Lately I’ve noticed a tendency in some parts of the pro-Democratic commentariat to scorn anyone who isn’t confidently predicting a Kamala Harris landslide in November. So I wrote a warning about this self-delusion at New York:
It’s the nature of the political game that some fans perpetually insist their team is on the brink of a landslide victory. Maybe it’s just a device for maintaining their own enthusiasm, or maybe they truly believe that hype and spin add votes to their candidate’s columns. I usually associate this tendency with conservatives, but in this tense 2024 presidential contest, the landslide-predictors aren’t all in the MAGA camp. There are assorted voices pouring buckets of cold water on the data suggesting the contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is a dead heat, insisting Harris is on the brink of a big victory.
Personally, I try to keep it all in the road by looking at the broadest array of public polling data available, by sticking with averages rather than enthusing or panicking over isolated poll findings, and by using history and common sense to discern trends and avoid overreaction to every survey that comes down the pike. But there’s just so much science you can muster on these matters given the relatively small sample size we have for presidential elections, which occur only every four years. So there’s plenty of grounds for legitimate nitpicking about polls and the experts who interpret them. It can get pretty wonky, as with Nate Silver’s criticism of the presidential-election model being used by his successors at FiveThirtyEight. But it probably affects only the numbers — and the expectations — at the margins.
Another entirely legitimate form of carping about polls and predictions emanates from those who dispute interpretations based on poor analysis of the timing, mix, and provenance of public polls. My old colleague Simon Rosenberg became somewhat famous doing that ahead of the 2022 midterms, when he denied he saw any “red wave” in the data (there ultimately wasn’t one despite an insistent media narrative) and pointed to the skewing of polling averages by strategically released state polls from conservative outlets and firms. He was largely right, though all in all, 2022 polling was very accurate, even if the predictions weren’t. This cycle, Rosenberg is again more optimistic about Democratic prospects in 2024 than your average pundit, but he remains firmly anchored in the world of data and objective reality and admits it’s a close race.
Then you have pro-Harris critics of the polls and pundits who rely on quite different talking points. The distinguished political scholar Michael A. Cohen uses data to support his supposition that Harris is actually in command of the race but ultimately relies on more fundamental arguments that are impervious to numbers:
“I have a few well-argued beliefs about this campaign (and they predate Biden’s departure from the race). Donald Trump is a high-floor, low-ceiling candidate who voters, by and large, don’t like — and they have made up their minds about him. Trump is incapable of and unwilling to change his political messaging to appeal to voters outside of his MAGA base. Democrats have a growing edge with women and college-educated voters, as evident in multiple elections since 2018, which gives them a significant advantage in crucial swing states like PA, WI, MI, GA, and AZ. Democrats have the easier path to 270 electoral votes.
“In key regards, this election is playing out in much the way I expected — even when Biden was on the ticket. With Biden out and his age and mental acuity no longer an issue, it’s that much harder for Republicans to win.”
Maybe Cohen is right. I’ll believe it when I see it empirically. But it turns out my attitude is exactly the kind of thing that veteran progressive media critic Dan Froomkin considers a sign of terrible bias:
“What if Kamala Harris — after a spectacular entry into the race, a stunningly unified convention, and a devastating debate — is basically running away with it, leaving Trump in the dust, while the national media — still mortified by its failure in 2016 to see the extent of Trump’s support — stubbornly sticks to the safer narrative that it’s a horserace going down to the wire?
“But wait, the polls aren’t showing Harris way ahead, you say. At most, they’re showing her with a narrow lead. Well, polls are garbage these days. And the pollsters, whose arbitrary weightings make a mockery of science, travel in packs. They, more than anyone, are terrified of underestimating Trump support again. So maybe this time they’re overestimating it? (Which they sure did in 2022.)
“You could, by contrast, make a solid vibes-and-momentum argument that Harris is winning handily.”
There’s a lot to unpack here. The argument that “polls are garbage these days” isn’t supported by the 2022 record, and to the extent that polls have been garbage lately, they have indeed underestimated Trump’s support. The “arbitrary weightings” of pollsters may or may not be precise, but they are not “arbitrary”; they reflect what we know about the shape of the electorate. And just tossing out all data in favor of a “vibes-and-momentum” take that is 100 percent subjective hardly empties analysis of bias.
Froomkin tips his hand by quoting SFGate columnist Drew Magary, who angrily argues that Harris is “destroying Trump, because Trump is a deranged old s—tbag” and that anyone who doesn’t see that is an Establishment hack.
Maybe all these critics are right and, for various reasons, pollsters and pundits are afraid to admit Harris is romping to victory. I don’t think there’s much question that a lot of the people being accused of overestimating Trump would be ecstatic if Harris wins. But being careful about it, given what we actually know about this election and the electorate, is not just prudent but mandatory.
Anyone can see that the 2008 elections are already looming large in Washington. A lot of socially moderate ‘Publicans are actively reconsidering either their political affiliation, an ignominious fate in the minority, or retirement. But this is where the Democratic “Big Tent” mentality can speak large. Frankly, while Sen. Lieberman represents some positions that are more closely aligned with many in the opposition, he also is currently serving as an ambassador to help inspire others to cross over. His credibility may be stained after his last election against the Party’s Senatorial nominee, but he can re-earn his place of esteem by reaching out and advocating for more socially moderate ‘Publicans to switch parties and ultimately retrench the gains made in the last elections. If we hope to remain the majority party, groups like the Blue Dog Democrats are going to play an essential role in helping to bridge the gulf that the Gingrich-era entrenched to build a more moderate voice in the Democratic Party, allowing Democrats to further expand their successes through the 50-State strategy. This will push the “litmus test” Conservatives (with their iron grip on the ‘Publican Party’s apparatus) to turn on remaining moderates and ultimately foil themselves in the next elections. So this has a potential affect of sending the opposition deeper into the political wilderness in the longer run.
With the new majority and a bigger party, those of us who bleed blue need to remember that with having more voices in our party, it also means we’ll have a more balanced political spectrum in our ranks. Overall, that’s good for Dems, and it’s good for America’s future to build a Democratic Populism for the 21st Century based on our core Democratic values.
Viva la revolución Democrática!