We are having some software problems. Expect strange stuff for a little bit. Sorry.

Before We Begin...

Today is a big day, to say the least. It's also a very strange day, because while we are just days or hours from something very momentous, nobody can know what things will look like when we come out on the other side. What will this weekend bring? President-elect Harris? President-(re-)elect Trump? Outcome unknown? Rioting in the streets? Calm, and observations that it was all "much ado about nothing"? Just about anything is possible.

We will, of course, be here with liveblogging, starting around 7:00 p.m. EST today. If you would like to join the Electoral-Vote.com slack channel, hosted by reader B.J. in Arlington, MA, the link you need is here. We will not be participating or monitoring, primarily because we don't want participants to feel constrained. If we're dunderheads who can't tell a politician from a potatoe, you should be able to write that freely. However, we WILL be monitoring comments@electoral-vote.com, and we will be running some reader messages as part of our liveblogging. We are particularly interested, of course, in "on the scene" reports from folks who are in swingy states/districts or who are helping run the election. We will probably also answer some questions, as we'll also be monitoring questions@electoral-vote.com.

Here is when the polls close across the nation (states with multiple closing times are listed under their earliest time):

Time (EST)	Polls close in
6:00 p.m.	Indiana, Kentucky
7:00 p.m.	Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia
7:30 p.m.	North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia
8:00 p.m.	Alabama, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas
8:30 p.m.	Arkansas
9:00 p.m.	Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Wisconsin, Wyoming
10:00 p.m.	Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah
11:00 p.m.	California, Washington
12:00 a.m.	Alaska, Hawaii

The swing states are in bold. Maine and Nebraska are on the list due to the one electoral vote in ME-02 and the one in NE-02. Could there be surprises? It is possible that due to weather some polls might stay open longer than normal. And there could be delays in Western North Carolina on account of the hurricane damage, but other than that, this is the schedule.

Speaking of the weather, it is largely going to be good today. Zooming in a bit:

Arizona: Phoenix will be 72 and sunny
Arizona: Tucson will be 68 and sunny
Nevada: Las Vegas will be 68 and partly cloudy
Nevada: Reno will be 52 and partly cloudy
Georgia: Atlanta will be 75 and partly cloudy
Georgia: Savannah will be 72 and cloudy
North Carolina: Charlotte will be 73 and cloudy
North Carolina: Raleigh will be 77 and partly cloudy
Michigan: Detroit will be 74 and partly cloudy
Michigan: Grand Rapids will be 67 and rain
Wisconsin: Madison will be 63 and rain
Wisconsin: Milwaukee will be 64 and rain
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia will be 73 and sunny
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh will be 80 and partly cloudy

And that's the story as Election Day 2024 dawns. Buckle up, because it's going to be a bumpy ride. (Z)

One Last Look: The Election News

We have too much content, and there is too much late news, for us to write up full items. Instead, here are capsules on the big news stories from the final day (or two, or three) of the campaign:

• Live From New York, It's Saturday Night! (Part I): We intended to write this up yesterday, but Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live this week. You can watch it here, if you haven't already seen it:
  
  
  
  It was set up so there was a "big reveal" (about 6 minutes in), and during her roughly 2 minutes of screen time, Harris was very good. Not too many politicians can be that natural on camera, but she's up there with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and St. Ronnie of Reagan.
  
  We see no plausible way this could hurt Harris, but could it help her? Maybe. Showing the (young-skewing) audience that she's a good sport might win over a few voters. More likely, however, is that her appearance could serve to remind the (young-skewing) audience that it's time to vote or get off the pot.
  
  
• Live From New York, It's Saturday Night! (Part II): FEC Commissioner Brendan Carr (a Republican appointee) is all over eX-Twitter, carping that Harris' SNL appearance was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule." Many Republican politicians, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), joined in.
  
  We'll point out a few things about these complaints. First, if the FEC had any power to do something about this, the Commissioner would be doing it, instead of whining on eX-Twitter. Second, NBC did give Donald Trump equal time, during the football games on Sunday, allowing him to record a message for broadcast. Third, while Carr and Rubio imply that somehow Harris has done something wrong, it's not her job to manage NBC's broadcast schedule. If an infraction was committed, it's 100% on NBC. Fourth, and finally, there is much leeway in the rules when the lines between "news" and "entertainment" are blurred. For example, The Howard Stern Show had a permanent FCC waiver back when it was aired on public airwaves, because while Stern interviews politicians on a regular basis, he does so as an entertainer. If this were to go to court, which it won't, NBC's lawyers would undoubtedly make an argument along those lines, and would likely win.
  
  
• The Light...: Kamala Harris decided that what people really want is hope, so she decided to make her closing message 100% positivity, and to omit all mentions of Trump.
  
  
• ...and the Darkness: On the other hand, the Ann Selzer Iowa poll was a "gut punch" for the Trump campaign, and the candidate decided he needed to turn up the volume on the sturm and drang. So, he has spent the final couple of days channeling his inner fascist, repeatedly describing the Democrats as "the most sinister and corrupt forces on Earth."
  
  
• Saying the Crazy Part Out Loud (Part I): The Democrats would like you to remember that if you elect Donald Trump, you risk putting a wannabe dictator in office. And Trump, as part of his ever-more-dark turn, delivered the goods, ruminating yesterday that he "shouldn't have left" the White House when his term was up. Curious closing message.
  
  
• Saying the Crazy Part Out Loud (Part II): The Democrats would also like you to remember that if you elect Donald Trump, you risk putting crazies in charge of the various federal departments. And Robert F. Kennedy, who wants desperately to help pull Trump over the finish line, announced that one of the first things Trump would do on re-entering the White House would be to order the removal of fluoride from the nation's water supplies, because RFK Jr. believes it causes cancer, and impotence, and broken bones, and all kinds of other things. This not only ignores the science, which is an RFK calling card, but it also re-litigates the culture wars of... the 1950s. Time to join us in the 21st century, Bobby Jr. We actually believe that Trump is gaslighting Kennedy, and would never give a meaningful job to someone with such loose lips. That does not mean that Trump would not appoint other crazies, though.
  
  
• The Least Surprising News of the Day: A Trump campaign staffer was fired yesterday after reporters discovered that he's a leading white supremacist.
  
  
• ...And Speaking of White Supremacists: Nick Fuentes, who is probably the best-known white supremacist in the country, outside of David Duke, turned against Trump yesterday, because he (Fuentes) says he just realized that Trumpism is a cult. Boy, nothing gets past him.
  
  
• You Win Some...: Elon Musk won dismissal of the emergency motion that had been filed against him in Pennsylvania, over the $1 million giveaways he's been doing. In short, Team Elon argued that the giveaways aren't really a lottery because the winners were predetermined, and the stunt only gave the appearance of looking like anyone who participated had a chance. We don't know if that's true, or if Musk just said it to win. All we know is that he's either duplicitous or a liar, which are pretty close to the same thing.
  
  
• ...And You Lose Some: Musk's disastrous ground-game efforts are also... kind of cruel, as it turns out. Yesterday, it was reported that workers in Michigan dared talk to a reporter about their difficult working conditions, including being transported in a U-Haul van without seats. The workers, many of them Black, were summarily fired, and in some cases were not paid and were left stranded wherever they happened to be working when the termination order came down.
  
  
• A Late Endorsement: Joe Rogan has stopped pretending to be politically neutral, and has officially endorsed Donald Trump. Here is Rogan's explanation: "The great and powerful @elonmusk. If it wasn't for him we'd be fu**ed. He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you'll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way."
  
  It is a very special kind of person who takes their cues from Elon Musk. It is an even more special kind of person who believes that Musk is somehow singlehandedly saving the country or the world from being "fu**ed." Wethinks that may just be the words of a guy who depends heavily on eX-Twitter to promote his podcast.
  
  We really don't understand why people wait until nearly 80 million ballots have been cast to give their endorsements. In any case, between that and the fact that Rogan's audience is overwhelmingly made up of bros, we doubt his endorsement will matter much.
  
  
• The Yin to Rogan's Yang: The New York Times, which has the good fortune to not be owned by Jeff Bezos, posted this brief statement to its website:

  You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump's corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It's his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he's re-elected, the G.O.P. won't restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote.

  It's succinct and compelling, though we tend to doubt that the Times' readership includes all that many people who are persuadable and aren't already voting for Kamala Harris.
  
  
• It's a Tie!: Renewing a custom that dates back to 1960, the residents of Dixville Notch cast their ballots a little after midnight last night. Four Republicans and two independents, all of whom are senior citizens, all of whom cast their primary ballots for Nikki Haley, split their votes evenly between Harris and Trump. Read into that what you will.
  
  
• Nevada: Jon Ralston, who has his finger on the pulse of Nevada politics in a manner similar to Ann Selzer and Iowa (though Ralston is not a pollster), announced yesterday that he thinks Harris will win the state.

And that's the way it is. (Z)

One Last Look: The Early Voting

We intended to write weekly items on early voting, as soon as the window opened in various states, and Michael McDonald began updating his excellent site.

We didn't do it, however, because we ultimately realized... there's very little way to know what the early voting numbers mean. Early voting was fairly uncommon up through the second Obama election, and largely involved groups who do not particularly reflect the broader electorate (elderly, disabled, residents of a few pretty blue states, etc.). There was a pretty big uptick in early voting in 2016 (approximately 46 million early ballots cast), and then a giant uptick in 2020, thanks to the pandemic (approximately 101 million early votes cast). With an effective sample size of only two elections, and one of those an extremely unusual election, there isn't much basis for assessing what early voting numbers really tell us.

That said, now that early voting is over, and most of the numbers are in, we'll run down the most important trendlines that have presented themselves:

• Lotsa Ballots: At the moment, just shy of 80 million early votes have been reported. Undoubtedly, there are some number from Monday that have yet to be announced. So, early voting this year figures to lag a bit behind the pandemic year, but not by too much.
  
  
• Republicans are Up...: As far as we know, Donald Trump is still officially opposed to early voting. However, he seems to have largely shut his yap on that subject, while the RNC has openly encouraged early voting. On top of that, withholding early votes is clearly stupid, and can only cause Republicans to lose out on voting if something goes wrong on Election Day. For all of these reasons, Republican early voting is up as compared to 2020; they made up 30% of the early vote back then, and they are around 36% of the vote now.
  
  Whether that is meaningful is another matter. It could be that by stopping the Democrats from building a big lead before Election Day, Republicans will flip some states they lost in 2020. On the other hand, those Republican voters might not be all that Republican. A big chunk of them could be Republican women who are trying to get votes cast without their husbands seeing them. Further, it could be, and probably is, the case that Democratic early voters in 2020 were particularly concerned about COVID, and are not worrying about that now, and so don't mind going to the polls in person.
  
  The only thing we are reasonably sure of is that a "red mirage" is a little less likely this year, as the day-of ballots won't be as far out of alignment with the early ballots as was the case 4 years ago.
  
  
• ...And So Are Women: In 2020, the early-voting "gender gap" was around 8 points. This year it is 10 points (with more women than men voting in both cases). Given the salience of the abortion issue, and the fact that women skew more Democratic than men do, this likely favors Kamala Harris.
  
  
• Republicans Like What They See in Nevada: The Republicans did particularly well in Nevada in early voting, banking 50,000 more ballots than the Democrats did. Not all Republicans actually vote Republican, but if most of them do/did, then that's a tough hill for Harris to climb.
  
  
• Democrats Like What They See in Pennsylvania...: It's a small-ish data point, but potentially an important one: The number of Republican senior citizens voting in Pennsylvania is down, as compared to past elections. To be more specific, Pennsylvania seniors are roughly equally divided between the two parties, but in early voting, the Democrats are getting 58% of the senior vote as compared to 35% for the Republicans. If that trend continues, it's bad news for the GOP.
  
  Also, the gender gap in Pennsylvania is larger than the national average, checking in at 13 points (56% women voters, 43% men).
  
  
• ...And Georgia: Kamala Harris' polling in the Sun Belt isn't great, and Georgia is her weakest state of the seven swing states, but early voting is through the roof there. The Peach State might end up having more early votes than in 2020, which would make it an anomaly. And a big part of what's powering the early voting is record early turnout among Black voters. Undoubtedly, those votes will skew heavily for Harris, as more than 80% of Black Georgians are Democrats.

We could write more, but these are certainly the most notable trendlines. And again, given the lack of meaningful context, nobody really knows what it all means. (Z)

Expert Predictions

You can see above what our method says about the outcome in each of the 50 states and in D.C., along with the overall result. However, let's do a quick review of how other psephologists have it on the last day of the cycle. We'll focus on the 10 swingiest states in our tipping point chart. These are listed from most blue to most red:

State	Nate Silver	538	270toWin	The Hill	RealClearPolitics	The Economist	Sabato	Cook
Wisconsin	Harris	Harris	Toss-Up	Trump	Harris	Harris	Harris	Toss-Up
Michigan	Harris	Harris	Toss-Up	Harris	Harris	Harris	Harris	Toss-Up
Pennsylvania	Toss-Up	Toss-Up	Toss-Up	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up	Harris	Toss-Up
Nevada	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up	Trump	Trump	Trump	Harris	Toss-Up
North Carolina	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up
Georgia	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up	Toss-Up	Trump	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up
Arizona	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Toss-Up
Iowa	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump
Texas	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump
Florida	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump	Trump
EV Tally	Trump 268, Harris 251 (19)	Trump 268, Harris 251 (19)	Trump 230, Harris 226 (82)	Trump 281, Harris 241 (16)	Trump 287, Harris 251	Trump 268, Harris 251 (19)	Harris 276, Trump 262	Harris 228, Trump 219 (93)

The number in parentheses in the final row is toss-up EVs, from those sources that did not predict every state.

This certainly looks a lot better for Trump than when we did the same exercise 4 years ago. That said, a lot of the projections are based on tiny margins (for example, the Hill gives Trump the nod in Wisconsin by 0.3%, 48.7% to 48.4%). And nearly all of the projections are based on margins within the standard margin of error (generally 3%-4%).

Meanwhile, there is the very real possibility the polls are out of whack this year. The first six columns are all folks who aggregate polls (as we do). If the input is not good, the output is not going to be good. Put another way, garbage in, garbage out (and despite what Tony Hinchcliffe thinks, it is not going to Puerto Rico). On the other hand, the two gut-feel columns (Cook and Sabato) have Harris ahead. We will soon learn which approach is the better one, it would seem. (Z)

Our Predictions

Speaking of numbers versus gut feel, our number-crunching is at the top of the page for all to see, and has been all cycle long. We are obviously at odds with all the other number-crunching aggregators, since we have Kamala Harris ahead of Donald Trump. Maybe they are out to lunch. Maybe we are.

What we CAN say is that our method is neither secret nor opaque. We include pollsters who are, in our judgment, good-quality pollsters, and we average their numbers, giving most or all of the weight to the last week's worth of polling. You can tell which pollsters we use, because we list them when we report their results. Despite all of this, we have been getting e-mails like these on a daily basis:

I have been visiting your website for many years and used to consider it pretty enjoyable. But this year you have lost me. Including some of the absurd right-wing polls in your map is just more than I can take. Some of them have even admitted to skewing things towards Trump in ways that make no sense. For example, some of these polls claim Republicans are a far greater percentage of the electorate than they have ever been. Some of them also show Trump getting 15-35% of the black vote. Really? How can you take them seriously at all? In 1964, Goldwater received 7% of the Black vote. Since then, the best they have done is 8%. When Trump is clearly a racist and his opponent is Black those numbers are clearly made up. I live in a very red area and travel frequently in other red states. There is very little enthusiasm anywhere for Trump. The number of signs, flags, etc. are way down and Harris signs are everywhere. When the election is over, I think your current chart will be pretty far from reality.

---

I've been a visitor to your site for many years. I remember when you announced that you were part of the "Americans Abroad" group. You were very objective at that time. Since then your site has taken a lot of left turns. This may be my final year visiting your site. It all depends how accurate your Electoral College map turns out to be. Good Luck!

---

You're using junk polls. Your website is now officially full of sh**.

At very least, these (many) correspondents don't seem to be aware that we don't include polls from partisan polling firms (unless they are working with a partisan firm from the other side), and we certainly don't include junk polls. Beyond that, however, we're not sure what these individuals are expecting us to do. If we start picking and choosing polls based on what we think the result should be, or based on which ones agree with our "gut feel," then we're no longer aggregating. We're just doing a version of what Cook and Sabato do, which is a very different thing.

And with things as close as they are, you can make good arguments in either direction. Consider this analysis of North Carolina, by reader H.W. in Cary, NC (who has a Ph.D. in statistics):

Well sports fans, it's game-on in North Carolina, which has evolved into a quintessential purple state. The two sides have contrasting strategies, but both can marshal strong arguments.

Why Trump can win: The main reason is turnout. In the past five presidential races, conservative turnout has exceeded liberal turnout by a wide margin. The sole exception was in 2008, in the wake of a near-miraculous campaign by Barack Obama to register Democratic (especially Black) voters and motivate them to vote. In 2024 early voting, Republicans turned out 63% of their registered voters compared with 59% of Democrats. This edge could continue in the Election Day voting, vindicating Trump's cynical strategy of riling up disaffected White (and some Black) males, especially younger ones, and eking out a close victory.

Why Harris can win: The Republicans' small lead in early-voter turnout could well be a "red mirage" generated by Trump's newfound embrace of early voting. There are too few Republicans left to retain a substantial advantage in the final tally. More significantly, this presidential election is the first one following the Dobbs decision and January 6th, coupled with Trump's increasingly repugnant and misogynistic speech and behavior. So, not surprisingly, there exists a well-documented "gender gap" of 10% or more. That is, Harris may be favored by females 55% to 45% (or more), and Trump favored by males, possibly with an equal margin. However, these would not counterbalance because there are many more female voters; among early voters, 55.6% were women, exceeding their 54% share of all registered voters in the Tar Heel State. Based on these early results, we can calculate that Harris is probably already leading and will be able to hang on in a photo finish.

Predicted final score: Harris 51%, Trump 49%

Thanks, H.W.!

Doing what H.W. did right there is rather harder than just aggregating, because it is very hard to filter out biases, wishful thinking, etc. This said, neither one of us has particular confidence in the polls this year, which is why we commenced the series on issues/concerns with polling. And, truth be told, we would have written about five more items in that series, but we ran out of time. There are a lot of facts on the ground that are very difficult to reconcile with the polling. For example, what about Kamala Harris' much stronger ground game? What about Harris' (apparent) much greater enthusiasm, as indicated by raising over $1 billion, in particular? Are we really to believe that substantial numbers of Black and brown men moved in Trump's direction, after having voted for two Democrats (one of them a woman) in the past two cycles? How could Harris be doing substantially worse than Joe Biden, given the tail winds provided by the abortion issue?

For better or worse, this item is our fairly rare opportunity to reveal what our guts are telling us, as opposed to relying on what the polls are saying. And so, here goes:

The Presidency

• Votemaster: Eight states in the map have white centers—that is, are statistical ties—so anything is possible. Generally, most of the swing states go the same way. There have been multiple reports of: (1) women voting early in large numbers and (2) the late-breaking votes by independents favoring Kamala Harris. Then there was the "floating island of garbage," which is not going to go over well with the 600,000 Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania. Abortion is on the ballot in 10 states. Finally, Trump appears to be losing his mind the past week, which is not going to sit well with the Nikki Haley voters. All of these things lead me to guess that Harris will pull it off and she may even win the Blue Wall states with decent margins. If I had to pick a single number, I'd guess Harris will get 276 EVs and win. That's what today's map says, although I think Arizona may be more in play than the polls show due to Kari Lake and the abortion referendum. If Fox calls Arizona early again and it is for Harris, the show is over.
  
  
• Zenger: My sense, throughout the cycle, has been that Donald Trump is weaker in the Blue Wall states than the polls suggest. So, I think Harris will take Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I also think that Mark Robinson will be enough of a drag on the overall Republican ticket that the VP will take North Carolina. Georgia is probably lost, primarily because Brian Kemp (who wants to run for the Senate in 2 years) and Trump have made nice. There is probably enough ticket-splitting among conservative Latinos in Arizona, who will vote for a Latino Democrat (but not a non-Latino Democrat) that Trump will eke out a victory there. And Nevada will probably come along with Arizona for that ride. This translates to a 286-252 Electoral College win for Harris.

Congress

• Votemaster: As to the Senate, I think all the Democratic incumbents running for reelection will win. Incumbents win more than 90% of the time. While polls have Jon Tester (D-MT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) behind today, they have each won three Senate races in the past and I think they will eke out wins today. Tester is running against a carpetbagger from Minnesota and Brown is running against a wealthy Mercedes-Benz dealer who is trying to act like a man of the people. I think a 50-50 Senate is the most likely.
  
  I also think the Democrats will win most of the contested House seats in New York and California and narrowly capture the House.
  
  It is worth noting that I don't have a lot of confidence in these predictions. Anything from a giant red wave to a giant blue wave is possible, but I think a giant blue one is somewhat more likely.
  
  
• Zenger: I doubt a flip in Texas or Florida, so control of the Senate is going to come down to Nebraska, Ohio and Montana. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is going to hold on, I think, so the Democrats need one of the other two. They'll get it, most likely in Montana, with the result being a 50-50 Senate. That's enough for control, as long as the blue team also takes the presidency.
  
  I think the Democrats will take over the House, but with a majority similar to their last one, something like 6-8 seats.

Note that we wrote these unaware of what the other had written. That they are remarkably similar... well, you know what they say about "great minds." Anyhow, that's how we have it. Now on to the readers... (Z)

Reader Predictions

We had a staggering 11,000+ responses to our survey. We don't want to drown people in information, so we'll do demographics later this week, or possibly next week. For now, it's just what the readers have to say about the election. This may actually be the single best predictive exercise you will find anywhere, because there is much value in "the wisdom of the crowd." And while our readership certainly skews Democratic and liberal, it also skews educated and well-informed, and has a demonstrated history of being properly skeptical (or, in some cases, pessimistic).

To start, here's how the readers have the presidential race:

Question	Harris Win	Trump Win
Presidency, What I Think	71.4%	8.5%
Presidency, What I Want	96.2%	2.4%
Arizona	54.1%	31.2%
Georgia	35%	50%
Michigan	88.5%	3.9%
Nevada	54.9%	24%
North Carolina	40.3%	42.7%
Pennsylvania	81.1%	10.7%
Wisconsin	86.5%	9.1%

The readers' choices for the swing states imply an EV total of 287 for Kamala Harris, 251 for Trump. The readers' average projection for Harris' EV total was 289.31. Very consistent.

Now on to the readers' predictions for the Senate.

State	Democrat/Ind. Win	Republican Win
Arizona	88.8%	9.5%
Florida	10.4%	71.2%
Maryland	76.1%	5.7%
Michigan	82.6%	1.3%
Montana	24.9%	49%
Nebraska	36%	31.5%
Nevada	72.6%	4%
Ohio	74%	8%
Pennsylvania	82.7%	2.1%
Texas	26%	56.6%
Wisconsin	85.2%	1.4%

The readers' choices for the Senate races imply 50 Republicans in the next Senate, with the GOP picking up West Virginia and Montana but losing Nebraska. The readers' average projection for Republican seats in the Senate was 50.21. Again, very consistent.

And how about some reader comments? Because we neglected to ask for initials and cities until over 3,000 people had responded, we're just going to forego those entirely (so that we don't effectively throw out thousands of comments):

Harris Has This Thing?

Voting against Trump more than for Harris. Just say no to bullies.

Two predictions: (1) The breadth and depth of support for Harris among women will be greater than polling indicates; and (2) late undeciding voters break for Harris in large numbers, likely due to Trump's erratic behavior in the final weeks.

Three words: Women, women, women.

While taking a walk, I had forgotten that I was wearing a Harris For President t-shirt when I noticed a young, white guy (probably late-20's/early 30's) looking at me. He asked me if I was for illegal immigration and more crime, to which I responded that in fact, violent crime rates have declined. To which his reasoned, informed response was, "No they haven't." I made the tactical error of bringing up women's health issues, including how women had lost their fertility (and some their lives) due to the abortion bans. He practically spat out his question: "Are you a feminist? Everything you've said is about women." I was frankly so taken aback at his response, that it was all I could do to look at him, puzzled, and ask: "Do you have any women in your life?" Suffice to say, he did not like that question, so while I calmly said I was happy to have a civilized conversation with him, he told me he did not want to talk to me and waved goodbye and kept repeating, "Bye, have a nice day" in a tone that was not, shall we say, dripping with sincerity. Only a few minutes later, a young African-American man, around the same age as the white guy, was crossing the street towards me with a smile on his face. I smiled back. He said, "I like your t-shirt." We had a lovely chat, and parted ways, hoping that sanity and competence will win out this election, and not dishonesty, divisiveness, fear, and hate.

Harris will overperform her polls by about 3-4 points. 303 EVs (or maybe more). Pollsters are herding. Just watch.

I have voted in 10 presidential elections and this is the first time I have voted for a Democrat. I think the under-counted Harris vote (like mine) will turn out to be consequential. I also think the near-term future of non-MAGA conservatism depends on it.

Trump has been annoying me since I was 8 years old. I can't wait for him to be gone.

Trump Has This Thing?

I am terrified that somehow the Supreme Court will throw the election to Trump.

I suspect the models overly favor Trump, but too many voters out there just can't accept a woman as president. That is why I think Trump will win, because there just aren't enough shy Harris voters.

Removing Joe Biden will prove to have been a mistake. The Democrats are too weak in how they engage with the press, and they are treated unfairly because of it. Classism within their own party is costing them the working class. Modern day progressivism, ironically, is pushing the working class away from the Democrats.

The Democrats will only have themselves to blame for losing this election and I will point to two specific and obvious actions: (1) By Joe Biden not dropping out a year ago, we didn't have a chance to have an open primary that could have produced a ticket like Whitmer-Shapiro. At the very least they hold the blue wall and win the election. Harris would not even have finished in fifth place in an open primary; (2) When it took until July for Biden to drop out and there was no other choice but to go with Harris, we botched the VP selection. By not going with Shapiro we left PA vulnerable. My prediction is Harris gets 251 EV's and losing Pennsylvania will be the difference. And now my 8-year-old daughter will enter her teenage years with less freedoms than both of my grandmothers had at her age. I hope I'm wrong.

Your site is so horribly slanted left it's completely unreliable and you should either get on the Trump Train or leave America.

State-Level Predictions

The Iowa poll from Ann Seltzer is a really interesting last-minute data point, but my take is that Donald Trump's saber rattling around tariffs and restarting trade wars has farmers and rural voters in the breadbasket really spooked. They remember the hard times in soy markets, particularly the last time Trump pushed tariffs on commodities. It's not Trump's age, racism or general unfitness for office that is going to push away his base of conservatives—it's mostly policies that affect THEM directly (i.e., the "he's not hurting the people he is supposed to be hurting" crowd).

It all comes down to Pennsylvania and Trump ekes it out. The "Should've Picked Shapiro" screams will be loud and endless.

Our 22-year-old son works for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, and I've seen firsthand the intense ground efforts they're putting in. The energy is incredible, with busloads of people arriving from other states to support. The group is predominantly young, and they're executing the plan with precision. If the Pennsylvania Democrats don't succeed, it won't be for lack of effort.

I live in Nevada... last election there were Trump caravans and pickups with Trump flags everywhere. Thus far, no caravans and I've only seen one pickup with a Trump flag. There's also no one selling Trump merch where they used to.

I drove from Northern California to Arizona to help get out the vote for Democrats. When I told people what I was doing, they all said the same thing: Don't get shot. Sad.

I promise/guarantee you, Kamala will win Georgia, and lose North Carolina. The closeness of Flori-duh will be shocking. That is my area. This makes me question all the polls, they are off. Younger people don't have landlines and don't answer their phones; I don't know how you get accurate polling anymore.

Other Comments

Ireland doesn't have room for all of us, so we need to stand firm and NEVER AGAIN let the Republicans gain control of anything.

The rule of thumb is a good GOTV is worth 1 to 3 points. Abortion should be worth 2-5 pts. Legalized Jane should be worth 2-5 pts, Liz Cheney folks voting for Harris should be worth 2-5 pts. Among other things I do not understand is the polls having it 50/50. To counter all these pluses it means the racism and anti-female slant of the electorate is 10 pts. plus. If such is true, I am very disappointed in my fellow Americans.

This election may sink the credibility of polls for good.

You have mentioned it before but I think it is worth mentioning again. The gender divide is having very real consequences this election while most attention is given to young women moving to Democrats, a great many men are moving to Republicans including young men. This isn't going to just have political effects but also social as it builds a wall between the sexes. It will deepen as women only fields and men only fields become the norm. I am a local Democrat and have been the only man in a room of 30 Democrats. Yes women being excited is amazing for Democrats but it isn't translating to young men.

My daughter is 27 and I can't help but see every Trump voter as a threat to her future.

I hope the scapegoating of trans persons goes down in flames this year. (Please!)

Why is every presidential election these days more important than the last? Can't we have a low-key race for once?

Thanks to everyone who participated! (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Emerson clearly wanted to dominate "the last day of polling" and so released a boatload of polls yesterday. They've had a discernible Republican lean all cycle, so this is going to push most polling averages in Donald Trump's direction by a bit. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	49%	51%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
California	64%	32%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Colorado	55%	41%	Oct 18	Oct 30	YouGov
Florida	44%	51%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Georgia	49%	50%	Oct 28	Oct 31	East Carolina U.
Georgia	49%	50%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Michigan	49%	47%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Michigan	49%	47%	Oct 25	Nov 02	Florida Atlantic U.
Michigan	51%	49%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Minnesota	51%	44%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Missouri	39%	54%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
North Carolina	48%	50%	Oct 24	Oct 29	East Carolina U.
North Carolina	49%	50%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
New Hampshire	62%	34%	Nov 01	Nov 03	Dartmouth Poll
New Jersey	57%	40%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Nevada	49%	49%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
New York	57%	41%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Ohio	44%	55%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	48%	47%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Pennsylvania	49%	47%	Oct 25	Nov 02	Florida Atlantic U.
Pennsylvania	49%	50%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Virginia	51%	45%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Washington	54%	39%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Wisconsin	49%	46%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Wisconsin	49%	48%	Oct 25	Nov 02	Florida Atlantic U.
Wisconsin	50%	50%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Today's Senate Polls

Overall, a good bunch of polls for the blue team, though Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will be sweating bullets as he watches the returns from Ohio today. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Ruben Gallego	50%	Kari Lake	45%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
California	Adam Schiff	60%	Steve Garvey	37%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Florida	Debbie Mucarsel-Powell	43%	Rick Scott*	50%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	47%	Mike Rogers	43%	Oct 25	Nov 02	Florida Atlantic U.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	49%	Mike Rogers	45%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	50%	Mike Rogers	44%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Minnesota	Amy Klobuchar*	55%	Royce White	38%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Missouri	Lucas Kunce	43%	Josh Hawley*	54%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
New Jersey	Andy Kim	56%	Curtis Bashaw	38%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Nevada	Jacky Rosen*	50%	Sam Brown	44%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
New York	Kirsten Gillibrand*	61%	Mike Sapraicone	33%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Ohio	Sherrod Brown*	48%	Bernie Moreno	52%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	47%	David McCormick	47%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	48%	David McCormick	46%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	49%	David McCormick	44%	Oct 25	Nov 02	Florida Atlantic U.
Virginia	Tim Kaine*	53%	Hung Cao	41%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Washington	Maria Cantwell*	58%	Raul Garcia	38%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	47%	Eric Hovde	45%	Oct 25	Nov 02	Florida Atlantic U.
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	48%	Eric Hovde	47%	Nov 02	Nov 03	Research Co.
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	51%	Eric Hovde	45%	Oct 30	Nov 02	Emerson Coll.

* Denotes incumbent

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger