What follow up polls suggested that voters would have changed their votes if they had known that the laptop was genuine
Executive summary
Multiple follow‑up polls after the Hunter Biden laptop revelations suggested some voters said they would have changed their 2020 vote had they known the laptop was genuine: surveys or summaries cited by Republicans and conservative outlets include a claim that 53% of those made aware would have changed their vote (cited by Rep. Elise Stefanik) [1] [2], a Technometrica/TIPP “shock” poll reporting roughly 8 in 10 believed a cover‑up changed the election [3], a Media Research Center figure finding about 16% of Biden voters would have voted differently [4], and a Rasmussen item reporting that 48% of voters said fuller media reporting might have made Biden’s victory unlikely [5]; each of these polls exists, but they differ sharply in question wording, sampling and political orientation [1] [3] [4] [5].
1. The polls that were cited as showing voters would have switched
A commonly cited claim from House Republicans leaned on a poll that Rep. Elise Stefanik summarized as “53% would have changed their vote,” a figure that stems from polling questions posed after the election asking respondents hypothetically whether knowledge of the laptop would have altered their 2020 choice [1] [2]. Separate conservative polling firms publicized stark results: Technometrica/TIPP published a “shock poll” headline saying 8 in 10 think a supposed cover‑up changed the election [3], and the Media Research Center reported that roughly 16% of Biden voters said they would have voted differently [4]. Rasmussen’s polling framed the question a bit differently, finding 48% of voters said fuller media reporting might have made Biden unlikely to win—again a post‑hoc, counterfactual question rather than contemporaneous vote‑change tracking [5].
2. Who ran the polls and why that matters
The most prominent surveys cited by partisan actors were conducted by outlets or firms with conservative or right‑leaning reputations—Technometrica/TIPP and the Media Research Center among them—while Rasmussen is often regarded as more centrist but still frequently used by conservative audiences [3] [4] [5]. Critics and neutral fact‑checkers flagged the partisan provenance of some of these polls when assessing their weight; PolitiFact and other analysts warned that polls asking people in 2023 how they would have voted in 2020 are inherently hypothetical and vulnerable to partisan response biases, especially months or years after the election [1].
3. What the numbers actually say — and don’t say
The headline figures are heterogeneous: Stefanik’s 53% claim refers to respondents “made aware” of the story and their retrospective hypothetical about changing votes [1] [2]; Technometrica framed public opinion as overwhelmingly convinced a “cover‑up” changed the outcome [3]; Media Research Center reported about 16% of Biden voters saying they would have switched [4]; and Rasmussen found a near‑split public on whether fuller reporting would have changed the result [5]. None of these poll results demonstrate a direct causal effect on the 2020 vote tallies; they measure current attitudes about a past hypothetical rather than contemporaneous voter behavior [1].
4. Methodological caveats and expert critiques
Experts quoted in the reporting warned that hypothetical “if‑then” polling has weak predictive value: asking people years later what they would have done invites motivated reasoning, faulty recall and partisan posturing, so such polls cannot reliably demonstrate that vote tallies would have shifted in 2020 [1]. PolitiFact summarized that scholars conclude “almost nothing” can be inferred about the laptop’s effect on the 2020 outcome from these retrospective polls, a judgment echoed in multiple fact‑checks [1]. At the same time, the factual status of the laptop’s contents has been bolstered by later reporting and forensic reviews—CBS and major outlets independently verified at least some material from the device and an independent analysis found no evidence of tampering in a copy of the data provided to investigators—facts that complicate but do not validate retrospective polling claims [6] [7].
5. The political stakes and what readers should take away
Polling results that claim voters “would have changed” are politically explosive and have been used to argue that moderation of the story by platforms or official caution altered the election narrative [3] [8], but the empirical leap from a survey question in 2023 to proven vote‑switching in 2020 is unjustified by the methods reported and was explicitly criticized by fact‑checkers and political scientists [1]. The available evidence shows there were polls that reported substantial percentages of voters claiming they would have voted differently if they’d known the laptop was genuine, but methodological limitations, partisan sponsors and the hypothetical framing mean those polls cannot, on their own, prove the laptop changed the 2020 outcome [1] [3] [4] [5] [6].