A Polling Expert Explains How Scared We Should Be by Trump's One-Point Lead

As Clinton's email woes continue, an ABC/Washington Post poll puts Trump ahead in the race. The controversial Republican nominee has successfully grabbed the electoral race by the pussy and clawed back a one-point lead: Trump is on 46 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 45 percent.

But how accurate are polls as a predictor of voter behavior—and can they even influence the vote? I call up Dr. Christopher Prosser, a political scientist specializing in electoral behavior, with the sort of trepidation normally reserved for a long overdue STI test.

"In general, US polls are pretty accurate," Prosser warns. "There are only two parties and the pollsters have better information available to them than their European colleagues, such as political party registration."

It's often suggested that Trump voters are "shy voters": meaning that they're less likely to disclose their political affiliation to pollsters, causing polls to underestimate the extent of the Trump vote.

"That theory suggests that people don't like giving socially undesirable answers to survey researchers," Prosser explains. "The classic example would be that someone calls you up and says, 'How do you feel about women's rights?' and you say, 'Great,' but in reality you're less progressive than you might appear."

Prosser is unconvinced. "The problem is that Trump supporters don't necessarily see their views as socially undesirable," he argues. "In general, Trump supporters seem quite enthusiastic."

That said, it's not quite time to start stockpiling canned goods. "We shouldn't get too carried away by one political poll," Prosser says. "Particularly after Clinton hasn't had a great couple of days with all this email nonsense from the FBI."

I ask whether news that Trump's pulling into the lead might galvanize the electorate to get out and vote. "When people see political races as closer, turnout is higher. People are more motivated, because their vote has more of a difference. So with the polls narrowing at this late stage of the race, it will impact turnout."

Trump has accused "Crooked Hillary" of having the media in her pocket—even going as far as to imply she'll steal the election. Is there any truth to the claim that unfavorable media coverage can influence undecided voters? "The media could change things at the margins or make small differences here and there," Prosser responds, "but I don't think there's really strong evidence to suggest that media coverage has ever swung an election."

Finally, I work up the courage to ask whether Trump could actually win. "I wouldn't say there's no possibility of a Trump victory, but on the whole Clinton's much more likely to win."

What, I question, would have to happen for Clinton to lose the race? Would the FBI turning up evidence of email wrongdoing be sufficient? Or would Clinton have to publicly declare, her forked tail thumping, that she was in a secret gay relationship with a fellow alien lizard?

"People tend to see the world in ways that are strongly defined by their partisanship," Prosser says. "So Trump supporters get worked up by the email scandal, and Democrats don't see the fuss. It would be hard to know how bad something would have to be before Clinton lost really huge swathes of support."

Reassuringly, he adds, "America is polarized politically, and each side is a tribe. And they can reconcile the facts and events on the ground with how they want the world to be. Given that, I'm not sure what Clinton would have to do to swing a significant proportion of her vote over to Trump. I can't actually think of anything plausible that could cause that, to be honest."

You heard it here first: It's all going to be okay. Probably.