and hit swing-state margins across the whole of it (ActiVote, 2025).
The reverse case is Patriot Polling. It tied AtlasIntel at 1.5 points of error, a top-tier number, but ranks fourth rather than first because it was in its first full national cycle with a thin poll count (Silver Bulletin, 2024). The ranking does not punish Patriot for being new. It declines to crown a firm on five polls that a firm like AtlasIntel or Emerson earned across many. Statistical honesty means treating a small sample as a small sample, and the breadth subscore encodes that directly rather than leaving it to a footnote.
The Selzer miss, because honesty requires it
The most famous poll of 2024 was also its largest documented miss. J. Ann Selzer's final Des Moines Register Iowa poll showed Harris ahead 47 to 44 in a state Trump had won by 8 points in 2020; Trump carried Iowa by about 13 points, a miss on the margin of roughly 16 points. Split Ticket called it one of the worst polls of the cycle (Split Ticket, 2024). Selzer had been among the most decorated state pollsters in America for decades, which is exactly why the miss carries a lesson larger than one firm.
The lesson is not that Selzer was secretly bad. The lesson is that a single poll, even from an excellent pollster, carries irreducible error, and that a single cycle, even a clean one, cannot separate skill from luck for firms with thin portfolios. A 16-point miss from a decorated pollster and a 1.2-point average from a partisan firm can both be true in the same November, and they were. This report ranks by documented 2024 accuracy because that is its assignment, and it flags the uncertainty because that is the truth. The breadth and cross-source subscores exist precisely so a single spectacular hit or miss cannot alone determine a firm's place.
What the bias number actually measures
Average error and bias are different statistics, and the difference decides several places in this ranking. Error measures how far a poll landed from the result in either direction. Bias measures whether a firm's misses consistently favored one party. A pollster can post a small average error while carrying a large directional bias if it always misses the same way by a modest amount, and a pollster can post a larger error with near-zero bias if its misses scatter evenly around the truth (AAPOR, 2025). The second firm is more trustworthy for forecasting, because random error washes out across many polls while directional bias compounds.
OnMessage and AtlasIntel earned their top-tier bias subscores of 9.9 by overestimating Democrats by only 0.1 points on average, essentially unbiased despite one being a Republican-aligned firm and the other a non-traditional online recruiter (Silver Bulletin, 2024). That combination, low error and near-zero bias, is the rarest and most valuable in the field, and it is why both sit at the top. Contrast that with the industry as a whole, which understated Republicans for the third straight presidential cycle, a systematic directional bias no amount of averaging removes because it points the same way every time (AAPOR, 2025). A firm that escaped that industry-wide skew in 2024 did something structurally harder than merely landing close.
The bias subscore is also where partisan and campaign pollsters get scrutinized rather than dismissed. Fabrizio/McLaughlin, internal Trump campaign pollsters, earn the lowest bias subscore in the top tier not because their 2024 numbers were skewed but because campaign pollsters carry an inherent directional incentive that readers should price in (ActiVote, 2025). The ranking credits their verified accuracy while marking the incentive, which is the honest way to handle a client pollster that happened to publish well.
What 2026 will test
Every evaluation cited in this report ends on the same open question: does the 2024 leaderboard predict 2026, or was it a single cycle's alignment between fixed house effects and an electorate that broke right? The AAPOR task force is explicit that single-cycle accuracy is a weak predictor, and the historical record supports the caution. Trafalgar led conversations after strong showings, then ranked among the least accurate firms of 2022, then recovered in 2024 (Split Ticket, 2024; ActiVote, 2025). No firm on this list has a guaranteed 2026.
The structural stakes are higher than any one firm's grade. If non-probability online pollsters like AtlasIntel repeat in 2026, the case that the industry's methods have permanently shifted grows stronger, and the probability-based media pollsters who still lead the multi-cycle ratings will have to explain two straight cycles of being outscored on accuracy by recruited panels (ActiVote, 2025; Silver Bulletin, January 2026). If instead the media pollsters top the 2026 error table, the 2024 result looks more like an environment that flattered Republican-aligned and non-probability firms than a durable methodological revolution.
This ranking takes no position on which outcome arrives, because taking one would violate its own rule against scoring reputation over record. It reports the 2024 record precisely, distinguishes single-cycle accuracy from multi-cycle quality with separate subscores, and flags every sample-size and house-effect caveat that a careful reader needs. The scoreboard for 2026 is not yet written. When it is, the same framework will read it the same way, and the firms that top it will have earned the placement the way AtlasIntel and OnMessage earned theirs in 2024: on documented, cited, verifiable accuracy, not on who they poll for or how they draw their samples.
Single-cycle accuracy versus long-run quality
The Silver Bulletin maintains two different measurements, and they disagree instructively. Its 2024 single-cycle error table crowns OnMessage and AtlasIntel. Its overall pollster ratings, updated January 2026 and blending accuracy across many cycles with transparency and methodology, rank The Washington Post, Marquette University Law School, and New York Times/Siena College at the top (Silver Bulletin, January 2026). Both tables are correct. They answer different questions, and this ranking shows both so a reader can choose which question they care about.
The tension is visible in the entries. NYT/Siena ranks fourteenth on 2024 accuracy here, because its final reads ran slightly Democratic of the result, yet it carries a high cross-source subscore because it sits third in the multi-cycle quality ratings (Silver Bulletin, 2024; Silver Bulletin, January 2026). AtlasIntel is the mirror image: first on 2024 accuracy and convergence, but with a shorter U.S. track record than the media pollsters it outscored this cycle. A reader hiring a pollster for 2026 would weigh these differently than a reader grading who nailed 2024, and the subscores let them.
ActiVote's data adds a structural finding: the number one pollster of 2024 used non-probability methods, and no probability-based pollster reached its top ten, while no major media outlet made the top ten either (ActiVote, 2025; Denver Gazette, 2025). Whether that reflects a durable methodological shift or one cycle's conditions is exactly the kind of question the 2026 midterms will test. The framework here scores the record, not the reputation. If that ordering produces discomfort, the discomfort belongs to the reader, not the data.
ActiVote 2024 Most Valuable Pollster ranking position (1 = best of 136 graded)
How the ratings have moved across cycles
Pollster ratings are not static, and the firms atop this table climbed there by moving, sometimes sharply, across recent cycles. AtlasIntel rose from an A to an A+ in the Silver Bulletin database on the strength of its 2024 performance, becoming the highest-rated pollster in that system after topping the accuracy table for a second consecutive cycle (Silver Bulletin, 2024-2025). OnMessage jumped from a B/C tier to an A in a single cycle, one of the largest documented single-year moves in the ratings (Silver Bulletin, 2024-2025). Neither firm sat at the top before 2024. Both earned their way there this cycle.
The whipsaw runs the other way too. Trafalgar Group was among the least accurate firms of 2022 before returning to the ActiVote top ten in 2024, the clearest case of a methodology punished in one cycle and rewarded in the next (Split Ticket, 2024; ActiVote, 2025). Rasmussen's documented Republican house lean has been penalized in Democratic-leaning error years and rewarded when the electorate broke right, as it did in 2024. These are not firms getting better or worse. They are firms whose fixed house effects align with the result in some years and miss it in others, which is the strongest argument for weighting multi-cycle records over any single November.
The structural movement is the biggest story. In 2016 and 2020, probability-based media pollsters dominated the accuracy conversation. By 2024, ActiVote found no probability-based pollster and no major media outlet in its top ten, with non-probability online recruitment methods leading the field (ActiVote, 2025; Denver Gazette, 2025). The industry's center of gravity shifted from live-caller probability samples toward online and recruited panels in under a decade. Whether that shift is durable or a single cycle's artifact is the open question the 2026 midterms will answer, and it is the reason this ranking reports both the single-cycle table and the multi-cycle ratings side by side rather than collapsing them into one number.
2024 statistical bias of the lowest-skew qualifying pollsters (positive = overestimated Democrats)
What the evidence settles
The evidence settles the broad picture of 2024: by AAPOR's task force accounting, state polls were their most accurate since 1944, national polls were about average, and the polls understated Republicans for a third straight presidential cycle, though less than before. It is also settled, by two independent scoring systems, that AtlasIntel and OnMessage produced the most accurate published portfolios of 2024, and that Selzer's final Iowa poll was the cycle's largest high-profile miss.
What remains contested
What remains contested is what one good cycle proves. Non-probability and Republican-aligned pollsters dominated the 2024 error tables, but several of the same firms trailed those tables in 2022, and probability-based pollsters like NYT/Siena and Marquette still lead multi-cycle quality ratings. Whether 2024's leaders possess durable methodological advantages or benefited from an environment that matched their house effects cannot be resolved from a single election, and every evaluation cited here says a version of the same thing.
Questions people ask
Who was the most accurate pollster in the 2024 election?
By convergent evidence, AtlasIntel: 1.5 points average error and a 0.1-point bias per the Silver Bulletin review, first place in ActiVote's MVP rankings with a 1.38 percent weighted error, and an upgrade to A+, then the highest grade in the Silver Bulletin database. OnMessage Inc. posted the single lowest average error, 1.2 points.
Were the 2024 polls accurate overall?
Yes, by the standards of the field. The AAPOR task force that reviewed 116 late polls found state polling was the most accurate since 1944 and national polling about average. The one persistent flaw: polls understated the Republican vote for the third straight presidential cycle, though by less than in 2016 or 2020.
Why do these rankings differ from Nate Silver's pollster grades?
They measure different things. This ranking scores documented 2024-cycle accuracy only. The Silver Bulletin's overall grades blend many election cycles plus methodology and transparency, which is why The Washington Post, Marquette Law, and NYT/Siena top that list while OnMessage and AtlasIntel topped the single-cycle error table. This report shows both measurements as separate subscores.
How reliable are single-cycle pollster rankings?
Treat them with caution. Firms with few polls can top or trail an error table by chance, and pollsters who starred in 2020, such as Trafalgar, were among the worst of 2022 before recovering in 2024. Multi-cycle records and transparent methodology are better predictors than any one November, which is why this ranking includes a portfolio-breadth subscore.
Which pollster had the worst miss in 2024?
Ann Selzer's final Des Moines Register poll of Iowa, which showed Harris ahead by 3 points in a state Trump won by roughly 13, a margin miss of about 16 points that Split Ticket called one of the worst of the cycle. Selzer had been among the most decorated state pollsters in the country, which is why the miss became the cycle's cautionary tale.
Sources
- AAPOR, Task Force on 2024 Pre-Election Polling: An Evaluation of the 2024 General Election Polls (full report, 2025) https://aapor.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/AAPOR-Task-Force-on-2024-Pre-Election-Polling_Report.pdf
- AAPOR, New Report: 2024 Pre-Election Polling announcement https://aapor.org/announcements/2024-pre-election-polling-report/
- Silver Bulletin (Nate Silver), How did the polls do in 2024? It's complicated. https://www.natesilver.net/p/so-how-did-the-polls-do-in-2024-its
- Silver Bulletin, Pollster ratings, January 2026 update https://www.natesilver.net/p/pollster-ratings-silver-bulletin
- ActiVote, 2024 Most Valuable Pollster (MVP) Rankings https://www.activote.net/2024-most-valuable-pollster-mvp-rankings/
- ActiVote, Probability vs. Non-Probability Polling in 2024 https://www.activote.net/probability-vs-non-probability-polling-in-2024-what-the-activote-mvp-rankings-reveal-about-performance-in-a-real-election/
- Split Ticket, 2024 Showed The Value Of Polling https://split-ticket.org/2024/11/10/2024-showed-the-value-of-polling/
- ABC News / 538, 2024 polls were accurate but still underestimated Trump https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-polls-accurate-underestimated-trump/story?id=115652118
- AtlasIntel, press release on 2025 Silver Bulletin A+ rating https://atlasintel.org/media/atlasintel-has-an-a-rating-and-is-the-no1-pollster-in-america-according-to-the-2025-us-pollster-ratings
- Denver Gazette, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post not among top 10 MVP pollsters https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/03/26/cnn-new-york-times-washington-post-not-among-top-10-mvp-pollsters/
- AtlasIntel Wikipedia entry (methodology and cycle-by-cycle accuracy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtlasIntel
- Media Bias/Fact Check, AtlasIntel Polling bias and credibility profile https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/atlasintel-polling-bias-and-credibility/
Parker, T. E. (2026). Pollster Accuracy Rankings: Who Got 2024 Right. US Political Rank. https://uspoliticalrank.com/rankings/pollster-accuracy-rankings<iframe src="https://uspoliticalrank.com/embed/pollster-accuracy-rankings" width="100%" height="520" style="border:1px solid #ddd;border-radius:8px" title="Pollster Accuracy Rankings: Who Got 2024 Right" loading="lazy"></iframe>Keep reading
States Ranked by 2024 Voter Turnout
The Daily Rank
The paid daily briefing: what moved, who ranks where, and the receipts. Or start with the free weekly digest.
Double opt-in. Unsubscribe any time. We never sell your address.