What is flooding the zone?

To some, it’s obvious. To others, it’s a conspiracy theory. Most people don’t know what it is.

Flooding the zone is the idea that skewed polls from GOP aligned pollster are being generated to try and shape perceptions of the election. It gained traction after the 2022 midterms when Democrats did better in some races than the polling averages suggested.

This year many Democrats believe that it is happening again. At a minimum, it is true there are more GOP aligned polls being released relative to Democratic ones.  And beneath the surface, there are indications they do in some ways impact perceptions of the election. By understanding the debate, you can make up your mind and decide how you will view the polls as the election gets closer.

Flooding the Zone During the 2022 Midterms 

The idea of flooding the zone first gained serious traction after the 2022 midterms when the red wave that was supposed to happen never materialized. Of course, historical precedent suggested the party out of power would have a strong showing, and it was not just the polls that led to the red wave narrative. The past 4 midterms were waves for the party out of power, and inflation and gas prices were higher in 2022 leading to the logical conclusions that economic concerns would lead to Democrats suffering at the polls. 

At the same time, there were some clear polling misses and a search for answers. No doubt the overturning of Roe played an important role in Democratic success and in hindsight played a bigger role than most appreciated at the time. 

But there is a reason why the flooding the zone idea came up given that some of the most important Senate races ended up differently than the polls suggested. For example, the final 538 average in Pennsylvania showed GOP nominee Mehmet Oz at 47.4% and Democrat John Fetterman at 46.9% and showing Oz would win 57 out 100 times in their model.

The final result showed Fetterman winning by 5% and getting over 51%. Some of the final polls in the 538 average included GOP aligned pollsters Patriot Polling (49%-46% Oz), Trafalgar (48%-46% Oz), and co/efficient (48%-45% Oz).  Non-partisan pollsters tended to be more favorable to Fetterman such as Marist (50%-44% Fetterman), Suffolk (47%-45% Fetterman), and Muhlenberg (47%-47%). While polling misses can happen, it’s clear that certain pollsters had bigger misses than others. 

There were similar polling misses, to a lesser extent, in Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In the aftermath, Democrats started believing in the idea that the GOP aligned pollsters were intentionally releasing biased polls. 

The Flood in 2024

Given the number of polls being released by GOP aligned pollsters this year, many Democrats believe that flooding the zone is continuing, if not accelerating. Traditional GOP aligned pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar are being joined by new outfits like SoCal and Quantus. There are simply not the same number of Democratic aligned pollsters to keep up with all the polls being released from the GOP side. 

In most of the swing states, at least half of the polls are coming from GOP aligned pollsters, with the rest being nonpartisan and a few Democratic aligned. There is no doubt that many of the polls being shared and added to polling aggregators come from these outfits.

That’s not to say that none of these polls are reputable or that none have any value to add. At the same time, some outfits have gotten perhaps well-deserved questionable reputations, such as Trafalgar which released an infamous poll in 2022 showing Democrats only leading the Vermont Senate race by 8% (they needed up winning by 40%). The head of Trafalgar did an interview after the 2022 midterms to explain what happened for anyone interested. Even more respected outlets like TIPP got into a controversy recently with a likely voter screen in a Pennsylvania poll that didn’t really make sense and seemed to take out most voters from Philadelphia.

Given the sheer quantity of these polls and some with possible issues, it is at a minimum a good idea to be aware of this issue. But before deciding one way or another, it is worth taking a look at the different sides of the argument.

More From Pivot Point!

Few Eyes On Kentucky Leg. Races

On The "Vibecession"

OH, We've Got A Race On Our Hands (in Ohio)

NC, With A Month To Go

2024 Ratings

Now Back To The Article

Why Flood the Zone 

The main reason to flood the zone according to those who promote the idea is to influence perceptions of the election. There are fewer nonpartisan polls these days leaving a massive zone that could be flooded.

Given the decline in traditional media willing to pay for polls and the polling misses in past elections, it is understandable why there are fewer nonpartisan polls. This creates an opportunity for pollsters with more of a partisan agenda to fill the gap.

The polls these organizations release then influences the polling aggregators, although some like 538 try to account for it and the “house effect” of pollsters. But others like Real Clear Politics just post the polls and take an average. While Real Clear Politics is still cited as a polling aggregator considering they have been doing it for many years, it has increasingly become more GOP aligned itself and well known for including polls often left out of other poll aggregators.

In addition to the polling aggregators, the polls are also used to calculate the probability of winning in models put out by 538 and Nate Silver. All of this this skewed polling and resulting models then influences donors, the media, and always panicking Democrats. It gives a sense of momentum and energizes the Republican base, even when there is nothing really there.

Perhaps most ominously it also sets up post-election accusations of non-existent fraud when the results don’t match “the polls.: Ultimately, for those who believe in the concept, it is a dishonest exercise that undermines the point of polling, which is to give a sense of what is actually going on. 

Defending the Flood

To use internet slang, those defending these types of polls say Democratic complaints of flooding the zone is a “cope.” In other words, Democrats don’t like what the polls show so they are trying to dismiss them.

Given the drop in the number of traditional polls, newer polling outlets have come in to give a sense of the races. Moreover, there are Democratic pollsters out there and campaigns often do internal polling for themselves, and they are free to release those to counter supposed bias.

In addition, some GOP aligned pollsters have had solid track records, especially in the Trump era. By just focusing on the 2022 polling misses, the argument goes that Democrats are ignoring polling misses in 2016 and 2020. Given this is a Presidential year, perhaps these pollsters do a better job at accounting for low propensity Trump voters that traditional polls ignore. 

How Not to Drown in the Final Stretch 

Whether you believe in the concept of flooding the zone or not, it’s always a good idea to view polling with a skeptical eye. Basic questions like who commissioned the poll, why was it released, and what is the pollsters track record are always warranted when looking at a poll. 

As a starting point, it is important to understand different types of polls and pollsters. The biggest differences are between internal polls explicitly sponsored by a partisan campaign or group, and non-partisan polls. Many of the most reputable polls are non-partisan such as New York Times/Siena or Des Moines Register/Selzer, often put out by media organizations or universities. 

Beyond this obvious split, things get more complicated. Certain pollsters are clearly aligned with one side either by the clients who hire them or their own public partisan statements. Some of these pollsters are well established and have been around for years. Others are much more recent, with more newly GOP aligned pollsters emerging recently. So all that’s to say not all polls are created equally. Pay attention to who is putting out the poll and if there might be an agenda behind it. 

Instead of blindly “throwing it in the average,” perhaps it’s better to think about each poll on its own merit. A poll from a well-established pollster might be worth more than the latest start up polling outfit. The better polling aggregators take account of this, but it’s also good at an individual level to do the mental exercise.

As the campaign heads into the final stretch, it can be hard to know what’s really going on and what sources to trust. This is true about polling, but also early voting analysis and just generally the “vibes” of who is ahead.

It is a cliche that the race is close, and most pundits think it is based on the available information. It’s always possible the race swings one way or another either because of external events or undecideds breaking in one direction. The best approach is to assume it’s going to be a close election and not get hung up on every new poll.

Ultimately, flooding the zone is in the eye of the beholder, to some basic reality just looking at the outfits releasing many of the polls and to others the willful denial of those polls. Everyone has the choice to pick which side of the debate they are on, but it is good to go into it with eyes wide open and have the context of the debate.

*Sam Shirazi is an Attorney who lives in Arlington and is a Virginia elections analyst.