Harris Has a Slight Lead
The reset is real.
The replacement of the boring old man with the largely unknown younger woman has energized the Democratic electorate and completely changed the dynamic of the race. While I had been reluctant to read much into a handful of one-off polls, I agree with Ed Kilgore that “Kamala’s Gains Are Now a Trend, Not Just a Bounce.”
According to the FiveThirtyEight national polling averages, Harris is leading Trump by 1.4 percent (45.0 to 43.6 percent), with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at 5.6 percent. When Biden dropped out, he was trailing in the same averages by 3.2 percent. In a contest as static as the 2024 presidential race had been, that’s a big swing.
The trend lines in national polls are equally telling. YouGov/Economist tested Harris against Trump back on July 16, showing Trump leading by five percent (44 to 39 percent). Then on July 23, after Biden’s withdrawal, the same pollster had Trump leading Harris by three percent (44 to 41 percent). On July 30 YouGov/Economist showed Harris leading Trump by two percent (46 to 44 percent). Similarly, RMG Research showed Trump leading Harris by two points (48 to 46 percent) on July 23, with Harris leading Trump by five points (47 to 42 percent) on July 31.
Polls comparing the Harris-Trump matchup to the earlier Biden-Trump matchup mostly show the same pro-Democratic trend. On July 17, the Morning Consult tracking poll had Trump leading Biden by four points (46 percent to 42 percent). On July 24, the same poll had Harris leading Trump by a point (46 percent to 45 percent). On July 16, Reuters-Ipsos showed Trump ahead of Biden by two points (43 percent to 41 percent). On July 23, the same poll gave Harris a two-point lead (44 percent to 42 percent). On July 2, the New York Times–Siena showed Trump leading Biden by six points (49 percent to 43 percent). On July 24, that pollster showed Trump leading Harris by one point (48 percent to 47 percent). Similarly, on July 2 the Wall Street Journal had Trump leading Biden by six points (48 to 42 percent), and Harris by just two points 49 – 47 percent) on July 25. Both Times-Siena and WSJ showed Harris ahead by a point when non-major-party candidates were included.
Given that these are relatively small movements within the margin of sampling error, there’s no reason to get excited by a single poll. But we’re at the point where it’s a trend, not a blip.
While I’m more than a little skeptical of the post-Nate Silver FiveThirtyEight’s election projection model, which is mostly driven by non-polling factors, I have no reason to doubt the validity of their polling aggregate. And it shows this:
Again, not exactly a run-away but this was a race mired in quicksand for more than a year with the two old guys.
The granddaddy of aggregators, RealClearPolitics, still shows a slight Trump lead:
But this is mostly a function of a single outlier:
While Rasmussen definitely has a Republican lean, it’s true that they’re one of the few “Likely Voter” polls; most of the rest are “Registered Voter” polls. The two are likely related but, in my judgment, their likely voter screen is outdated. Given the demographic realignment of the parties, it’s not obvious to me that we should expect Republicans to turn out at a higher rate than Democrats anymore.
Regardless, the national dynamic has clearly changed. Harris is generating more enthusiasm among Democrats, Black voters, and young voters (obviously, there’s significant overlap in those demos). Additionally and relatedly, support for Robert Kennedy Jr. has diminished considerably.
Of course, we don’t have a national election for President. And, while it’s possible that the number of “swing” states has gone up slightly with the new matchup, most analysts are still focused on the handful of Rust Belt states that went for Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016, and Biden in 2020.
And there’s more good news there:
Battleground-state data has been slower to arrive, but what we have shows Harris improving on Biden’s performance quite consistently. A battery of Emerson–The Hill polls taken from July 22 to July 23 of five battleground states showed Wisconsin tied at 47 percent and Trump leading Harris by five points (49 percent to 44 percent) in Arizona; two points (48 percent to 46 percent) in Georgia; one point (46 percent to 45 percent) in Michigan; and two points (48 percent to 46 percent) in Pennsylvania. What’s more significant are the trend lines since the last polls from Emerson in mid-July, testing Biden against Trump.
Most recently, and perhaps impressively, Bloomberg/Morning Consult has released a new batch of seven battleground state polls taken from July 24-28. Overall, they showed Harris leading Trump by one percent (48 to 47 percent), as compared to a two-point Trump lead over Biden in early July. The individual state gains by Harris were also striking: she led by two percent (49 to 47 percent) in Arizona, a real problem state for Biden; by two percent (47 to 45 percent) in Nevada; by two percent (49 to 47 percent) in Wisconsin; and by an astonishing 11 percent (53 to 42 percent) in Michigan. Harris was tied with Trump in Georgia at 47 percent, and trailed him by two percent (46 to 48 percent) in North Carolina and by four percent (46 to 50 percent) in Pennsylvania.
Three battleground states have enough post-Biden-Harris-switch polling now for FiveThirtyEight to compile averages, and all of them show very close races. In Georgia, Trump leads by 1.1 percent (45.9 to 44.8 percent), but Harris leads in Michigan by 1.8 percent (44.8 to 43.1 percent) and most surprisingly, in Pennsylvania by 0.4 percent (45.1 to 44.6 percent).
I’m a little more leery of making judgments on state-level polling, just given their relative scarcity and inherent sampling problems. But, again, the effects seem to be similar to the national dynamic.
The “double hater” phenomenon is gone, replaced by . . . I don’t know, exactly. Harris is a relative unknown. Thus far, though, she’s bringing an energy and joy to the campaign trail and has turned the tables on Trump with name-calling and jeering but in a way that’s less mean-spirited.
Trump’s seven-plus years of campaigning against “Sleepy Joe” is all for naught and there isn’t yet an obvious backup plan aside from racist appeals. But the demographic they appeal to was already in his camp.
Oh, don’t sell them short, they also have misogyny.
James wrote:
On that note, someone on twitter pointed out that RCP is currently not including Scott Rasmussen’s new firm RMG Research for some reason. The difference in current polling between Rasmussen and RMG Research is a notable 10-point swing in favor of Harris.
Also it really must suck to lose control of your name and have people assume you are still with an organization that you left a decade ago (and has swung much further to the right in the intervening time).
Worse still, the demographic Trump needs to stay home (including Youth, Black, and most other minority voters) are motivated to vote against him because of that rhetoric.
I am not surprised that Harris is doing better than Biden, but I am pleasantly surprised by the degree. The money, but even more the volunteers. She has excited a Democratic fervor that Biden could not. Still, she may lose, and the fact that despite this amazing outpouring of support she may yet lose, IMHO, lays to rest the notion that Biden could have done as well. We were highly likely to lose, and now we are even. Even, but with movement in our direction.
I expected and called for a shift in the narrative, but I’ve been again pleasantly surprised at how quickly it fell into place. Trump seems baffled. Harris is outperforming. Trump’s age and mental acuity are coming more into focus as issues. In his panic he’s gone straight to the racism and sexism. The choice of JD Vance has been a bonus, killing Trump’s ability to hold the spotlight.
All good, so far. Fingers crossed.
To those who have contacted me to ask if I”m okay because I haven’t posted in a while, thank you. Yes. I’m good. Really. All is good in Ed Land.
I made a decision several weeks ago to wean myself off of most of my political intake – severely cutting back on on my political content intake from Sirrius/XM, YouTube, cable news, and blogs. Instead, I’ve gone back to reading novels (finished several novels already, along with MR’s entire “Gone” series. Recommend it.), listening to music, (have picked up several new artists to add to my playlists), and ignoring most political content.
In essence, I’ve become a low-information voter. I’ve been so successful that I had no idea Biden had given an address to the nation about his dropping out until a full day later. It’s been amazing to learn how little political information you can pick up if you’re not actively seeking it out. I don’t watch over the air TV, I don’t listen to talk radio, I stopped watching cable news, and stopped reading most political blogs. I still check in with OTB every couple of days, if not daily. I do miss the community of OTB.
But this little thought experiment has taught me how little most Americans know about politics. If you’re just leading a normal life – not plugged into the MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, Politico, Axios, The Hill, Bloomberg matrix – it’s very easy to be clueless. It’s been shocking to me to learn how easy it is to “not be informed.”
So going forward, I’ll continue to lurk on OTB, and maybe, maybe, occasionally comment. But for the most part, I’m going to continue this new plan. Simply put, I’m happier. I’m less stressed. I have a great life. I’m 64 years old. No kids. A great wife. A house in LA, paid off. A house in Ecuador, paid off. Why do I want the latest outrage of DJT, or MTG, or JD Vance to ruin my day? Fuck them. I’m gonna enjoy my job, my wife, my dogs, spend time with my 89 year old mother.
To my OTB family, thank you for many, many, many good years of engagement. Thank you for letting me be part of your lives. It’s been an honor and privilege. I thank the late Doug Mataconis for introducing me to OTB many many many years ago. I wish you all nothing but the best, especially Drs. Joyner and Taylor, Matt, and Kingdaddy, for their hard work in keeping this community alive and thriving.
Harris/Shapiro 2024!
Peace out.
Just before President Biden ended his campaign I wrote that:
…Democrats dropping President Biden and fielding a unity candidate that can get on all 50 state ballots and DC and conduct a winning campaign in the next 15 weeks.
was an unlikely scenario.
While I always maintain that I can not predict the future and I do not know who will be sworn in as President USA in January of 2025 I hereby retract the above statement.
@EddIeInCA:..Harris/Shapiro 2024!
I value your posts Eddie and it would be selfish of me to ask that you continue.
Spend time with your mom. I was fortunate to spend time with my mom before she died in 2008 at 88. She was home until she went to the hospital the day before she died.
Harris/Shapiro 2024!
So what do you know that we don’t?
Trump’s entire schtick is “I alone can fix it.” That position is greatly undermined if he continues to lose ground to Harris and he fails to right the ship with his campaign. Such a dynamic has death spiral potential – Trump only knows how to double down on his controversies which might work when you’re winning, but makes changing direction next to impossible.
As an added bonus, the Trump in Disarray story will be both easy to tell and dramatic to view, so it will fit nicely into our media’s biases. The headline on CNN this morning is “How two topsy-turvy weeks upended Trump’s 2024 campaign” and they’re just getting started. They were bored with Trump’s in Command narrative and now they’ve got juicy material for clicks, column inches, and airtime.
Harris will surely have bad weeks in between now and Election Day and the trend lines will shift more than once. But it seems clear to me that in this moment Trump is very nearly at his ceiling and Harris not much above her floor.
@EddIeInCA:
I was one of those wondering about you. Glad you’re well and happy; sad you won’t be commenting much at OTB.
@EddIeInCA:
How dare you try to be happy! I’ve reduced my own exposure, especially to MSNBC, somewhat to my wife’s annoyance and yeah, it actually does make me happier. Or at least less furious.
(Good book recommendations, BTW. That Michael Grant guy is a genius.)
@Mister Bluster:
It was an unlikely scenario.
My big concern was that everyone and their pet turtle would go off in different directions, each with their preferred version of Unbeatable Democrat 1.0, and we’d still be fighting over it by the time the convention rolled around. And that by the time a candidate were settled on, they’d find it hard or impossible to be on some state ballots.
My other concern was Biden would not drop out, but half the politicos on the party would keep calling for him to do so, right down to election day.
Either of the above would have been disastrous.
Every now and then the unlikely does happen, and one is pleasantly surprised.
@Matt Bernius:
Indeed. The same is true to a lesser extent of the FiveThirtyEight brand, which Nate Silver sold to Disney and, unlike the other IP, couldn’t take with him when they fired him. Most people will assume their aggregator is based on his longstanding model but it’s entirely different.
@Mister Bluster: In your defense, it was an unlikely scenario. It is absolutely astounding that the Dems and Biden a) made it happen, b) got every significant voice in the party to get enthusiastically behind it, c) did a and b in an extremely short amount of time, and d) the Democratic Base has fairly erupted in joy over the change. “Unlikely” doesn’t do it justice. Books will be written about this. Movies. TV shows. God help us all, the inevitable fan fiction…
Some weeks ago I commented that in the last few cycles I saw estimates that the D needed an X% lead in the popular vote to overcome the small R state advantage in the EC, but I hadn’t seen anything for this cycle. Of late I’ve seen 2%, IIRC smaller than previous cycles. Harris isn’t up 2 yet, and 538 and Silver forecasts show an R lean, so 2% seems credible. Anybody seen any other estimate?
I like that the trend is positive and that Trump seems to still be flailing. But, momentum is mass times velocity. Harris gained x% in the last month is an analog to velocity, but I see no political analog to mass. A political trend can end anytime. There are lags in polling, but nobody seems to talk much about what they are, and they also could end anytime. I will be scared unless and until swing state polls swing to Harris. And the economy holds up through third quarter.
@MarkedMan: D unity, while good to see, is, I think, more a testament to circumstances and to the fact Ds are sincere when they say Trump is an existential threat. An overused phrase, but valid in this context.
@EddIeInCA: You’ll definitely be missed. Happy lurking, and post when the spirit moves you. I’m not the type of political junkie the faithful are and am more bemused than distraught by the climate of the country. It comes with realizing that the nation will never be what I’d prefer–or even close enough to wave at it on the horizon.
@Michael Reynolds:
Had the Democrats not decided to tear Biden to pieces and destroy his viability, he may well have won. It is at least an unprovable counterfactual.
Which means that if Harris wins, I can be happy to be wrong. And if Harris loses I can blame all you people. Much like a win-win, if you value spitefully saying “I told you so” high enough.
And people say that I’m not an optimist.
@Gustopher: You’re worse; you’re a realist.
@just nutha: ETA: And snarky as well. 😉
@EddIeInCA: you will definitely be missed! Not least for your spot-on accurate predictions.
Enjoy life with your wife, dogs, and mom! I wish you all the best.
@Gustopher:
No one tore Biden down. Biden tore himself down when he gaped blankly and could not manage a response to an accusation of baby murder. We saw what we saw. Some preferred to un-see it and grew furious at people who would not join them in admiring the emperor’s new clothes.
The last female candidate Trump faced had an 11 point lead with polls showing up to a 5 point lead released in the days prior to the election..
Just a reality check here.
@Matt:
Hillary did win the popular vote by three million votes, a 2% edge. Just votes in the wrong places. But we should absolutely not relax. I’ll believe it on inauguration day.
@Michael Reynolds: It’s going to come down to 100k votes here and 20k votes there… The democratic party probably needs at least a 3% edge to have a hope of covering those handful of counties that will decide this election.
@Michael Reynolds: No, you did decide to tear him down—“Fuck Joe Biden” sound familiar? For the simple reason that you, and others like you value the performative aspects of the job more than the skill and substance the job actually requires.
In this way, you(they) aren’t really much different than MAGA, who value Trump and others SOLELY because they say things to and about Democrats they themselves wish they could say.
This is the sickness of the current voting electorate and Democrats missed an opportunity to chart a different course in Politics—a two-term boring non-performative POTUS would have sent a signal to the political class that the duties of the job are more valued than talk show and debate performances. Performances which, as you heard from Eddie, normal people aren’t cognizant of anyway.
The only change has been in the minds of the weirdos that like this kind of subject matter. Dems were told to expect 4 inches of rain next week but now the forecast shifted to partly cloudy—so they are elated. It’s not next week yet though—Lolololol
At any rate nothing has actually changed. More Democrats and D-leanings will show up at the polls in than Rs and R-leanings. Donald Trump, Maga, and SCOTUS have shown an unmatched ability to boost D turnout and there is no reason to believe that would change this cycle.
This isn’t really a commentary on keeping Biden as it is the psychology of the herd instinct and people’s ability to match their valuations to their desires. If we value politicians that do the job well, we have to stop pushing them out of the way for the ones who make our legs tingle and not much else.
@Matt: Trump’s investing a lot less energy and money in GOTV, instead focusing on accusing Democrats of cheating and developing strategies for contesting votes wherever they can. Unfortunately, I think it will take a 5%+ margin to avoid the post-election chaos Trump is preparing for. Sadly, I don’t see that kind of margin in the cards.
@EddIeInCA: Your insights will be missed! I do understand though. I had to take a similar news detox break a few years ago, due to crazy high blood pressure numbers.
On the race: it will be won or lost on very small margins. The impact of Trump’s gutting the coffers of the RNC, or the numbers of suburban white women who actually believed that Roe was “settled law” and therefore they could vote for Trump and who realize they were lied to, or the numbers of younger voters…any or all could make a difference.
@Jim Brown 32:
Yes, and I thought it was obvious it was an expression of pique. Evidently not, so I explained it. It was not meant to suggest I wouldn’t vote for him. But I thought it’d be better if we swapped him out for Kamala. And I was right.
It is IMO, absurd to suggest that nothing has changed. You do not get the same level of turnout on fear alone as you get on a combination of fear and hope. The percentage of Black voters who said they’d definitely turn out jumped significantly. The Trump camp is in disarray, they were knocked sideways by the change and have not yet adapted.
There is absolutely no objective evidence that Biden would have done as well. Polls certainly support my position, as do volunteer sign-ups and donations. You were just wrong, it’s not the end of the world, I am frequently wrong.
I tried in several comments to talk people down who were throwing around accusations of betrayal and backstabbing. This bitterness is inappropriate and unhelpful, part of a lib/prog attraction to heretic hunting. No one was betrayed, no one was stabbed in the back, no one was a coward running for cover, some of us just had a different analysis and it turned out we were right.
Apparently we do not have comment editing at the moment, but ETA: Pushing Biden aside was also good for Biden. He was likely to go down in history as an old man who didn’t know when to step back and as a result handed the country to Trump. Now he goes into history as a self-sacrificing man strong enough to walk away from power. He’s doing what Washington did, to his great credit. I believe Biden is the best president in my lifetime, but I admire him even more now.
One other tangential point. Americans have a fucked-up attitude toward aging. We deny it. We worship youth and insist that old people are just as fit and spry as the young. Active seniors forever playing pickleball and riding bikes.
Age is real, it is not ‘just a number’, and it is not, ‘just a state of mind.’ Someone in comments asked me if I thought I was suffering effects of age, and I believe I shocked them by saying that of course I am. I’m 70 years old, FFS. My reflexes are slower. I am physically weaker and have less stamina. Sleep is a hit or miss proposition and if not for melatonin and weed I might be awake 24/7. My eyesight’s not as good – I had to have an operation. I spend a great deal more time with the porcelain receptacle than I used to. And the thing is, none of these things are temporary, they are not going to improve. The very best I can do is delay the inevitable a bit. Maybe.
Death is coming. Barring a miracle I won’t be alive in 20 years. More likely I’ll be ashes by age 80 given my lifestyle. Make peace with death, because it’s coming for you and me and everyone we care about. Get over it.
I thought Biden could win even after the debate but I did not anticipate the media harpooning on his age EVERY SINGLE DAY. It was becoming the e-mails all over again and there was no way he would prevail in that environment. Now, I want to see the media, in the interest of fairness, to focus on Trump’s age, since he is obviously showing signs of slowing down.
“Now he goes into history as a self-sacrificing man strong enough to walk away from power”
LOL. Same dude. A couple weeks apart. Now he’s GW. It’s called an Obama assassination, and inability to think critically. Or maybe it’s his new vitamins.
So media and the party have engaged in total revisionist history. And knee pads have been donned. Ironic.
Anyway. This will fade. Anyone see the clip of Harris on inflation?
God help us.
@EddIeInCA: Thanks for checking in, I had always appreciated your posts and was interested in your experiences. I’m happy you’ve found a way to be happy and will still vote for the non-lunatics!
I have lamented in the past few days that I had intended to avoid caring about every stupid thing Trump said during this election but have failed. So I’m envious of your commitment to a similar goal, enjoy your mother and wife and friends!
Welcome back, everybody. Steve, James, Matt – thank you for your work!
@Michael Reynolds: No one cares that you were feeling “piqued” at the time. Literally. No one. You said it. OWN IT.
@Jack: Put down the bong, Jack. You’ve clearly smoked enough.
What’s disturbing me is that Harris ONLY has a slight lead despite JD Vance’s saying all kinds of stupid/evil shit. The sofa memes are pretty hilarious though.
Just got polled on my landline at 6 pm on a Sunday evening. I would have sworn that I was talking to an AI. Every time I answered a question I got a friendly “ok”, then the next question. Sounded artificial. At the end I asked if I was speaking to a real person. She convinced me that I was mistaken.
There were a few questions about the presidential elections but it was mostly about Val Hoyle, my US rep. The poll must have been commissioned by her opponent. Lots of questions like did you know that she took money from marijuana producers, would that make you more likely to vote for her or less likely? I just answered more likely every time.
When I was asked what I thought the most pressing issue I answered “fighting athoratarianism.
@Scott O:
That seems awfully close to a push poll question.
@Matt: I think it was the opposition trying out ideas for ads. The questions were preceded by statements like “some people are saying that in 2016 Val Hoyle fucked a goat”*. Followed by “knowing this, would you be more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or less likely to vote for her”?
.
*exaggeration. It was mostly implying corruption.
@EddIeInCA: I get it! Be well!!
@EddIeInCA:
That should be something of a lesson to all political junkies and activists, how completely unusual their world is. Despite intellectual awareness amongst
(for myself after the Biden debate, I shut off all my USA political news, quite comforting to not think about for a month, having enough of my own geographies and business to follow)
@Michael Reynolds: You are spot on here. While myself I made some snide pro-Biden remarks to the Biden worriers [if I may lump unfairy] from a perspective of being rather fearful any replacement action would set off Democratic infighting and only serve to lock-in Trump (a global disaster, not merely one for you all)… the debate showed that the worriers were spot on.
It was a spot of fortune that Biden handled this as he did – earlier withdrawal whether not running or earlier in primary process I rather think would have opened up the potential for Democrats fighting, later of course too late – and the hand-off manner was excellently done. I do not think he pre-planned (Biden that is), I do think he really did want to soldier on, but eventually realised that had become personal ego and not good generalship. However once decided, I do think last minute (properly last days) he handled with his usual political adroitness.
One should hope that he stays engaged, while obviously not fit to campaign for the modern political campaign -any honest eval with clear eyes sees that – the man equally clearly has a sharp political mind.
@Raoul: After that debate if you did not anticipate non-Co-partisans harping about Biden’s abilities, you were engaging in self-delusion. No person not in the hard-core partisan camp woulld come away from such debate and not know that. I write this as someone who was and is quite favourable to Biden and even up to that debate feeling the Biden questioning was misplaced and had rather large dollops of age-prejudice and typical Lefty youth-worship. But it was not (in relationship to the political campaigning quite the separate subject from his competence as President, not to be confounded).
@Matt: While it is Democrats mantra that Madame Clinton lost due to misogyny and dirty tricks, the reality from outside of the Party Partisans lens is that she was never a good public campaigner, had deep general public negatives -not supferficial impressions as Madame Harris- and really did not have a good public persona for the US presidential campaigning. She was and is likable to you lot, but not broadly. She was a fundamentally bad candidate with bad political campaigning instincts – a person outside of her natural political competence (as an eminence grise, a Richeliue or du Tremblay – where she was masterful). A casting error. Rather than use the crutch explanation of misognyny as The Reason, it would be far better to learn real lessons, of which,
1. your Presidential is not a true National contest, and you should care and focus only on the Swing States in play within polling reaches, bugger the rest, and focus your political pitches on the specific demographics with Free Float of those States; and,
2ndly you need to have a campaigner with panache and zest capable of appeal or at least not turning off said Swing State Free Floaters.
It seems although to be prudent, stress to seems, that Madame Harris may do that, hopefully not however getting sucked into the mirage of Lefty youth-fetishisation.