Speaking of charts, and graphs, and statistics, if Chris rates a "100" (perfect score) on a chart of political/election knowledge and expertise, I'd rate myself a "1" (and that's with a generous rounding up). So take what following with lots of dashes of salt.
Harris is, in many ways, the polar opposite of Joe Biden. To be very crude, she has a pulse while Biden did not. As the new, exciting, shiny object, (in addition to the pulse), Democrats sitting on the sidelines received a jolt of caffeinated optimism. Support levels and poll numbers shot up like an arrow (as did contributions). Harris can walk and chew gum at the same time, she has a welcoming demeanor, she has avoided gaffes, and she advocates policy positions that go over well with the base. So far, so good.
If all goes well during the convention, I believe the support levels and poll numbers will bump up a bit more (perhaps to the 6% gap level that Chris mentioned), especially if she further discusses and outlines her policy positions.
If there aren't any major developments (i.e. screw-ups) between the convention and the first debate, great.
I think the first debate will have a big impact on which way the support levels and polls go from there.
Hillary had a lot of strikes against her in 2016, but she also broke the glass ceiling in the sense that she was the first credible woman candidate for President. That's one hurdle Harris doesn't have to clear. And while the MAGA cult is going to paint her with every racist label out there, I think the vast majority of Democrats - and a large chunk of independent / moderate middle voters really don't give a rats ass that she's Black, or Jamaican, or Indian. There's still far too much racism in America, but maybe we've matured to the point when a persons gender or ancestry is not a determining factor as to whether they're qualified to be President.
As we've seen at Trump's "press conferences" and rallies, Trump doesn't have a "side B", or a second chapter, or any other channels on his TV. He's a one-trick whining pony. I one hundred percent guarantee that he'll be loud and obnoxious at the debate, and he'll provide exactly zero depth about his policy positions. And if he tries to repeat the stalking moves that he made on Hillary, I have complete faith in Harris's ability to counter that (hopefully with a big SueAnn Nivens smile on her face [those of you under 60 will probably need to google that]).
Lastly, while Trump has over-performed his polling averages by 2-3 percent, I think that will be partially offset this year by an increased number of women voters turning out to vote on the various abortion rights initiatives on the ballot in many states this year.
Blind optimist, West Wing fantasizer, not grounded in reality, basically full of shit, all of the above? Quite possibly. I guess I'll just have further to fall on Wednesday, November 6th. But until then, I need to hope that enough Americans look at the two alternatives and decide to move forward with hope for a better tomorrow instead of back to a very dark past.
I surrender the soap box to the next person in line.
If we elect this toxic boob AGAIN, after all he has done and NOT done and an insurrection and stolen top secret classified documents in the BATHROOM and sold to Putin and MBS and WTF knows WHO ELSE, and 400K dead Americans on his watch from his nonexistent COVID response and besmirching and shit-talking veterans, which he did again TODAY, and we say NFW to decency and choose a FELON, then we deserve EVERY INCH of his toxic ass.
I’m going to celebrate and play ALL the music. And hope we rise to end this hideous period in American life and politics.
The only polls..and actual votes..that will matter are in the 6 or 7 battleground states that will decide the election. It would be interesting to know if Trump outperformed in those states in 2016 and/or 2020, and if so by how much. (Another project for you, Chris..haha ).
Some of us your subscribers were thinking that you will for once analyze Harris's brilliant economy speech today like you almost always do for Trump. But well it didn't happen.
I love Chris. I really really do. But I've also been giving this some thought because I have recently been very critical of what I've perceived as Chris's Debbie-Dower approach to every last bit of positive Harris news. Some things to keep in mind:
1) There's really nothing new to report about the Donald Trump of 2024, which itself is a repeat of Trump 2020, which was a repeat of Trump 2016. Established products often roll-out a "new and improved" version to remain relevant in the marketplace. Trump 2024 is the same product as Trump 2016, just older and slower, with an obsolete and error-prone speech module, and lacking any expansion slots. And while a mentally diminished Trump is perhaps even more dangerous than ever, Chris's time is better spent not writing about things already well-documented by others.
2) Getting back to the perceived Debbie-Downer tone of his posts. Do I sometimes wish Chris presented this material in a more neutral tone? Yes. But guess what? It's Chris's blog and he can write it in whatever way works for him. We choose to subscribe and we can choose to unsubscribe.
3) I don't doubt the sincerity of Harris's supporters. Given the possibility of a better tomorrow or a return to a very dark past, many people would vote for Fozzie Bear instead of Trump.
By that I mean many of Harris's supporters are pie-in-the-sky optimists. They're so desperate for the possibility of a Trump-less future that they're somewhat oblivious to all of the nitty-gritty stuff all elections entail (i.e. a three percent polling lead in the middle of August is not the same thing as 271+ Electoral Votes on November 5th). Maybe the tone of Chris's posts are just his way of keeping us hopeless optimists a bit more grounded.
Did you mean brilliant sarcastically? The Washington Post already deadpanned it. If she keeps this a campaign of personalities, she may prevail. If she keeps peddling mostly nonsense policies, then she’ll be in trouble.
Her brilliant speech about going after corporations for price gouging and giving people money for a house? You know she’s currently the VP of America right? Like she’s still in the White House, and could try and get her boss to enact these policies right now. They could start trying to help the middle class right now. But no, she’ll wait. That makes the most sense.
I share your frustrations on the "why don't they just DO something?". I really do.
1) While Biden can do some things through Executive Orders, the VP (Harris) doesn't have that same power. Nor can she force Biden to.
2) The vast majority of what any President wants to do has to work its way through that Rube Goldberg contraption we call Congress. The opposition party will seek to block or castrate whatever the President submits - even if it's a policy that will have a positive impact on a large part of society. That used to be a "bug" in the political process. Unfortunately it's now a "feature".
3) This last one is right up there with Santa and the Easter Bunny not being real. Politicians of every party, stripe, and color will - prior to an election - promise voters the moon. (Does "I'll cut taxes, eliminate the deficit, fully fund Social Security, and rebuild the military - all at the same time" sound familiar?) The sad reality is that much of what Harris is proposing today is about as far as it will ever get.
Hey thanks for the reply! I get your point, Harris is the VP and not the President. But she’s also the democratic nominee for President and could at the very least publicly push Pres. Biden to begin some of these policies. Obviously they won’t snake their way through Congress, but at least it gives the illusion she’s trying to make her agenda the agenda of the current Democratic Party. And I completely agree with your last comment, politics will say or do anything to get elected.
Yes, they all make promises that aren’t keepable. But some of the stuff is so outlandish. Border wall everywhere will stop everything. Or i’ll give everyone $25k to buy a home. I mean, come on.
All good points, but Kamala Harris has had to dig out of a polling hole left by Joe Biden. She has done remarkably well in four short weeks. It’s entirely possible that her polling numbers will just keep going up and up. At least we can hope!
The dynamics of 2024 are very different than those of 2016 or 2020...Trump is a convicted felon, he lead an insurrection, he is losing it mentally, his choice of VP is worse than McCain's pick of Palin...
There are a significant number of normal Republicans who are supporting and more importantly, organizing, to support Harris....
As a country, we are in uncharted territory where 45% of the voting population is in a cult.
I think Harris' numbers will continue to rise as Trump craps all over himself and at some point whips out the "N" word...
If Harris announces robust policies on immigration and the economy that that appeal to a large swath of the electorate, I think she has an excellent chance of winning!
Convicted Felon don Old has no policies, just hatred and retribution.😡
Why in the world should Dems "dampen their enthusiasm" as you urge Chris. Enthusiasm is what has gotten Kamala this far and can only help. The pessimist nay-sayers will have four years to gloat if enthusiasm fails to carry the day, but until then it doesn't help.
Let’s vote not speculate. Because polling is junk science, Harris could be 99% ahead in the polls and still lose because the 1000 people interviewed aren’t a real analog for 350 million Americans.
That said the sudden change in polling, Republicans for Harris and Trump’s increasing coherence are positive signs.
Nate Silver estimates based on national polling (rounded):
1-2%+ Harris Win: 50/50 probability of winning the Electoral College
2-3%+ Harris Win: 80/20
3-4%+ Harris Win: 90/10
The other reality is that Trump never got more than 47–48% of the vote, which is probably his hard ceiling.
Assuming Trump polls at 47–48%, for all the hype, Harris is currently polling at 49–50%, which is still in the 50/50 toss-up range. Meaning, she needs to continue improving and consistently poll north of 51–52% to win.
I think that there’s a significant change in the dynamic of how people feel about admitting they’ll vote for Trump, and I think that political analysts, like you Chris, would be wise to keep that in mind when you prognosticate using polling data.
In 2016, *many* people who were planning on voting for Trump, mostly those that simply would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton (the Right’s punching bag for literally *decades*), kept quiet about their intentions, and if asked by a pollster, chose to say “undecided”.
In 2024, however, I think those that plan to vote for Trump aren’t the least bit hesitant to say so, and would answer a poll accurately. There are many that seem to think that they were better off during the Trump administration and, while they may not like his lack of character or childish & combative verbal style, will vote for him again and are not secretive about it in the least.
On various social media platforms, friends of friends that are Trump supporters have absolutely NO qualms about enthusiastically proclaiming that he’s exactly what this country needs.
I think that Trump out-performing the polls in 2016, but not in 2024 makes sense, at least based upon what I’ve seen.
If pollsters want to be more accurate, and I think they do, wouldn’t they have adjusted their models to reflect the pro-Trump results seen in the previous two elections?
If they have done this, then maybe they are currently capturing the real Trump support.
I find it hard to believe that anyone that voted blue in 2016 or 2020 thinks this is in the bag. We have a shot. Which is something we didn’t have a few weeks ago at the Republican convention. The democratic base was in despair. There is now hope. But I don’t think anyone thinks this is won.
Speaking of charts, and graphs, and statistics, if Chris rates a "100" (perfect score) on a chart of political/election knowledge and expertise, I'd rate myself a "1" (and that's with a generous rounding up). So take what following with lots of dashes of salt.
Harris is, in many ways, the polar opposite of Joe Biden. To be very crude, she has a pulse while Biden did not. As the new, exciting, shiny object, (in addition to the pulse), Democrats sitting on the sidelines received a jolt of caffeinated optimism. Support levels and poll numbers shot up like an arrow (as did contributions). Harris can walk and chew gum at the same time, she has a welcoming demeanor, she has avoided gaffes, and she advocates policy positions that go over well with the base. So far, so good.
If all goes well during the convention, I believe the support levels and poll numbers will bump up a bit more (perhaps to the 6% gap level that Chris mentioned), especially if she further discusses and outlines her policy positions.
If there aren't any major developments (i.e. screw-ups) between the convention and the first debate, great.
I think the first debate will have a big impact on which way the support levels and polls go from there.
Hillary had a lot of strikes against her in 2016, but she also broke the glass ceiling in the sense that she was the first credible woman candidate for President. That's one hurdle Harris doesn't have to clear. And while the MAGA cult is going to paint her with every racist label out there, I think the vast majority of Democrats - and a large chunk of independent / moderate middle voters really don't give a rats ass that she's Black, or Jamaican, or Indian. There's still far too much racism in America, but maybe we've matured to the point when a persons gender or ancestry is not a determining factor as to whether they're qualified to be President.
As we've seen at Trump's "press conferences" and rallies, Trump doesn't have a "side B", or a second chapter, or any other channels on his TV. He's a one-trick whining pony. I one hundred percent guarantee that he'll be loud and obnoxious at the debate, and he'll provide exactly zero depth about his policy positions. And if he tries to repeat the stalking moves that he made on Hillary, I have complete faith in Harris's ability to counter that (hopefully with a big SueAnn Nivens smile on her face [those of you under 60 will probably need to google that]).
Lastly, while Trump has over-performed his polling averages by 2-3 percent, I think that will be partially offset this year by an increased number of women voters turning out to vote on the various abortion rights initiatives on the ballot in many states this year.
Blind optimist, West Wing fantasizer, not grounded in reality, basically full of shit, all of the above? Quite possibly. I guess I'll just have further to fall on Wednesday, November 6th. But until then, I need to hope that enough Americans look at the two alternatives and decide to move forward with hope for a better tomorrow instead of back to a very dark past.
I surrender the soap box to the next person in line.
If we elect this toxic boob AGAIN, after all he has done and NOT done and an insurrection and stolen top secret classified documents in the BATHROOM and sold to Putin and MBS and WTF knows WHO ELSE, and 400K dead Americans on his watch from his nonexistent COVID response and besmirching and shit-talking veterans, which he did again TODAY, and we say NFW to decency and choose a FELON, then we deserve EVERY INCH of his toxic ass.
I’m going to celebrate and play ALL the music. And hope we rise to end this hideous period in American life and politics.
You play the music and I’ll dance with you until it stops, sister!
You GOT IT!! We will be swirling and dancing to ALL the music. 💙💙💙💙💙💙
The only polls..and actual votes..that will matter are in the 6 or 7 battleground states that will decide the election. It would be interesting to know if Trump outperformed in those states in 2016 and/or 2020, and if so by how much. (Another project for you, Chris..haha ).
Good suggestion!
Some of us your subscribers were thinking that you will for once analyze Harris's brilliant economy speech today like you almost always do for Trump. But well it didn't happen.
I love Chris. I really really do. But I've also been giving this some thought because I have recently been very critical of what I've perceived as Chris's Debbie-Dower approach to every last bit of positive Harris news. Some things to keep in mind:
1) There's really nothing new to report about the Donald Trump of 2024, which itself is a repeat of Trump 2020, which was a repeat of Trump 2016. Established products often roll-out a "new and improved" version to remain relevant in the marketplace. Trump 2024 is the same product as Trump 2016, just older and slower, with an obsolete and error-prone speech module, and lacking any expansion slots. And while a mentally diminished Trump is perhaps even more dangerous than ever, Chris's time is better spent not writing about things already well-documented by others.
2) Getting back to the perceived Debbie-Downer tone of his posts. Do I sometimes wish Chris presented this material in a more neutral tone? Yes. But guess what? It's Chris's blog and he can write it in whatever way works for him. We choose to subscribe and we can choose to unsubscribe.
3) I don't doubt the sincerity of Harris's supporters. Given the possibility of a better tomorrow or a return to a very dark past, many people would vote for Fozzie Bear instead of Trump.
By that I mean many of Harris's supporters are pie-in-the-sky optimists. They're so desperate for the possibility of a Trump-less future that they're somewhat oblivious to all of the nitty-gritty stuff all elections entail (i.e. a three percent polling lead in the middle of August is not the same thing as 271+ Electoral Votes on November 5th). Maybe the tone of Chris's posts are just his way of keeping us hopeless optimists a bit more grounded.
Did you mean brilliant sarcastically? The Washington Post already deadpanned it. If she keeps this a campaign of personalities, she may prevail. If she keeps peddling mostly nonsense policies, then she’ll be in trouble.
Her brilliant speech about going after corporations for price gouging and giving people money for a house? You know she’s currently the VP of America right? Like she’s still in the White House, and could try and get her boss to enact these policies right now. They could start trying to help the middle class right now. But no, she’ll wait. That makes the most sense.
I share your frustrations on the "why don't they just DO something?". I really do.
1) While Biden can do some things through Executive Orders, the VP (Harris) doesn't have that same power. Nor can she force Biden to.
2) The vast majority of what any President wants to do has to work its way through that Rube Goldberg contraption we call Congress. The opposition party will seek to block or castrate whatever the President submits - even if it's a policy that will have a positive impact on a large part of society. That used to be a "bug" in the political process. Unfortunately it's now a "feature".
3) This last one is right up there with Santa and the Easter Bunny not being real. Politicians of every party, stripe, and color will - prior to an election - promise voters the moon. (Does "I'll cut taxes, eliminate the deficit, fully fund Social Security, and rebuild the military - all at the same time" sound familiar?) The sad reality is that much of what Harris is proposing today is about as far as it will ever get.
Hey thanks for the reply! I get your point, Harris is the VP and not the President. But she’s also the democratic nominee for President and could at the very least publicly push Pres. Biden to begin some of these policies. Obviously they won’t snake their way through Congress, but at least it gives the illusion she’s trying to make her agenda the agenda of the current Democratic Party. And I completely agree with your last comment, politics will say or do anything to get elected.
Yes, they all make promises that aren’t keepable. But some of the stuff is so outlandish. Border wall everywhere will stop everything. Or i’ll give everyone $25k to buy a home. I mean, come on.
All good points, but Kamala Harris has had to dig out of a polling hole left by Joe Biden. She has done remarkably well in four short weeks. It’s entirely possible that her polling numbers will just keep going up and up. At least we can hope!
The dynamics of 2024 are very different than those of 2016 or 2020...Trump is a convicted felon, he lead an insurrection, he is losing it mentally, his choice of VP is worse than McCain's pick of Palin...
There are a significant number of normal Republicans who are supporting and more importantly, organizing, to support Harris....
As a country, we are in uncharted territory where 45% of the voting population is in a cult.
I think Harris' numbers will continue to rise as Trump craps all over himself and at some point whips out the "N" word...
If Harris announces robust policies on immigration and the economy that that appeal to a large swath of the electorate, I think she has an excellent chance of winning!
Convicted Felon don Old has no policies, just hatred and retribution.😡
Why in the world should Dems "dampen their enthusiasm" as you urge Chris. Enthusiasm is what has gotten Kamala this far and can only help. The pessimist nay-sayers will have four years to gloat if enthusiasm fails to carry the day, but until then it doesn't help.
The one thing I would offer here is that polling methodologies don’t remain static over time, and adjust based on prior results.
So using the past to predict what will happen in this election may not be very accurate.
Let’s vote not speculate. Because polling is junk science, Harris could be 99% ahead in the polls and still lose because the 1000 people interviewed aren’t a real analog for 350 million Americans.
That said the sudden change in polling, Republicans for Harris and Trump’s increasing coherence are positive signs.
Nate Silver estimates based on national polling (rounded):
1-2%+ Harris Win: 50/50 probability of winning the Electoral College
2-3%+ Harris Win: 80/20
3-4%+ Harris Win: 90/10
The other reality is that Trump never got more than 47–48% of the vote, which is probably his hard ceiling.
Assuming Trump polls at 47–48%, for all the hype, Harris is currently polling at 49–50%, which is still in the 50/50 toss-up range. Meaning, she needs to continue improving and consistently poll north of 51–52% to win.
I think that there’s a significant change in the dynamic of how people feel about admitting they’ll vote for Trump, and I think that political analysts, like you Chris, would be wise to keep that in mind when you prognosticate using polling data.
In 2016, *many* people who were planning on voting for Trump, mostly those that simply would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton (the Right’s punching bag for literally *decades*), kept quiet about their intentions, and if asked by a pollster, chose to say “undecided”.
In 2024, however, I think those that plan to vote for Trump aren’t the least bit hesitant to say so, and would answer a poll accurately. There are many that seem to think that they were better off during the Trump administration and, while they may not like his lack of character or childish & combative verbal style, will vote for him again and are not secretive about it in the least.
On various social media platforms, friends of friends that are Trump supporters have absolutely NO qualms about enthusiastically proclaiming that he’s exactly what this country needs.
I think that Trump out-performing the polls in 2016, but not in 2024 makes sense, at least based upon what I’ve seen.
All that matters 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽
Will 100k independent voters in 5 states now vote for Harris? 🤔 🤔 🤔
Question:
If pollsters want to be more accurate, and I think they do, wouldn’t they have adjusted their models to reflect the pro-Trump results seen in the previous two elections?
If they have done this, then maybe they are currently capturing the real Trump support.
Chris I agree 1000%. Can't take anything for granted, especially against him.
However, if you had to be in a political position RIGHT NOW, would you rather be DonOld or Kamala?
Does that mean there could be an October surprise or the GOP throws something totally nuts into the electorate, absolutely.
But today, right now, I would much rather be in her position than his.
I find it hard to believe that anyone that voted blue in 2016 or 2020 thinks this is in the bag. We have a shot. Which is something we didn’t have a few weeks ago at the Republican convention. The democratic base was in despair. There is now hope. But I don’t think anyone thinks this is won.
That's right. We're happy about the change in fortunes and the trend lines. No one is spiking the ball