Despite the recent return of Democratic optimism associated with the Harris-Walz ticket, there are a few stubborn fears that keep partisans awake at night. Here’s a review of four of them that I wrote at New York:
Democrats are in a vastly better state of mind today than they were a couple of months ago, when Joe Biden was their presidential candidate and his advocates were spending half their time trying to convince voters they were wrong about the economy and the other half reminding people about how bad life was under President Trump. While it’s possible this would have worked in the end when swing voters and disgruntled Democrats alike took a long look at Trump 2.0, confidence in Biden’s success in November was low.
Now that the Biden-Harris ticket has morphed into Harris-Walz, there’s all sorts of evidence from polls, donor accounts, and the ranks of volunteers that Democrats can indeed win the 2024 election. But at the same time, as Barack Obama and others warned during the Democratic National Convention, the idea that Kamala Harris can simply float on a wave of joy and memes to victory is misguided. She did not get much, if any, polling bounce from a successful convention, and there are abundant signs the Harris-Trump contest is settling into a genuine nail-biter.
While the September 10 debate and other campaign events could change the trajectory of the race, it’s more likely to remain a toss-up to the bitter end. And many fear, for various reasons, that in this scenario, Trump is likelier to prevail. Here’s a look at which of these concerns are legitimate, and which we can chalk up to superstition and the long tradition of Democratic defeatism.
One reason a lot of Democrats favor abolition of the Electoral College is their belief that the system inherently favors a GOP that has a lock on overrepresented rural states. That certainly seemed to be the case in the two 21st-century elections in which Republicans won the presidency while losing the national popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). And in 2020, Joe Biden won the popular vote by a robust 4.5 percent but barely scraped by in the Electoral College (a shift of just 44,000 votes in three states could have produced a tie in electoral votes).
However, any bias in the Electoral College is the product not of some national tilt, but of a landscape in which the very closest states are more Republican or Democratic than the country as a whole. In 2000, 2016, and 2020, that helped Republicans, but as recently as 2012 there was a distinct Electoral College bias favoring Democrats.
To make a very long story short, there will probably again be an Electoral College bias favoring Trump; one bit of evidence is that Harris is leading in the national polling averages, but is in a dead heat in the seven battleground states that will decide the election. However, it’s entirely unclear how large it will be. In any event, it helps explain why Democrats won’t feel the least bit comfortable with anything less than a solid national polling advantage for Harris going into the home stretch, and why staring at state polls may be a good idea.
For reasons that remain a subject of great controversy, pollsters underestimated Donald Trump’s support in both 2016 and in 2020. But the two elections should not be conflated. In 2016, national polls actually came reasonably close to reflecting Hillary Clinton’s national popular-vote advantage over Trump (in the final RealClearPolitics polling averages, Clinton led by 3.2 percent; she actually won by 2.1 percent). But far less abundant 2016 state polling missed Trump’s wafer-thin upset wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, largely due to an under-sampling of white non-college-educated voters. The legend of massive 2016 polling error is probably based on how many highly confident forecasts of a Clinton win were published, which is a different animal altogether.
There’s no question, however, that both national and state polling were off in 2020, which is why the narrow Biden win surprised so many people. Two very different explanations for the 2020 polling error have been batted around: One is that the COVID pandemic skewed polling significantly, with Democrats more likely to be self-isolated at home and responding to pollsters; the other is that the supposed anti-Trump bias of 2020 polls simply intensified. The fact that polls in the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections were quite accurate is consistent with either interpretation.
So we really don’t know if polling error is a given in 2024, or which candidate will do better than expected. A FiveThirtyEight analysis of polling error since 1998 shows a very small overestimation of the Democratic vote across 12 election cycles. It might be prudent, then, to expect that Trump might exceed his polling numbers by a bit, but not necessarily by a lot.
A lot of election forecasts (or model-based projections) incorporate, to varying degrees, what are known as “fundamentals,” i.e., objective factors that are highly correlated historically with particular outcomes. There are models circulating in political-science circles that project presidential-election results based mostly or even entirely on macroeconomic indicators like GDP or unemployment rates. Others take into account presidential approval ratings, the positive or negative implications of incumbency, or historical patterns.
While forecasts vary in how to combine “fundamentals” with polling data, most include them to some extent, and for the most part in 2024 these factors have favored Trump. Obviously the substitution of Harris for Biden has called into question some of these dynamics — particularly those based on Biden’s status as an unpopular incumbent at a time of great unhappiness with the economy — but they still affect perceptions of how late-deciding voters will “break” in November.
A final source of wracked Democratic nerves is the very real possibility — even a likelihood — that if defeated, Trump will again reject and seek to overturn the results. Indeed, some MAGA folk seem determined to interfere with vote-counting on and beyond Election Night in a manner that may make it difficult to know who won in the first place. Having a plan B that extends into an election overtime is a unique advantage for Trump; for all his endless talk about Democrats “rigging” and “stealing” elections, you don’t hear Harris or her supporters talking about refusing to acknowledge state-certified results (or indeed, large batches of ballots) as illegitimate. It’s yet another reason Democrats won’t be satisfied with anything other than a very big Harris lead in national and battleground-state polls as November 5 grows nigh.
Sure enough, Rasmussen’s noon update today has W’s lead back down to 0.6, the lowest it’s been since the RNC.
I think the Rasmussen 3-day tracking poll will show Kerry making a big gain tonight. The reason is that Bush probably had an especially big day of pollinig on the 8th that took his rating from 48.4 to 49.6. This day’s polling is due to drop off tonight. The other reason could be that a good day for Kerry dropped off the 3-day track, but actually, looking at the figures it doesn’t seem like that.
It’s possible, that the Rasmussen poll shows Bush running stronger, but even if this is so, tonight’s figure for Bush will be below 49% and Kerry’s will be stronger than 45%.
Rasmussen article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20112
Scott wrote it just before the 2000 election. He seemed sooo sure of himself …… only to have history make him look like complete failure.
A bit off subject but–does anyone know how the Senate races are likey to come out? Is there a good site with summaries from all states? We’re going to send a Democrat from Washington. The Repubs have pulled their money our of their candidate’s Senatorial race.
Any chance of a Democrat or Democrat/independent majority?
pollchaser-
More info would be great. Thanks. I’m seeing what Dan Andrews is seeing.
dan andrews — what u saw is what i saw at realclear politics (a good source for a wide range of news, altho the people who run it are hopelessly conservative).
But even those gallup poll figures are significant. Note especially the two-point gain in RVs–closing a gap into a tie. That’s crucial momentum in a close race if it’s accurate, and suggests that 2d prez debate helped. I thought Kerry came off definitely stronger, but still failed on some key points where he could have scored a knockout. With the Republicans insisting on a win and the Democrats equivocal and the polls close, it looked like it might be a wash, which worried me. If that didn’t help Kerry, that’s a bad sign. But indications are that his support continues to solidify.
———————————————–
I still think the machine agenda is the best predictor, but the polls and the campaign suggest that Bush is really struggling. Not only Noam Chomsky and Julianne Malveaux but TH Kerry have apparently suggested the possibility of an Osama surprise. Why can’t she be MORE CAREFUL for goodness sakes? No one defends me if I “speak my mind” and I’m not the wife of a major party
candidate in a closely contested election. Maybe there’s some strategic notion of bringing out the hostility to focus on her rather than the candidate, a function many felt Hillary performed for Bill (until Monicagate).
Get a load of this – today’s WaPost tracking poll has Bush up by six among LVs (51-45), but RACE IS TIED 47-47 among RVs (Kerry gaining). A LV-RV gap that large this close to the election just doesn’t seem right, esp. with interest and intensity running so high.
Jody,
I have immediate family members in Florida doing same, and they report similarly. They have been canvassing nonstop for a month.
The polls are simply missing a lot of voters.
Pollchaser, I hope that I am wrong and not you.
I thought the lastest Gallup showed Kerry 49 and Bush 48 among LVs and the race 48 to 48 among RVs?
I haven’t seen that Gallup poll, but Zogby (at the RealClearPolitics website) shows Kerry pulling into a slight edge lead. Given Zogby’s reliability I was wondering about comments.
I suspect that, now that Kerry won’t have a chance to talk more about Iraq and correct the nonsense about N Korea, Kerry will need to make VERY CLEAR what has happened in the economy. It was very dismaying that he — despite a still-better-than-Bush on substance AND style performance in the second debate — didn’t take more care with the job stats. He doesn’t need to exaggerate them at all, only ELABORATE them a little:
With nearly 1.6 million private sector jobs lost, all job growth has been in the public sector under Bush; and this is a Republican. I suspect most job growth in public sector related to Iraq war.
1.9 million jobs in ONLY year of job growth, after a loss of 3 million jobs, may sound like a large number, but AVERAGE job growth over 8 years of Clinton was higher. Clinton averaged nearly 3 million growth per year, while this past year doesn’t even keep pace with growth of working age population. Percentage of working age population has declined by 2% under Bush, equal to 4.5 million jobs short of keeping up with society’s requirements. This has eaten up almost all the job growth OVER the expansion of the labor market during the Clinton years. Bush has done with jobs as he has with the deficit, eviscerating Clinton’s surplus. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF?
Then there’s the issue of the Bush blame game. First he blames a recession as held over from Clinton years. Under Clinton, economy was slowing down a number of times, and big crisis was suspected with SE Asia and Russia crises in 1998. These didn’t happen. After mild recession, Bush blames 9-11. Then the press for printing ‘march to war’ from fall 2002 to March 2003, as well as corporate sleaze scandals. His record after three years of recovery is terrible, but all the public gets is excuses as rosy scenarios.
If Kerry lays this out in the domestic debate, and avoids wordiness like in the abortion funding answer, and keeps up carefulness in substance and style, he should be able gain further.
But I still feel that the weathervane of the machine (as in my comments about press and Kerry campaign silence on the flipflop spin, until the issue forced in the 2d debate — too little too late, as with Dukakis) is the most reliable predictor of the next president. Note also the NY Times column — pooh poohed by Garry Trudeau — by a graphic designer about the Kerry/Edwards logo conveying weakness and confusion predictably. You mean the Democrats, with their millions, don’t have a sophisticated graphic designer? It fits in with the flipflop pattern, together with press derriere couvrance for the cognoscenti
Hey All,
In the good old days it was “It is the economy, stupid.” Now I think we need to remember “It is Zogby, stupid.” I do not mean that as an insult.
Similar to many of you I am an information freak. It is best to select a poll or three and stay with those and not try to reconcile all the contradictions.
As I mentioned yesterday I am working on GOTV. I did door-to-door yesterday in an upscale area. Here are the unscientific results:
Lean Kerry 7
Strong Kerry 16
Lean Bush 5
Strong Bush 11
Undecideds 13
Of particular note – I interviewed a fellow (young with a young family) recently returned from a fourteen month tour in Iraq. He was quiet, respectful and determined in his support for Kerry.
And for what it is worth I do not believe all the undecideds are really undecided. One of the folks I was with for GOTV suggested that Kerry supporters many hold their vote close for fear of neighborly reprisals.
Jody
While I agree with most of pdb’s comments about Rasmussen, he IS a Republican pollster, and he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
While he has consistently overrated Bush’s position, he has tended further that direction since the Republican convention, after which he caught hell from Republicans for NOT getting on board with the post convention juggernaut to name Bush emperor and the election over.
As for his current numbers, on holiday weekends phone polls get more conservative respondents than usual because liberals and moderates have more fun and don’t answer the phone as much.
It’s official:
kerry 52
bush 46
Bush JA 47
Gallup poll at 6 P.M.
More on Rasmussen.
Charlie Cook was on the Washington Post’s “Live chat today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15752-2004Oct7.html?nav=headlines
He said don’t take stock in any poll, incl Rasmussen (he called it out by name) that uses automated questioning and not real people.
There was an article that someone linked to over the weekend, it was Scott Rasmussen, writing on Worldnet Daily, on the eve of the 2000 election.
The whole article centered on Rasmussen’s frustration that the media was saying the race was still close. Rasmussen wrote that the sum of the evidence …incl. his tracking poll over time (Bush by 4%!) … clearly demonstrated that Bush was well up on Gore and that Bush was going to win easily.
Don’t put too much stock in Rasmussen.
I’ll post the link when I get home tonight.
Let me bring together some observations I’ve posted on a couple of other threads.
1 Rasmussen came to my attention in the Spring when Kerry first became the probable nominee, and Rasmussen was the only pollster who didn’t show a sudden major surge of support to Kerry over Bush; most other polls gave him a big lead, Ras still gave Bush a small one.
2) In the months since, Ras has generally had the smallest leads for either side, and the smallest movements in either direction. Which is why some of us were _attracted_ to Rasmussen when other polls were showing Bush up >10%. The relative stability of Ras’ results is more consistent than his favoring Bush.
3) At one point I did a google and dug up a column or interview that said that in 2000 Ras consistently showed enormous Bush leads, and that he subsequently revised his party-weighting methodology because his results had been so wrong. (Some republicans do admit error!)
This is all I know. Someone please tell me more.
Can you offer a comment on the Rasmussen daily tracking poll? Does it have a credible track record? It seems to be in line with the Wash Post tracking poll in that it shows Bush gaining strength and Kerry losing support, just as most other polls show the opposite. I’m just wondering about whether Rasmussen has a solid reputation. Thanks.
OT: Does anyone have any idea about the effectiveness of events such as this being prepared by the Republicans?
[[
As a Volunteer, you probably have plans to go door-to-door in the final days, and make sure your neighbors vote. We’re asking you to start a little earlier.
http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Walk
On October 16 and 17, tens of thousands of Volunteers will gather in thousands of homes all across America and carry out the largest door-to-door contact program ever assembled – the Walk the Vote Weekend. Will your house be one of them?
]]