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.
The last 2 polls in NJ prior to this show a 5-8 point lead for Kerry in NJ. Q* is showing a 3 point lead for Kerry, whereas they earlier had it a tie, so Kerry has picke dup 3 points.
There are plenty of reasons to believe NJ will be closer than in 2000. But Gore won by 16 points. Kerry can give up half of that and still win.
SJ — nice work desparetly spinning.
Rawls posted an interesting Missouri poll from surveyusa.com.
In looking at it, there’s an interesting data point; on page 9 of 25 of the doc, it indicates that voters who identify themselves as Military/Veterans (I couldn’t find anyhting in this doc that elaborated on how they asked about that category) the two candidates were 48-48.
It’s only a data point, but if connected with others, it might suggest the interesting conclusion that Veterans/Military are less subject to the smaears on Kerry’s record than the non-veterans/military identifiers.
I dunno about you Smooth, but every poll I’ve seen from NJ shows Kerry ahead by 8-10 points.
Frankly, I feel sorry that you fell for Bush’s “blue feint.” Last time it was CA, this time NJ. This is a classic Bush tactic. Like when he campaigned (for governor) in strongly Democrat El Paso, but lost El Paso County anyhow.
> If Kerry is barely tied in NJ, he is NOT tied nationally.
The operative word being “if.”
Hi Ruy,
Just thought I’d bring this to the attention of your board: We’re still in it in Missouri.
I wish the Kerry / Edwards campaign would come to Missouri instead of writing us off. Its a neck and neck race here and we could use some coattails.
http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/MO041005wpresvgovysenx.pdf
A bit more detail:
Coldeye gives the “nearest integer” figure from Rasmussen’s homepage. The “daily snapshot” in the Premium Members’ area has a Bush lead of 0.3%, down from 0.9 yesterday; but in the 16 Batleground States Kerry is actually up by 1.5.
RV: 48% Kerry and 45% for Bush ?
LV: 47% Kerry and 46% Bush?
That does not sound like a tie to me. It sounds like a slim lead. But I am no polling or statistics expert.
I understand it is difficult for Republicans to face the fact that Kerry is improving in the polls as the Quinnipiac Poll points out.
Smooth-
I’m sorry, New Jersey has just as much a chance of going for Bush as Georgia does for Kerry. There’s no chance it will happen.
Also, Rasmussen also has the race finally tied again. It remains to be seen whether Kerry will regain the lead in that poll as well.
Today’s Rasmussen tracking poll has Kerry pulling into a tie with Bush for the first time since the Repub convention.
Bush’s approval rating declined significantly as did his ratings on the economy and Iraq.
Oh well, Here we go again: The Mass/NH based ARG poll with the obligatory Kerry “lead”. Read my bytes: If Kerry is barely tied in NJ, he is NOT tied nationally. To Wit:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11375.xml
(Note: Click on the Oct 6 link)
Quinnipiac University
Oct 6, 2004
Polling Results
October 6, 2004 – Debate Gives Kerry 3-Point Edge In New Jersey, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; But Voters Say Bush Acts More Like A Leader
Democratic challenger John Kerry has moved into a very narrow 49 – 46 percent lead over President George W. Bush among New Jersey likely voters, with 2 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 48 – 48 percent Bush-Kerry tie among likely voters, with 2 percent for Nader, in a September 21 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University.
Among registered voters backing President Bush, 82 percent say they are voting more for the President. Among Kerry supporters, 42 percent say they are voting more for the Democrat while 52 percent say they are voting more against Bush.