Still Crazy After All These... Hours

On Monday, Donald Trump held a rally/town hall that ended with 30+ minutes of music and him dancing/singing on stage. Yesterday, he sat for an interview with Bloomberg, and... well, let's just say that the "crazy" tap is still flowing. It was about an hour, if you want to watch all or part of it, here it is:

We'd set it to start at the crazypants part, except that the crazypants parts were widely dispersed throughout.

The interview was conducted by Bloomberg Editor-In-Chief John Micklethwait, and given that outlet's focus, the questions were focused on economic policies. Here's a rundown of the "greatest hits":

• Trump, of course, has no idea how tariffs actually work. So, Micklethwait tried to educate the former president, explaining that most or all of the costs would just be passed on to American consumers. We would add that tariffs also strongly encourage companies to find workarounds, sometimes legal, sometimes less so. Trump insisted that he is "good at mathematics" and that he might just slap a 100%, or 200%, or even 2,000% tariff on imported automobiles. He also said that "tariff" is "the most beautiful word in the dictionary."
  
  
• Micklethwait pointed out that Trump's economic plan would add a projected $7 trillion to the national debt. Trump crossed his arms across his chest, glowered, and said that The Wall Street Journal (source of that projection) and Bloomberg are always wrong about everything.
  
  
• In response to a question about whether he would break up Google, Trump said:

  I just haven't gotten over something that the Justice Department did yesterday where Virginia cleaned up its voter rolls and got rid of thousands and thousands of bad votes. And the Justice Department sued them, that they should be allowed to put those bad votes and illegal votes back in and let the people vote. So, I haven't gotten—I haven't gotten over that. A lot of people have seen that and I can't believe it.

  Well, that certainly clears things up, doesn't it? Micklethwait steered the discussion back to Google a second time, and a third, and eventually Trump said he would do "something."
  
  
• Micklethwait observed that deporting millions of immigrants would wreck the U.S. economy. He was referring to the loss of cheap, blue-collar labor, but he could just as well have been talking about the costs of implementing the scheme, which could literally run into the trillions if Trump tried it. The former president responded by saying that if the U.S. doesn't deport the immigrants, they will murder lots of Americans, very possibly including some of the people in the audience for the interview (it was held at the Economic Club of Chicago). He even picked out an audience member—an attractive woman, naturally—and warned her that she might well be the one to be killed.
  
  
• Trump was asked about cutting government spending, and said he planned to put Elon Musk in charge of that (obviously, Jared Kushner is too busy "managing" Saudi wealth these days). When asked for a specific idea for reducing government outlays, he said that he would reduce the cost of building the new Air Force One planes. It is true that the planes have a $3-$4 billion price tag. It is also true that is a grain of sand as compared to the federal budget.
  
  
• Micklethwait inquired about Bob Woodward's claim that Trump has been talking to Vladimir Putin. Trump did not answer, but asserted that it would be "smart" if he was doing so.
  
  
• And finally, the misstep that should probably get the widest play came when Trump talked about autoworkers, the same autoworkers he ostensibly wants to protect with tariffs. The former president said that many autoworkers take parts "out of a box and they assemble them" and that "we could have a child do it." He was sorta trying to draw a distinction between American-made cars, and cars that are of foreign origin but are assembled in America. However, he did not do a good job of it.

Incidentally, if you would like to see a premium example of so-called "sanewashing," read The Hill's writeup of the interview. You'd have virtually no idea that there was anything abnormal going on. We have no idea what the author was watching. Or smoking.

Trump's interview has already had at least one effect, and possibly two. The definite one involves the price of stock in his the-numbers-just-don't-add-up social media company. We intended to write an item yesterday about how amazingly well the stock was doing, and then we held it because we ran out of time. That was lucky, because the price plunged after the interview. At the moment Trump stepped on stage, the share price was $32.74. An hour after the interview was over, the price was down to $25.16 a share (before rallying a bit at the end of the day, to $27.06). We think the lesson here is that while it would be very interesting if the stock price was a proxy for Trump's presidential chances, clearly it isn't. At least, not in anything other than a very crude way. The interview was bad, but his chances of becoming president did not drop by nearly 25% in a couple of hours.

The (possible) second effect is that Trump canceled yet another high-profile interview. He already bailed on 60 Minutes, and yesterday, CNBC's Squawk Box joined the list. He was supposed to appear on that show on Friday, but his campaign says that he just has to be in Michigan that day. This raises two obvious questions: (1) The campaign didn't know Trump's schedule when they made the booking? and (2) They don't have phones or video uplinks in Michigan?

We're going to conclude here with an observation that seems painfully obvious, but that we will make nonetheless: When Joe Biden started botching some public appearances, and canceling others, everyone was screaming that he was no longer fit to be president, and that he needed to step aside immediately. Well, Trump keeps botching public appearances (and, we would say, far worse than Biden did), while avoiding others. Is there any other conclusion than "Trump is not mentally and physically fit enough to serve, and needs to step aside?" We are happy to hear the counterargument (send messages to comments@electoral-vote.com), if readers have one, but we just don't see how someone—regardless of their politics—can be a Biden skeptic, but also be OK with what we are seeing from Trump these days. (Z)

Economic Plans? Economists Make Their Pick

Donald Trump did a rather poor job of selling his economic plan yesterday. That's not too surprising as, in addition to his addled mind, it's just not a very good plan. That's not our opinion, mind you, it's the opinion of economists who are paid to know about this stuff.

Let's start with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), which is a think tank made up of conservative economists who are budget hawks. Last week, they issued their analysis of the two major-party candidates' economic plans, and CRFB likes Harris' plan better. They don't really like either plan, mind you, but if they have to pick their poison, they'll pick the bottle labeled "Kamala."

In the end, what CRFB cares about is the national debt. They are convinced it represents a looming armageddon, and want candidates to take steps to reduce the debt. Neither Harris nor Trump has any such plans. However, CRFB estimates that a President Harris would add between $0 and $8.1 trillion to the debt over 10 years, with a midrange figure of $3.5 trillion. A President Trump would add between $1.45 trillion and $15.15 trillion, with a midrange figure of $7.5 trillion. If you want to see how CRFB gets to those numbers, click on the link, and you can see the painstaking detail. Anyhow, Harris' numbers are all lower than Trump's, so she comes out ahead by process of elimination.

It is also worth noting that while the CRFB analysis is instructive in some ways, it's actually kind of limited. The first problem is pretty obvious; whatever program the next president puts into action, it won't look all that much like the program they're running on. That's the nature of shared governance. But beyond that, CRFB doesn't concern itself with the effects of non-fiscal policy proposals. As The Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik points out, Harris does not have any non-fiscal policies likely to wreak havoc on the economy. Donald Trump does. For example (as we note above), Trump's plan to commence mass deportations would have huge costs for the government and would also create vast economic turmoil. So, concludes Hiltzik, the gap between Harris' plan and Trump's plan is actually even greater than CRFB would propose.

Moving along, The Wall Street Journal is also interested in this general subject, and so the paper surveyed fifty economists about the two candidates' economic plans. Specifically, the WSJ wanted to know about inflation, since that's the hot topic du jour. Among the respondents, 68% said Trump would be worse for inflation, while 12% said Harris would be worse, and the rest said both candidates are the same. The New York Times' Paul Krugman observed, correctly we think, that "This is as close to unanimity as the profession gets."

All of this said, what matters in an election is not what the eggheads think, it's what the voters think. And according to a new survey from Bankrate, 42% of Americans trust Trump more on the economy, whereas 38% of Americans trust Harris more. Maybe a lot of voters don't really understand macroeconomics, maybe they aren't paying attention, or maybe they define economic issues in a different way than the pros do. In any event, even if Trump's ideas are worse (and, in some cases, like the tariffs, absolutely crazy) they aren't ruining him. Although, a 4% gap is not great for a Republican candidate, since Democrats (including Harris) tend to swamp Republicans on other issues (environment, reproductive choice, etc.). (Z)

The Disaster Money Has Run Out

If people need federal loans to rebuild their homes and businesses after a disaster—like, say, a hurricane—then the money comes from the Small Business Administration (SBA). Yesterday, the Biden Administration announced that the SBA is now broke, and won't be able to issue new loans without an infusion of cash. An infusion of cash like the $8 billion called for in a bill already filed by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).

What this means is that the rubber has now hit the road for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). When he said, about a week ago, that money would not be an issue until after the election, nobody could have taken him seriously. Certainly, we didn't. Now, there are actual victims who will not be able to begin recovery unless Congress convenes and does its job.

So, Johnson is going to have to decide which is worse: (1) Call Congress into session, which means dealing with a bunch of Freedom Caucus squabbling, taking a bunch of vulnerable representatives off the campaign trail, angering Donald Trump, and giving the Democrats a "win," or (2) Refuse to take action, and assume the very real risk that 3 weeks before an election, voters, and in particular voters in three swing/swingy states, conclude the Republican Party is a bunch of heartless bastards unconcerned about the suffering of everyday people.

We do not know what Johnson will do. However, as you ponder this question, keep in mind that he is a man whose head is so far up Trump's... well, you know that he (Johnson) went on Meet the Press this weekend and said, with a straight face, that Trump "has more stamina and mental acumen and strength than any political figure probably in the history of the country." Really! You can see it here. That certainly sounds like someone who is going to do whatever the Dear Leader tells him to do. (Z)

Things Are Peachy in Georgia

We dodged a small bullet, thanks to delaying the item on Donald Trump's media company. On the other hand, we wrote an item that said early voting would probably be way down in 2024, as compared to 2020, due to the pandemic and other factors. Yesterday, Georgians turned out in force on the first day of early voting (as opposed to voting-by-mail, which had already commenced). There was also some other big news. Lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles sent in a report:

Georgians started voting Tuesday, and the Peach State broke a record for first-day early voting with over 300,000 ballots cast. This includes one particularly special person who has been waiting patiently: Jimmy Carter has officially cast his vote for Kamala Harris.

And we now know that his vote will count and be certified by the county by the statutory deadline of Nov. 12. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, appointed to the bench by Republican Governor Nathan Deal, issued two critical rulings this week. On Monday, in response to a lawsuit brought by a Republican election superintendent—who claimed she has the discretion to delay the certification of votes if she doesn't like the results... er, if she thinks something is "off"—McBurney held that certification is a ministerial act and the law is clear that votes "shall" be certified by the deadline mandated by state law. Any suspected issues with the vote count are the province of the county prosecutor, attorney general and other state officials. He wrote: "If election superintendents were, as Plaintiff urges, free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so—because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud—refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced. Our Constitution and our Election Code do not allow for that to happen."

This result is good news in relation to a different challenge brought against a rule the Georgia Election Board passed, one which allows county election officials to conduct a "reasonable inquiry" into the election results, even if it means delaying the certification. That case is still pending, but is now presumably on life support.

Yesterday, meanwhile, McBurney issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking a new rule set to take effect on October 22 that required poll workers to hand-count all the ballots cast in each precinct after the polls close, which could have delayed reporting the results. He held that it was "too much, too late" and too confusing as to how the rule was to be implemented. The TRO was issued in a case challenging not only the hand-count requirements, but also a new rule allowing poll watchers to have access to more areas in an election facility. The TRO applies only to the hand count requirement and is in effect until there's a ruling on the merits. Hearings are scheduled for today, in front of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox.

Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) is a man of integrity, and is working hard to ensure that voters are confident in the election and that everything proceeds smoothly despite the best efforts of the Georgia Elections Board to create chaos. He reminded the public Tuesday that under a new state law, all early votes will have to be reported by 8 p.m. on election night. This is the law that allows any registered voter to file an unlimited number of challenges to voters' eligibility. So, there's still some work to do in the free and fair election department, but Raffensperger is trying to keep things under control as best he can, and hope springs eternal.

Thanks, A.R.! (Z)

Jewish Readers Respond

In the last week, we wrote an item about how things stand in Israel, we had a piece from reader P.B. in St. Louis, MO, about the geopolitics of the Middle East, and we answered a question about why conservative Jews might vote for Donald Trump.

These pieces generated a lot of responses. It was more than we could fit into the Sunday mailbag. On top of that, we wanted to take some time to think about how to proceed. The decision is that we are going to have some of the messages about P.B's piece later this week, along with responses from P.B. In addition, we got some responses from Jewish readers, who are in a better position to speak to some of these issues than we are. So, we thought we would share some of those today:

M.S. in Newton, MA, writes: K.E. in Newport asked: "Why do so many conservative Jews give Donald Trump a pass on antisemitism, when their religion is a crucial part of their identities?"

I am a politically conservative, orthodox practicing Jew who will be voting for Donald Trump. For me, I couldn't care less about who he dines with, who he might have to deal with to get things done, or any of the "political" moves he needs to make. I look at the man, himself, and the actions he's taken.

First, moving the embassy to Israel's capital of Jerusalem. I don't care what the U.N. or any other organization says, the only body that gets to decide its own capital is the country itself, and Israel says it's Jerusalem. For some reason, Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't get to decide that for itself. How would the U.S. feel if every country in Europe moved their embassies to Atlanta for some arbitrary reason? Trump catering to an extremely small percentage of the U.S. population wasn't good politics, per se, but it was the right thing to do.

Second, his daughter converted to Judaism, married an orthodox Jew, and therefore he has Jewish grandchildren. I know people who grew up with Jared, and know the family now, and Trump's love for his family (and their religious beliefs) is for real.

Third, the Abraham Accords made Israel safer, and Jews in the region safer, and that was on Trump's watch. I was in the United Arab Emirates after the Accords and saw Kosher restaurants, a synagogue, and men walking down the street in yarmulkes. That was all due to Trump, and by extension, his son-in-law, Jared.

I would ask Jews not voting for Trump what they see in the Democratic Party, and what they see in Kamala Harris, that makes them vote that way? I see the party of Omar, AOC, Tlaib, Code Pink, J Street. I see a party full of militant anti-Israel and antisemitic activists, and I see a party that wil not be there for Israel and not be there for the Jews.

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: M.R. in New York City wrote "the canceling of 'Zionists'—which is really all American Jews because the belief of a Jewish state in Israel is nearly universal among Jews—is one of the most troubling things we've seen against our people in our lifetime." (Emphasis mine.) I'm not addressing M.R.'s or Electoral-Vote.com's possible reasons why (politically) conservative Jews are leaning towards Trump. In my view, there is probably some truth to everything both of you wrote. What I need to push back on is the section between the hyphens that I italicized—that is, that all American Jews are Zionists.

First, to set the stage, I am a second-generation, Conservative (religious) movement, Ashkenazi Jew. I was raised and educated (some would say indoctrinated) to be a Zionist. It is accurate to say that this is the experience of most American Jews, being indoctrinated to be Zionists. I never wore the label, but I now realize that it fit me until perhaps about 6 months ago.

For as long as there has been Zionism, there have been anti-Zionist Jews (and non-Jews). I would argue that Zionism itself is antisemitic. Zionism is rooted in the belief that a pluralistic society in which Jews and non-Jews live together in the same country is impossible and the only solution is to remove the Jews and put them in their own country. Christian Zionism pre-dates Jewish Zionism by about 4 decades, as removing Jews was the solution that antisemitic Europeans proposed as early as the 1840's. This movement has evolved into today's Evangelical Christian movement, which is pro-Israel but not necessarily opposed to antisemitism. Jewish Zionism was borne out of the writings of Theodor Herzl in the 1880's. Even then there was push-back from labor unions (the Polish Bund is one) and others on what we would today call the political left.

I don't have numbers to cite, but I can say with confidence that the belief of a Jewish state of Israel is common but not universal. There have been organizations, such as Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and If Not Now (among others), in existence for decades pushing back against Zionism. October 7 and the Israeli response has caused many Jews like me to re-examine our beliefs. I have come to the conclusion that I was lied to as a youth, that Palestine was not an "empty land seeking a people to live there," and that Israel has been a racist, apartheid state from the start. One thing the Zionist movement has done very effectively over the years was to equate Zionism and support of Israel with being Jewish. They have created today's environment where any criticism of Israel will be responded to with charges of antisemitism. I implore all of your readers to understand that Israel is not Judaism and that criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. The state and the religion are two very separate things.

I've been taking a class offered by my local chapter of JVP devoted to teaching the true history of Zionism, the creation of the state of Israel, the Nakba and the impact on the Palestinian people. They are using plenty of primary sources, so I am confident this is not propaganda. Anecdotally, the facilitators of this class have told me that, since Oct. 7, they are seeing a lot more people like me in the class, people who are newly discovering how much we were lied to in the Jewish education of our youth. I conclude that not only is Zionism not universal (or even nearly so) among American Jews, but that more and more of us are becoming anti-Zionist.

To the Zionist Jews reading this, go ahead and accuse me of being a self-hating Jew. I've heard it all before. That doesn't change the facts of history or the facts on the ground today. For anyone who is curious to learn more about what my indoctrination looked like, I highly recommend Israelism, a documentary film (filmed, produced and released before Oct. 7) which describes my childhood Jewish education exactly. I could go on. This is a huge topic, but this letter is long enough.

---

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: To my fellow Jewish NYC'er M.R., I respectfully suggest an argument you could make to your friends who are considering not voting for Kamala Harris because of the rise of antisemitism on the far left. It certainly exists, and it's certainly disturbing. But Kamala Harris is not the far left. She is not supporting antisemitic words and actions. As a former prosecutor (and one married to a Jew), she also doubtlessly is opposed to antisemitic violence. So to "punish" the far left by not voting for Harris—or worse, voting for Trump (who famously spoke of "very fine people on both sides," including the side chanting "Jews will not replace us")—would be, in a word, meshugga. Remember when these same Looney Lefties decided to "punish" centrist Democrats by voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016? How'd that work out for them and for our country?

Now, for those who think Trump will be "better" for Israel, that's true only if you believe Benjamin Netanyahu should have a green light to do whatever he wants to Palestinians, including a one-state final solution to Gaza and the West Bank (and I choose that phrase with all of its implications). To me, anyone who believes such a thing is, again in a word, a shonda without empathy or decency—in other words, the perfect Trump voter. As Jews, I believe we have an obligation to history—and, if you are religious, to G-d—to be better than that.

---

B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I am an American Jew. Just for context, I am also an atheist; my sense of Judaism is cultural.

As a (male) teenager in the 1980s, a female friend/crush of mine told me one day that she had recently gone to a feminist talk/rally and had her "consciousness raised." I had never heard that phrase before. I do not remember anything else specific about the conversation, but my understanding at the time was that it involved improving her awareness of her own value, the possibilities for her life, the ways in which society attempts to limit her, and so forth. I recall being surprised at the idea that someone would need "consciousness raising" because it had not occurred to me yet how society trains people to limit their sense of their own value. The conversation made a big enough impression that I remember it 40 years later.

Since shortly after Oct. 7, I have been following blog posts by an Israeli woman whom I am loosely connected to via mutual friends on Facebook. She wrote about current events, provided historical context, included a fair bit of very justified ranting, and, I now realize, was also helping me raise my consciousness. She stopped posting several months ago after announcing that she was exhausted and demoralized, but she did post again on Oct. 7 this year. In that message, she wrote: "Now we are finally, a year later, responding to Lebanon—which attacked us, unprovoked, in solidarity with Hamas terrorists on October 8, and has continued to attack us for an entire year, sending our northerners fleeing for refuge—and the world, which stood impassively by during their brutal assault, now that we are suddenly responding, is already crying for a ceasefire."

This woman's posts have been helping raise my consciousness.

Lebanon has been attacking for a year, but the calls for a ceasefire only started when Israel—Jews—fought back. The world does not really care that much about violence, suffering, and death. But the world objects very strongly when Jews defend themselves.

One aspect of antisemitism is holding Jews and/or Israel to a higher standard than any other people or country, and criticizing them for actions that get no objection when anyone else does them. No country in the world would not have responded to an attack like Hamas' on Oct. 7 with less than war; certainly the United States responded similarly to 9/11 which, proportionally, was a substantially smaller attack. Electoral-Vote.com recently posted that the best estimate is that casualties in Gaza are equal parts military and civilian, which if true means that Israel has caused at least THREE TIMES fewer civilian casualties than is typical in warfare, and this against an enemy that intentionally sacrifices civilians as part of its strategy, and yet is still vilified for it. Israel's presumed attack against Hezbollah via exploding pagers and radios was an incredibly risky and targeted attack exactly against its militant enemies, and yes, of course there were some unintended civilian casualties, there always are, but any kind of conventional attack on the same targets would have caused far worse, and yet still Israel is accused of war crimes for doing so.

As an American Jew, I think that Joe Biden's clear support for Israel, compassion for the innocent victims in Gaza, and clear identification of Hamas as the true enemy was a miracle. Kamala Harris seems to be largely on the same page, though less strongly so, but obviously I unambiguously support her. However, I am deeply worried about the trendlines in progressive politics. I have been repulsed by Republicans since I became politically aware in 1992 and do not see that ever changing, but if today's American youth push the Democratic Party towards antisemitism, who will I support then?

As an American Jew, I am deeply anxious about the future.

Thanks to all of you for your thoughts.

Note that we will be happy to receive, and run, some responses, should readers feel so inclined. However, those responses must be substantive and respectful. Anything that has the faintest whiff of "screed" will be discarded.

Also, every time we run a piece like this, we get a few messages saying "Yeah, but what about the Palestinian/Arab perspective?" Surely any regular reader knows that if we get those messages, at comments@electoral-vote.com, we will run them. (Z)

PollWatch 2024, Part II: The Track Record of National Preference Polls

Yesterday, we noted that we're going to undertake a series looking at the polling of the 2024 election, as best we can. We have some questions we want to look at. Readers added a bunch of good suggestions, which we're still poring through. It's going to take some time to do the necessary planning and research, and to get all our ducks in a row.

So, for today, we're going to start with something fairly simple. A couple of weeks ago, Rick Perlstein wrote a piece with the headline "The Polling Imperilment: Presidential polls are no more reliable than they were a century ago. So why do they consume our political lives?" That pretty much tells you what the argument is. And Perlstein raises some good points, although his evidence is very much cherry-picked, and not at all systematic.

We thought we would devise a very simple test, just to see how well Perlstein's thesis holds up. If there is any circumstance in which pollsters should be accurate, it's national polls (fewer wonky variances) taken just before an election (fewer undecided/wavering voters). So, we compiled the average of all national polls taken in the final week before each presidential election since 1980. Then, we compared that to the actual result (all numbers rounded to the nearest whole number). The final column is how much the pollsters over- or underestimated the popular vote winner (so, for example, if they guessed a candidate would win the popular vote by 5%, and the candidate actually won by 8%, then they underestimated them, which means a -3%).

Year	Prediction	Actual	Difference
1980	Reagan +3%	Reagan +10%	-7%
1984	Reagan +18%	Reagan +18%	Even
1988	G.H.W. Bush +12%	G.H.W. Bush +6%	+6%
1992	B. Clinton +12%	B. Clinton +6%	+6%
1996	B. Clinton +11%	B. Clinton +8%	+3%
2000	G.W. Bush +2%	Gore +1%	-3%
2004	Even	G.W. Bush +2%	-2%
2008	Obama +11%	Obama +7%	+4%
2012	Obama +1%	Obama +4%	-3%
2016	H. Clinton +3%	H. Clinton +2%	+1%
2020	Biden +7%	Biden +4%	+3%

Again, this is a very basic look at the question, although two things immediately stand out to us. The first is that Perlstein's basic assertion, that polling is no better today than it was 100 years ago, just does not stand up. Our insta-response was that the claim is ridiculous; everyone knows about the Literary Digest disaster of 1936, the "Dewey Defeats Truman" election of 1948, etc.—surely pollsters are doing better than that. And the numbers above sustain this. The worst misses were back in the 20th century. In the 21st century, the pollsters have consistently been relatively near the bullseye.

With that said, "relatively near the bullseye" is not "the bullseye." That leads us to the second thing that stands out. Pollsters make no secret of the fact that their methods have a margin of error of 3-4%. And whaddya know, they are right. Even under ideal circumstances, including averaging polls together to minimize the effect of outliers, they've been wrong in the range of 1%-4%. And there's no particular direction to the error, either; sometimes they give a popular-vote-winning candidate 1%-4% too much credit, sometimes 1%-4% too little.

A big problem with polls is that most people interpret them incorrectly. If a poll with a 4-point margin of error says that candidate X will get 52% and win and candidate X gets 49% and loses, then the poll was right, not wrong. No poll predicts who will win. What the pollster was saying is that there is 95% chance candidate X will get between 48% and 56% and 49% is within the predicted range. Also note that the margin of error is arbitrary. It means the true value has a 95% chance (two standard deviations or sigma) of being in the range. Pollsters could report the MoE as one sigma and say the probability of the true value being in the range is 68% or three sigma and say the probability of getting it right is 99.7%. Two standard deviations is merely a widely used (but arbitrary) convention.

Put another way, close elections are pollsters' kryptonite. If the pollsters tell you that a candidate has a national lead of 7%, or is ahead in Pennsylvania by 5%, then that candidate is almost certainly going to win the popular vote and the state of Pennsylvania, and the only question is how close the pollsters got on the margin. On the other hand, if a candidate has a national lead of 2%, or is ahead in Pennsylvania by 1%, then it really could go either way. The candidate who is ahead is certainly in a stronger position, but that strength is feeble enough that it could be wiped out by a rainstorm in the wrong part of a state, or by a five-cent increase in the price of gas, or a slightly wrong guess about the level of Black voter turnout, or any of a hundred other X-factors.

So, if the 2024 election really is as close as it appears to be, then we just won't know until we know, once the ballots are all counted. The question is whether there might be something wrong with the polls this year, such that one candidate or the other is being underestimated, and has a lead greater than it seems (and, potentially, outside the normal variance of 1%-4%). The thing we are worried about is methodological errors in the polls. One possibility is that the electorate is substantially different from what the pollsters expect (e.g., more young people or more women vote than last time). Another is that some important group is undersampled. In 2016, that was the case with noncollege voters. This time it could be... and we won't know until the exit polls have been analyzed. Most of the rest of this series (but not all) will focus on that question. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Texas is close enough that the Democrats can surely taste it, especially since flipping it would be game over for Donald Trump. But it's just too big and expensive to roll the dice on. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Alaska	46%	54%	Oct 07	Oct 08	Alaska Survey Research
Massachusetts	56%	30%	Oct 03	Oct 10	U. of Mass.
Michigan	48%	49%	Oct 02	Oct 08	Fabrizio + Anzalone
Texas	46%	51%	Sep 26	Oct 10	U. of Houston

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

Today's Senate Polls

If independent Dan Osborn really does beat Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) by 4-5 points, it will be one of the greatest upsets in modern political history. If Osborn wins (and we have serious doubts about that since Fischer is a generic Republican in a red state who is not involved in any scandals), he could potentially determine which party controls the Senate. For example, if Kamala Harris wins and there are 49 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and Osborn in the Senate, whichever party he caucuses with will get to elect the majority leader and control the Senate. If this situation happens, Nebraska will go from being an all-corn state to an all-pork state and Sen. Manchin (I-WV) will start banging his head against the wall and mumbling: "Damn, damn, damn. Why didn't I think of that?" (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Massachusetts	Elizabeth Warren*	56%	John Deaton	34%	Oct 03	Oct 10	U. of Mass.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	49%	Mike Rogers	46%	Oct 02	Oct 08	Fabrizio + Anzalone
Nebraska	Dan Osborn	50%	Deb Fischer*	44%	Oct 09	Oct 12	SurveyUSA
Nebraska-special	Preston Love	37%	Pete Ricketts*	53%	Oct 09	Oct 12	SurveyUSA
Texas	Colin Allred	46%	Ted Cruz*	50%	Sep 26	Oct 10	U. of Houston

* 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