experts warned that a Trump win was still possible.

專家警告說，特朗普獲勝仍有可能。

But only if polls were even worse than they were in 2016.

但前提是民調比2016年更糟糕。

But look at where Biden is right now. He's up by 10 points.

但看看拜登現在的情況。他上升了10個百分點

More than that - look at that. He's above 50 percent.

不止如此--你看那。他在50%以上。

Hillary Clinton was well below 50 percent.

希拉里-克林頓遠低於50%。

So did history repeat itself in 2020?

那麼2020年曆史是否重演？

Let's compare the polling averages listed by FiveThirtyEight with the actual results.

讓我們將五三八列出的民調平均值與實際結果進行比較。

Both nationally and in every battleground state, Trump outperformed the polls again.

無論是在全國範圍內，還是在每個戰場州，特朗普的表現都再次超過了民調。

That ended up being decisive in only two states: Florida and North Carolina,

這最終只在兩個州起了決定性作用。佛羅里達州和北卡羅來納州。

where the winner was different than what was projected,

其中的贏家與預測的不同。

but didn't change the overall electoral outcome.

但並沒有改變整體的選舉結果。

But the stark difference between polls and reality in states like Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin

但在愛荷華州、俄亥俄州和威斯康星州等州，民調與現實之間存在著明顯的差異。

still stands out.

依然突出。

One pollster who predicted Trump's wide margin in Iowa correctly,

有一位民調專家正確預測了特朗普在愛荷華州的巨大優勢。

against conventional wisdom,

違背傳統智慧。

was Ann Selzer.

什麼安-塞爾澤。

It takes a little bit of practice to live in what I call 'the corral of pot shots'

在我所謂的 "槍林彈雨的畜欄 "裡生活，需要一點點的練習。

while your poll is out there waiting to see what happens with the election.

而你的民調卻在那裡等待著選舉的結果。

Polling Trump in midwestern states such as Iowa

在愛荷華州等中西部州對特朗普進行民調。

has been a riddle for the industry ever since 2016.

自2016年以來，一直是行業的一個謎底。

So what makes her methods different?

那麼她的方法有什麼不同呢？

There are a lot of pollsters who do what I call they poll backwards,

有很多民調機構在做我所謂的反向調查。

that is they look at what happened in previous elections

那就是他們看看在以前的選舉中發生的事情。

and use that to adjust their sample of today to hopefully project an electorate of tomorrow.

並以此來調整他們今天的樣本，希望能推算出明天的選民。

And I don't do that. I take nothing from the past and build it into my polls.

而我不這樣做。我不會把過去的任何東西都用到我的民意調查中去。

Therefore, I hope, the future can reveal itself to me in my data.

是以，我希望，未來能在我的數據中向我展現。

Part of the problem these days, according to Rachel Bitecofer,

雷切爾-比特克弗認為，如今部分問題。

is who is available to pollsters.

是誰可以向民調機構。

There is this perpetual problem of finding people from the bottom 50 percent,

有這樣一個長期的問題，從底層50%的人中找人。

left and right, who are going to do a survey.

左右，誰要做調查。

They don't know who Mitch McConnell is.

他們不知道Mitch McConnell是誰。

They don't know who Nancy Pelosi is.

他們不知道南希-佩洛西是誰。

They don't read The New York Times.

他們不看《紐約時報》。

They don't watch the news.

他們不看新聞。

What makes things even harder is that Republicans in the US

更難的是，美國的共和黨人。

are much more likely to distrust news organisations who sponsor a lot of polling.

更加不信任那些贊助了大量民調的新聞機構。

Which could be one explanation of why Trump underperforms in polls.

這可能是特朗普在民調中表現不佳的一個解釋。

We're in this time period where especially the political right

我們現在處於這個時期，尤其是政治右派人士

has found value in getting people to distrust government,

已經找到了讓人們不信任政府的價值。

and getting people to divest themselves from civic participation.

並讓人們從公民參與中剝離出來。

So what could be a solution?

那麼有什麼辦法呢？

The only way that pollsters will ever be able to measure them

民調機構能夠衡量他們的唯一方法。

is by asking longer questions and by empowering these people, telling them

是通過提出較長的問題，並賦予這些人權力，告訴他們。

that if you speak to us the world is going to hear you.

如果你對我們說話，世界就會聽到你的聲音。

It actually requires a different questionnaire than what we normally would do with voters.

這其實需要與我們平時對選民進行的問卷調查不同。