Final 2024 Predictions

A low confidence Election Day forecast.

Since starting this blog in 2001, I’ve posted my Electoral College for every presidential election but one.

In 2004, I predicted Bush 286, Kerry 252, going 51-for-51. I should have stopped there.

In 2008, I predicted Obama 325, McCain 213. That actually undershot Obama’s performance by 40 Electors because Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Indiana (11)—all historically red states—went for him. He also picked up one Nebraska district.

In 2012, I predicted Obama 290, Romney 248. That was an even bigger miss, as Obama won by an additional 42 Electors. I mistakenly thought Florida (29) and Virginia (13) would go back into the Republican column. Steven Taylor made the exact same prediction. The late Doug Mataconis correctly gave Virginia (or mutual home state at the time) to Obama. None of the other predictions we rounded up did any better.

In 2016, for whatever reason, while I reluctantly endorsed Hillary Clinton at the 11th hour after having been anti-Trump since his announcement, I never got around to making a prediction. It was just as well, as I would certainly have had Clinton winning which—spoiler alert!—she did not. Both Doug and Steven went 323-215 for Clinton. I suspect I’d have been wrong in equal measure.

In 2020, I was wildly off, predicting a 389-149 Biden wave, overstating Biden’s total by 83! I foolishly believed Texas (38) and Florida (29) would turn blue and that North Carolina (15) would revert to Obama-era form.

I’ve never had less of a sense of how the election is going than this cycle. With next to zero confidence, though, I’m going this way:

That’s closer than it should be by any reasonable measure but, essentially, I’m giving Trump North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona while giving Harris Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. (That we don’t mention the other 43 states, where almost the entire population lives, in these assessments, is less-than-ideal artifact of our system.)

Trump has been melting down on the campaign trail—most recently promising to put the wife-beating ignoramus Herschel Walker in charge of our missile defenses!—and is clearly campaigning as someone who knows he’s losing. But, as much as I’d like to predict a wave election, I just don’t see it.

I’d say this is her best-case scenario:

This has her also picking up Georgia, which Biden won in 2020, and North Carolina, which Biden lost but without an albatross of a GOP gubernatorial nominee dragging down the ticket.

Alas, I can also see this scenario:

This gives Trump all of the states where he’s currently leading—even by the narrowest of margins—in Nate Silver’s aggregator.

Silver’s analysis is paywalled but

At exactly midnight on Tuesday, we ran our simulation model for the final time in this election cycle. Out of 80,000 simulations, Kamala Harris won in 40,012 (50.015%) cases. She did not win in 39,988 simulations (49.985%). Of those, 39,718 were outright wins for Donald Trump and the remainder (270 simulations) were exact 269-269 Electoral College ties: these ties are likely to eventually result in Trump wins in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Talk about your nail-biters.

OTB Blogger Emeritus Alex Knapp (via email) goes slightly higher than my best case for his prediction:

This is, basically, the 2020 map minus Nevada, which I have going for Trump this cycle based on polling, early voting and registration numbers.

Some quick thoughts on my process here, even though most of the polling aggregators have the race a virtual tie. 

1. Trump has never taken more than 47% of the popular vote. This automatically makes him an underdog. In the past 2 elections he has taken 46.1% and 46.8% of the popular vote, despite the fact that quite a few late-breaking polls in 2020 also had quite a packet that had him in the 47-49% range. Now, it’s true that he DID overperform the polls in battleground states (we’ll get to that) but almost always within the MOE. Despite this, reporting by Nate Cohn at the NYT and other places have quoted pollsters as really weighing the polls out of concern that they undercount Trump again. They don’t want to be wrong. 

2. The Republican Party is more divided than it was in 2020. Despite the many problems of the Trump Administration’s first term, a lot of Republicans still, for the most part, stood by him. In this cycle, Trump faced a heavily contested primary that he may have had a challenging time winning if not for the rally round the flag effect of his felony indictments or if Ron DeSantis had a decent campaign staff. Even after Nikki Haley dropped out in the first week of March, something like a quarter to a third of Republican voters still cast their vote for her in the primary. An October survey of Haley voters had about 36% of them saying they would cast a vote for Harris and about 13% were undecided. This isn’t great for Trump because…. 

3. …. Independents have been breaking late for Harris. Many surveys are showing Harris winning a majority of independent votes and a significant majority of women independent voters. A good rule of thumb is whoever wins independents wins the election. Now combine that with Republican defectors (even those who ultimately decide to leave the top of the ballot blank) and that’s a big advantage for Harris. 

4. Polling in battleground states significantly undercounted Democratic votes in 2022. If you believe the polls, Republicans should control the Senate right now. Polls had Oz winning in Pennsylvania, Walker winning in Georgia, Laxall winning in Nevada and an extremely tight race between Masters and Kelly. In the end, the Republicans lost all of those races and in Arizona it was by a comfortable margin. I have looked for reporting on any pollsters who decided to weight their models differently to account for this and found none – but found plenty of reporting they were weighing their models in an effort to not undercount Trump’s vote this time. I think there’s a good chance we’ll see a similar undercounting of votes for Harris this cycle as a result. 

5. Harris is winning reliable voters–and has a much better ground game. Here’s a fun fact: the last time the 65+ age cohort voted for a Democrat was the year 2000. And even that was a fluke of the Clinton era – he won the senior vote in both his elections but in the 20 years prior Republicans dominated this age group. But Biden before he dropped out and Harris both consistently polled as winning the 65+ vote. This is THE most relaible bloc of voters. Harris is also winning women, another reliable bloc of voters, and college-educated voters – again, very reliable. The only bloc of reliable voters Trump is winning is evangelical Christians. The rest of the groups voting for him – young men in particular – are the kind of folks you need a dedicated GOTV effort for. But Trump’s is a mess mostly outsourced to Elon Musk’s America PAC, which started late and is staffed by a bunch of ex-Desantis guys…. remember how well he did? 

6. Objectively speaking, the economy rules right now. And Harris is a quasi-incumbent. In most election cycles, that’s enough. And since the Trump campaign has basically abandoned this as an issue, a huge mistake given unhappiness with inflation. 

7. Abortion is an underrated issue for both pollsters and pundits. Whenever abortion is on the ballot, support for abortion rights massively overperforms the polls. There is perhaps no better example of this than my own state of Kansas, In 2022, there was an initiative to amend the state Constitution in such a way that it would allow the legislature to place restrictions on abortion. Polls ahead of the vote had it winning by 5 points. It lost by 18. Abortion is on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. Strict abortion restrictions are sparking backlashes in Texas and Iowa. This may well impact the presidential race. 

8. Polls show a weird disconnect between Senate and Presidential races. In several battleground states, Democratic Senate candidates are out-performing Harris. For example in Michigan we see polls showing Slotkin +5 and Harris +1…. but it would be very historically unusual to see voters split like this. Who are the Trump/Slotkin voters? Polls in Pennsylvania similarly show a sizable lead for Casey. Split tickets are much rarer on the federal level than they used to be and this may also serve as a good sign for Harris. 

He also has a Harris 270, Trump 268 scenario in which Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina go red and a Trump 283, Harris 255 scenario in which Trump adds Michigan.

FILED UNDER: 2024 Election, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Tony W says:

    From your mouth to God’s ears, James.

    I pray we continue to have a democracy at day’s end.

    6
  2. Kylopod says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that she’ll sweep all seven battleground states for a total of 319 EVs.

    The momentum in the final days has been entirely in Harris’s favor. That was very much not the case with Hillary in 2016. If there’s a “Comey Letter” equivalent this time, it’s the Puerto Rico comment at Trump’s Nuremberg rally in New York.

    One of my biggest sources of concern over the past week and a half was Jon Ralston’s somewhat dire warnings about possible Democratic underperformance in the early vote in Nevada. But now he thinks Harris will carry the state. His record of predicting the state based on early vote is impeccable so far.

    I also think Ann Selzer’s poll of Iowa is a sign of what many of us have suspected, that the regular polls are underestimating Harris, in part due to the continuing impact of Dobbs. Unlike much of the commentary I’ve been reading, I choose to take seriously the possibility that the poll is literally correct and that, despite not campaigning there, Harris could in fact carry Iowa. If that’s the case, we could be looking at an electoral blowout, Harris picking up states outside the Big 7 that few saw coming, such as Florida or Texas or Ohio. But even if Selzer is underestimating Trump despite her long record of dead-on accuracy and picking up things other pollsters missed, it’s unlikely Trump is going to do as well in Iowa as he did in 2020 (that would require an 11-point miss, an unusually large error for any pollster, and which would be totally unprecedented for Selzer). I think that has ramifications for other states, not just in the Midwest, but also in states like Arizona where abortion is on the ballot, or North Carolina where it might as well be, due to Mark Robinson.

    Everything seems to be falling into place when it comes to Harris’s campaign. She has better ground game, is much more popular, and has a lot more enthusiasm behind her than Trump. The landscape couldn’t be more different than in 2016. Trump isn’t new or exciting in the world of politics, he’s a fading Vegas act. There’s no complacency on the part of Dems, no assumption that Trump can’t possibly win and therefore that people don’t have to bother getting off their butts and voting. There’s also no sign of substantial third-party voting. Voters are highly engaged, and the signs are that turnout is through the roof. I believe she has this, and that we’ll finally at long last see the American public come to a strong and decisive verdict to end the reign of Agent Orange.

    6
  3. James Joyner says:

    @Kylopod: All of that would have made great sense prior to 2016; it just doesn’t seem like normal rules apply to Trump. But it would be great to have a return to normalcy in that way.

    1
  4. Gavin says:

    I enjoyed hearing Trump threaten everyone with actual death unless they voted for him.
    “If you don’t vote for me, you’re all going to die.”
    And he was so low-energy when he said it.. you’d almost think he knew he was lying and projecting.

    I don’t have a guess, I have scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly.

    3
  5. Rob1 says:

    One thing is certain given our collective state of equivocation about the outcome of this election: Trump, Musk, Putin, and rightwing media have exposed the soft underbelly of our democracy. Which directly relates to a number of our citizens being soft in the head, as well.

    11
  6. Bill Jempty says:

    Polls said Trump would lose two times. Results were wildly off.

    This time they say its a dead heat. Results will be wildly off once again? I’m betting on it.

    2
  7. Kazzy says:

    “That’s closer than it should be by any reasonable measure…”

    This is what worries me. If the Democrats can barely win against Trump, what happens if/when the Republicans run a sane, normal candidate?

    5
  8. charontwo says:

    @Kylopod:

    I say Harris picks up Iowa for 325, and both FL and TX are razor thin for TFG, I would not be shocked if she picks off one.

    2
  9. Hal_10000 says:

    I really hope it’s not that close. The opens the possibility that the GOP senate could throw out the votes of one state and give Trump the White House.

    3
  10. charontwo says:

    @Kazzy:

    what happens if/when the Republicans run a sane, normal candidate?

    I do not expect to ever find out.

    4
  11. CSK says:

    @charontwo:

    “Sane and normal” has come to mean “not Trump.”

    1
  12. Min says:

    Oh, I hope you’re right @Kylopod

    I’m in Germany, still feeling a little anxious and I can’t quite shake the feeling of dread. I guess, what happened in 2016 is to blame for that.

    2
  13. Kylopod says:

    @Bill Jempty: The myth of the “hidden” Trump vote rears its head again.

    Contrary to popular belief, Trump was not in any way uniquely underestimated in 2016 or 2020. Republicans in general were, up and down the ballot. I’ve discussed the possible reasons before, and I won’t elaborate on them now. What’s clear is that starting in 2022, polls have been systemically overestimating Republicans. They were overestimated in virtually all the Senate and gubernatorial races that year, and in virtually all the special elections from that year forward. Trump himself was consistently overestimated by polls–in his primaries against Nikki Haley.

    One of the biggest challenges in election polls is coming up with a likely voter screen. Most pollsters do it by examining past turnout patterns, which is not always reliable. In the past few years, Democrats have been newly engaged in a way that wasn’t the case in previous election cycles, and we don’t have the pandemic hovering over us like we did in 2020, which caused Dems to abandon much of their traditional ground game due to taking the virus more seriously than Republicans did, leading to an asymmetry in turnout that the pollsters didn’t pick up.

    That’s one of the reasons why I believe Selzer’s poll has had its consistent track record of success–she avoids traditional turnout models based on past behavior and tries to determine from the respondents themselves whether they’re likely to vote.

    I could be wrong. We’ll find out soon enough.

    4
  14. charontwo says:

    Some thoughts from Martin Longman:

    https://progresspond.com/2024/11/04/final-thoughts-on-the-state-of-the-race/

    I’m not putting any stock in Ann Selzer’s final poll out of Iowa that shows Harris winning that state. Could she be right? I suppose so. She has a pretty strong record for being accurate even when she’s an outlier. But for now I’m treating it as an outlier. If there’s anything in her internals that I have some hope is correct it’s that women over 65 are voting heavily against Trump. This could be more pronounced in Iowa than in other places because Iowa has adopted one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, and without heavy investment in messaging from the Trump campaign to counteract this, maybe it’s really having a huge effect. If so, I’d expect something similar, but smaller to show up in the upper Midwest battleground states, including Pennsylvania, where Trump has invested in getting his message out.

    I do think Harris has an advantage on the ground. Here in Pennsylvania, the ground game is outstanding, and there’s no question it’s adding numbers to her column. I have first hand reports on this because CabinGirl spent Saturday and Sunday knocking doors for the campaign, and they’re already done with their first go-round and hitting doors for the second time. They are squeezing every last drop of juice out of the fruit and leaving nothing on the field, while the Trump field operation is mostly invisible, at least here in the eastern part of the state.

    I’ll also say, as a former county organizer for ACORN in neighboring Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, that their walk lists are incredible. They have plenty of independents and some Republicans on their lists, and yet the door-knockers are encountering almost no solid Trumpers. And, believe me, there are plenty of those in these parts even if they’re badly outnumbered. This shows me the Harris campaign knows who to approach in a way that wasn’t even possible when I was compiling walk lists in 2004.

    3
  15. gVOR10 says:

    @Kazzy:

    what happens if/when the Republicans run a sane, normal candidate?

    I agree with @charontwo: that they won’t, ever. It ain’t just Trump. But they could easily run someone who appears to be sane and normal. JD whatever his name is did a good job of pretending to not be a RWNJ in his debate. It’s not too early to worry about ’28, when Dobbs will, hopefully, no longer be a major issue.

    I see none of the front page predictions give Harris Iowa. I wouldn’t either. But the Des Moines Register poll does point to the possibility of a huge polling error. I forget who made the cogent observation that response rates are so low it’s necessary to use a model to apply corrections. But the actual data is so thin we’re not seeing poll results, we’re seeing the results of the models. The MOE applies only to the data, not the model. And the modelers have an understandable aversion to being outliers.

    There does seem to be a late shift toward Harris, but it’s unclear if that’s real, or mostly a shift in the MSM narrative.

    1
  16. Kylopod says:

    @Min:

    I’m in Germany, still feeling a little anxious and I can’t quite shake the feeling of dread. I guess, what happened in 2016 is to blame for that.

    My optimism should not be confused with smugness. I’m still incredibly nervous, simply because the stakes are so high. This is an election our country cannot afford to lose. If a doctor said you have a 20% chance of dying of cancer in the next year, you’d find the news devastating even if you know you have a much higher probability of beating it than succumbing to it. Someone here the other day dubbed me “nauseously optimistic,” which I thought at first was a spontaneous quip, then it turned out it’s a phrase that’s been all over the anti-Trumposphere as of late.

    2
  17. charontwo says:

    @gVOR10:

    I agree with @charontwo: that they won’t, ever. It ain’t just Trump.

    There is some number of relative sane people who will try to get the party back after Trump, but I think they are delusional. The party’s future is JD Vance, Mike Johnson MTG etc. The party relies on various flavors of extremist for votes, their supporters are a big part of the GOP base.

    You have your JD Vance Peter Thiel dudebros, your Elon Musk MTG Tucker Carlson Russophiles, Mike Johnson Sam Alito Christians, all sharing control and they will not go away.

    2
  18. Kathy says:

    @Kazzy:

    what happens if/when the Republicans run a sane, normal candidate?

    At this point, it would mean they’re no longer Republicans.

    2
  19. Scott says:

    @charontwo: It is interesting about the Iowa poll but there is a factor I heard someone mention that may be having an impact in Iowa. And that is the impact of tariffs on agriculture. Here is one article: The Economic Impacts of Retaliatory Tariffs
    on U.S. Agriculture

    In 2018, the United States imposed Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from major trading partners and separately Section 301 tariffs on a broad range imports
    from China. In response, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), India, Mexico, and Turkey imposed retaliatory tariffs on many U.S. exports, including a wide range of agricultural and food products. Individual product lines experienced tariff increases ranging from 2 to 140 percent. The retaliatory tariffs increased the price of U.S. agricultural exports in these markets relative to alternatives that were either domestically produced or imported from other international sources. Despite opportunities for U.S. producers to sell their products to non-retaliating trade partners, the overall effect was a reduction in U.S. agricultural exports

    The retaliatory tariffs led to a significant reduction in U.S. agricultural exports to retaliating partners. Nationally, direct U.S. agricultural export losses due to retaliatory tariffs totaled more than $27 billion during 2018 through the end of 2019. Across retaliatory partners, China accounted for approximately 95 percent of the losses ($25.7 billion), followed by the EU ($0.6 billion), and Mexico ($0.5 billion), with Canada, Turkey, and India having smaller shares. We estimated annualized losses for selected commodities from retaliatory tariffs were $13.2 billion from mid-2018 to the end of 2019.

    Could the actual economic impact of agriculture overcome the culture war voting of abortion?

    1
  20. gVOR10 says:

    the Trump campaign has basically abandoned this (the economy) as an issue, a huge mistake given unhappiness with inflation.

    I’m not sure that’s true. The MSM seems to have finally realized inflation ended a year ago. (“Headline” inflation lags badly.) It may finally be sinking in to voters that they’re not worrying about prices when they head to the grocery store or the gas station.

    Harris has faced the very weird situation that the economy is wonderful, but she can’t run on it because everyone thinks it’s terrible. But people may be starting to react to lived feelz: Nephew Bob got a good job. Gas was under $3.oo this morning. Bacon was cheap yesterday. We’ve got a couple extra bucks in the checking account, let’s go out to dinner, if we can get a reservation.

    Seems likely the Trump campaign dropped the economy as a focus based on polling and focus groups. If reality has set in, all he’s got is immigration and low IQ Kamala is a commie. And that was a heck of a crowd on the “Rocky steps” last night.

  21. gVOR10 says:

    @Kylopod: Headline today at WAPO

    Harris wraps up her historic bid amid a ‘nauseously optimistic’ mood

    No link, the headline is the only thing of interest. It’s of a piece with the banner headline “Race between Harris, Trump now in voters’ hands”. Gee, thanks for the hot news flash. (I can’t seem to get rid of WAPO ’til my last payment runs out, so I still get to dump on them.)

  22. Scott F. says:

    @James Joyner:

    All of that would have made great sense prior to 2016; it just doesn’t seem like normal rules apply to Trump. But it would be great to have a return to normalcy in that way.

    I’m hanging my hat on the statistical idea of regression to the mean. I’m as unsure as anyone for this cycle, but I do know that “normal” is reality-based and so normalcy eventually asserts itself. Sometimes that means a new normal is defined, but it sure doesn’t look like a Trumpian realignment is where the US is headed – even many, many Republicans are exhausted with the lawlessness, rancor and cruelty.

    And even with all the sanewashing and double standards, Trumpism is a shambles. If Trump pulls out a win in the EC (he ain’t winning the popular vote), then he either suffocates democracy as we know it or Trumpism flames out due to a popular revolt against Project 2025 being shoved down the country’s throat.

  23. Gavin says:

    I think women will have their revenge today.
    I’m happy to just reload the mags.

    2
  24. Gustopher says:

    Given how amazing the Harris campaign has been, and how lackluster the Trump campaign has been, and how that hasn’t moved the polls… I think the ground game gives it to Harris, assuming that’s a spot where competence will actually be rewarded.

    Or the polls are very off.

    Either way, I expect various towns, counties and states to refuse to certify electors, and try to throw it to the House, Nazis to storm a state capitol or two, and a really unpleasant few months.

    And I’m going to go out on a limb and say that actual voter fraud will be discovered. It will be right wingers, who think that “everyone cheats and you’re a chump if you don’t.” Three townships in Wisconsin will have a 85% turnout, breaking heavily Republican.

    And finally, the stupidest theory that appears in mainstream Republican discourse will be that Harris lied when counting the Electoral College votes for herself and that Trump won the electoral college. There will also be calls for her to recuse herself beforehand.

    1
  25. Andy says:

    I have no idea who will win, but I’ll give Harris the advantage for most of the reasons Alex Knapp cites. I’d add that the “poll herding” phenomenon described by the Nates (Cohn and Silver) seems real and is more likely to hide a Harris advantage.

    Whatever the case, I hope the winner (and I prefer Harris on that score) wins decisively for reasons that should be obvious.

    7
  26. Lucysfootball says:

    Harris with about 300 EV and a 5% advantage in popular vote. If she was tied with Trump two weeks ago I refuse to believe that the last two weeks don’t matter. Trump’s last two weeks have to be by far the WORST last two weeks in modern history for a presidential candidate. The “joke”, the increased babbling, no focus rallies were a gift. And I think the Taylor Swift endorsement mattered more than people think, anyone who voted because of Taylor Swift voted for Harris. A much more valuable endorsement than Elon Musk.

  27. Gavin says:

    @Scott F.:

    Trumpism flames out due to a popular revolt against Project 2025 being shoved down the country’s throat

    It’s important to understand that the issue is with all Republican policies – not just Trump. Project 2025 is the same platform no matter who the candidate is.
    This [project2025] is what they always have been, and it’s what they always will be. If it’s a shock to anyone, that person has not been paying attention.

    3
  28. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Andy: As I noted on another comment thread, I’m not sure that a decisive win shuts up the MAGAts, but I’d be happy if you are right about the virtues of a decisive win and the nation gets one that makes all parties go away to rejoice/sulk.

  29. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    This [project2025] is what they always have been, and it’s what they always will be. If it’s a shock to anyone, that person has not been paying attention.

    THIS!!!! QFT!

  30. just nutha says:

    Not 10 minutes ago, I finally did a check of the election results. I learned something:

    We teh peepul are nucking futs.

  31. Bill Jempty says:

    @Kylopod:

    The myth of the “hidden” Trump vote rears its head again.

    What about it being a myth?

  32. just nutha says:

    @Bill Jempty: Credit where credit is due. You called your shot and it looks like you’ve made it. Congratulations.

  33. Kylopod says:

    @Bill Jempty:

    What about it being a myth?

    Obviously, my prediction upthread was a total failure, and I will gladly eat crow about it.

    However, I stand by my statement that there was no “hidden” Trump vote. While votes are still being counted, it definitely looks like the polls were pretty accurate this time. Not the Selzer poll, and not every individual poll, but the averages. I expected Harris to outperform her polls. The fact that she didn’t, doesn’t prove there was a hidden Trump vote.