Ninety years ago, on Oct. 31, 1936, Literary Digest, which had correctly forecast presidential election winners since 1916, predicted that Alf Landon would beat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the upcoming election.

Roosevelt won handily. The Digest’s poll surveyed 10 million people via postcard, using telephone books and car registration lists for the information. Even though almost 2.4 million people responded — an impressive response rate — the misleading sample provided inaccurate results. Literary Digest folded shortly afterward.

Two years later, in 1938, Gallup started tracking presidential approval ratings. Even so, polls remained far from perfect. In 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune’s embarrassing front-page declaration "Dewey Defeats Truman" stemmed in part from a misuse of polling. The paper relied on earlier polls that did not reflect the Election Day reality in making its prediction.

As the science of polling improved over time, campaign pros began to rely on pollsters. John F. Kennedy was the first president to be strongly associated with a polling firm, as he used Lou Harris and the Harris organization's polls in his 1960 campaign for president.

LEE CARTER: AMERICA IS ANGRY AT EVERYONE — BUT WHO WILL ACTUALLY VOTE?

In the 1970s, we witnessed the rise of the celebrity pollsters: Pat Caddell for Jimmy Carter, Richard Wirthlin for Ronald Reagan, and Stan Greeberg and Dick Morris for Bill Clinton. These pollsters were successful but not infallible.

Caddell, for instance, was largely responsible for Carter's 1979 "Crisis of Confidence" speech. He misjudged the public mood, and Carter’s "malaise speech" became one of the most disastrous presidential speeches of all time.

Morris, for his part, had a tempestuous relationship with Bill Clinton. They once reportedly came to blows while Morris was advising Clinton during his time as governor of Arkansas.

Morris was initially on the outs and Greenberg in charge of polls when Clinton won the 1992 election. But Morris secretly came back and started advising Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 "Republican Revolution." Morris even had a code name — "Charlie" — to keep his identity secret from the more liberal White House staff, which resented Morris’ pushing of Clinton to the center.

Morris would poll everything, even where Clinton should go on vacation. When Clinton left office after two terms in 2000, he had survived the Monica Lewinsky scandal — despite polls showing that Americans strongly disapproved of Clinton's behavior. The most important number for Clinton was the Gallup approval rating. He left office at 66%, one of the highest outgoing figures in history.

21st-century presidents would be thrilled to get approval ratings anywhere near Clinton's final number. George W. Bush hit 86% after the 9/11 terror attacks, but that did not last. For the most part, the "low and steady" phenomenon has meant that presidents in this century have struggled to get about 50% approval.

TRUMP VS HISTORY: HOW PRESIDENT'S POLL NUMBERS COMPARE TO BIDEN, OBAMA, BUSH AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

Still, the polling mishaps have continued. In 2004, exit polls predicted a win for John Kerry over George W. Bush. Campaign adviser Bob Shrum even said to Kerry on Election Day, "Can I be the first to call you, Mr. President?" The exit polls were wrong, and Bush won a second term.

In 2012, Mitt Romney’s campaign wrongly thought it was headed for victory when its pollster made overly optimistic weighting assumptions. The turnout model incorrectly assumed that Barack Obama would not generate the same level of youth and minority turnout that he had in 2008.

LIZ PEEK: FIVE REASONS REPUBLICANS COULD DEFY THE POLLS AND SHOCK DEMOCRATS ON ELECTION DAY

Polling took another big hit in 2016, when pollsters confidently predicted that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump. She didn't, and the pollsters’ justification that they had the popular vote right but got the election result wrong did not help matters.

In our current midterm elections, we have seen a new wrinkle. Partisan polls overstated progressive support in the primaries, skewing the results and causing some candidates to drop out in the face of the inaccurate data. This latest mishap reinforces the lesson that polling often fails, although rarely in the same way twice.

DEMOCRATS FURIOUS AFTER POLLSTER BOOSTING FAR-LEFT CANDIDATES ADMITS FABRICATING SURVEYS: ‘ABSOLUTE SCUMBAGS’

While technology and the science of polling are much better today than in 1936, the improvements complicate matters further. While nearly everyone has a phone, they also have caller ID and don't answer calls from unfamiliar numbers. Response rates shrink, increasing the size of the "silent majority."

In this new environment, human modeling decisions ironically become more, not less, important. Polling errors come not from new techniques or technologies but from imperfect human decisions about how to deploy the new technologies. In making those decisions, pollsters can overreact to what went wrong beforehand. In this, pollsters are like generals, often fighting the last war.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In the end, polls are more accurate as snapshots of opinion rather than predictors of behavior, specifically, who will actually submit a ballot. This means that whatever the polls say, the public should be wary. To borrow from the Psalms, put not your trust in polls, and get out and vote.

A decade ago, 54 percent of Massachusetts voters said yes to Question 4, a ballot initiative that legalized possession, home cultivation, and commercial distribution of recreational marijuana. Judging from recent surveys, voters are not inclined to reverse that decision by approving Question 8, an initiative on next Tuesday's ballot.

Question 8, a.k.a. the Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative, would permit adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis. But they would have to get it from the black market, since Question 8 would not allow them to grow it or buy it from state-licensed retailers.

The initiative "would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal, and stop commercial marijuana stores," its supporters say. They allege that legalization has impaired "productivity" and led to increases in "fatal car accidents," "workplace injuries," "healthcare costs," "crime (like DUI's)," "ER visits," and "mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults."

Voters do not seem impressed by those arguments. In eight polls between mid-February and mid-October, support for Question 8 ranged from 20 percent to 41 percent. In the most recent survey, conducted by The Boston Globe, 71 percent of respondents said they planned to vote no on Question 8, which suggests that experience with legalization has substantially increased opposition to pot prohibition in Massachusetts.

Question 8's sponsor, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). As of October 20, the Virginia-based group had spent $3.7 million on the project, compared to $2.8 million in spending by the opposition, which includes several marijuana businesses.

SAM's co-founder, Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations, says he was motivated by the concerns of Massachusetts residents who approached him. "Many of them voted for this initiative 10 years ago and feel betrayed," Sabet told WGBH, an NPR station in Boston. If so, the polls indicate such converts are far outnumbered by former Question 4 opponents who have traveled that road in the opposite direction.

"We're under no illusions that the bluest state in the country is going to pass this easily with flying colors," Sabet told WBUR, another Boston NPR station, a few weeks ago. "But we want to have that conversation."

The conversation clearly is not going the way Sabet hoped. Massachusetts, which was the fifth state to legalize recreational marijuana, is now one of two dozen, which together account for most of the U.S. population. In October 2025, Gallup put nationwide support for marijuana legalization at 64 percent, which was down a bit from the peak of 70 percent recorded in 2023 but still 16 points higher than in 2012, when Colorado and Washington started this ball rolling.

Public support for legalizing recreational marijuana tends to be even higher in states that have done it. In Civiqs surveys last December, support in 15 states where voters had approved legalization ranged from 62 percent in Missouri to 77 percent in Oregon. It had increased since legalization in every state but New Jersey, where it was down one point from the 67 percent of voters who approved Public Question 1 in 2020. In Massachusetts, support had risen from 54 percent to 76 percent.

The fate of two other drug policy initiatives that voters will consider next week is less clear. As far as I can tell, pollsters have not asked voters about them.

Colorado's Proposition 132 would make manufacturing or distributing any amount of illicit fentanyl a Level 1 drug felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years. Under current law, the penalties vary depending on the amount of fentanyl involved.

In Idaho, House Joint Resolution 4, a proposed constitutional amendment, would strip voters of the power to legalize marijuana or any other psychoactive substance. If the initiative passes, which requires approval by a simple majority, that power will be reserved to the state legislature.

The post Massachusetts Voters Don't Seem Inclined To Repeal Marijuana Legalization Next Week appeared first on Reason Magazine.