With Trump’s decline in recent polls and his low attendance in Tulsa, Democrats were quick to announce their win. In fact, Pollster, Nate Silver boasted that a “Biden landslide is possible.”

According to his assessment, Silver claimed that Biden’s lead in several states could earn him a total of 368 electoral votes. On the other hand, Trump was forecasted to have a meager 170 electoral votes. However, Silver noted that Biden might face a “potential problem” as the president had already gained an Electoral College advantage.

He also noted that Biden had a massive 9.2-point lead advantage in the national polls. Although Silver admitted that the national polls do not matter, “Otherwise, Hillary Clinton would have been president.” While it might not accurately predict the outcome, he believed that “such a large lead” had become “unusual,” especially since Clinton had never led by more than 7 points. He also pointed out that in 2008, Obama won by around 6 points against John McCain.

While Silver noted that a Biden landslide could take place, he had also acknowledged that a “Trump Electoral College victory” is not far-fetched either. In fact, it is only a matter of time before the race begins to tighten.

The problem with Silver’s statements?

He also made the same prediction in 2016. At that time, he forecasted that former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton could win the presidency. On Election Day, he wrote that as a final update, outcomes had become favorable to Clinton and that as a crowd-favorite, she is expected to win by 72% according to his polls-plus model. Silver went on to claim that it has become a “meaningful improvement” to the Democratic nominee within the past 48 hours.

He also believed that Clinton led in states which totaled 323 electoral votes, including states that Obama won.

Unfortunately, Silver’s forecast was wrong. Clinton lost by 3.8 percentage points and got crushed in the Electoral College with 304-227 votes. The good thing is, Silver was not alone. In fact, almost all pollsters in 2016 made the wrong prediction. For example, left-wing media outlets, the New York Times predicted that Clinton could win by up to 85%. Even the Princeton Election Consortium boasted that the former Secretary of State had a 99% chance of winning the presidency. Both of which did not materialize.

In a report from Bloomberg, the media outlet acknowledged that given the ongoing crisis that Trump is currently facing, such as the coronavirus pandemic, job unemployment, and political protests, and the dismal crowd in Tulsa might have affected the president’s ratings. However, Bloomberg believed that it is too early to “count Trump out” given his long history to bounce back from the crisis. For example, in 2017, Trump had received a major backlash after left-wing media establishments framed him for supporting white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia. At that time, his approval rating fell to a drastic 35%. Fortunately, Trump was able to regain the public’s trust and recover from the decline.

Moreover, pollster John McLaughlin claimed that the mainstream media had also caused Trump’s rating to go down, as they continually supported anti-administration sentiments. McLaughlin believed that the decline was a deliberate attempt by the media to “water down” on the president’s vote.