Harris Spoke at The Ellipse, Where Trump Spoke on Jan. 6, 2021

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris gave what will probably be her final national message at the fabled Ellipse just south of the White House. In case you don't have a mental map of downtown D.C., here is an actual map of it (it's there, just north of Constitution Ave., and just across the street from the White House):

It was a fitting place to speak because that is where Donald Trump spoke on Jan. 6, 2021, when he urged a mob to storm the Capitol. In contrast, Harris spoke about protecting democracy, not destroying it. She called Trump a "petty tyrant" who is "obsessed with revenge" and "consumed with grievance." She also said: "Donald Trump has spent a decade trying to keep the American people divided and afraid of each other. That's who he is. But America, I am here tonight to say: That's not who we are." Here is her full speech. It went on for 29 minutes:

During the address, Harris looked over at the White House and stressed the dangers that would befall Americans if Trump moved in there again. She talked about the threats to democracy, but also issues that may be more pressing to many people, including the economy, health care, and immigration. She also promised to listen to experts on complex issues and also to people who disagree with her. She noted that people who disagree with her are not the enemy. In fact, she wants them at the table so she can hear them out.

She made a point of not making the speech partisan. Instead of Harris/Walz signs, there were "USA" signs and flags. The pitch was clearly aimed at disaffected Republicans who strongly dislike Trump's style, bluster, and love of authoritarianism, but are scared of voting for a Democrat. The goal of her speech was to reassure them that she is no radical, the way Trump has depicted her, and that she would be president of all the people, not just the 50% or so who will probably vote for her. There was a lot of emphasis on how Trump has divided the country and would spend his term stewing and editing his enemies list. She tried to reassure "Nikki Haley Republicans" that she does not have an enemies list and, unlike Trump, would not spend her term "getting even" with anyone. Many moderate Republicans are not interested in "getting even" and want a forward-looking president who will try to solve current and future problems, not whine about the past. (Speaking of Haley, this is the moment she could earn a chapter in the next edition of Profiles in Courage, but she is stuck in a dream that Trumpism will go away and in 2028 she will get the GOP nomination. She is an intelligent woman, but sometimes politics blinds people.)

Harris did address abortion and other issues, but the main goals were to: (1) remind voters about Trump's treachery (hence the choice of The Ellipse) and (2) to show that she is a reasonable moderate who could be trusted to govern wisely, even for people who might not agree with all of her policy positions.

Will Trump be upset with Harris' speech? In the immortal words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha." She drew 75,000 people and overflowed The Ellipse itself onto the National Mall and beyond. This was her biggest crowd ever. By way of contrast, Madison Square Garden holds 19,500 people, so her rally was attended by almost four times as many people as Trump's speech on Sunday. With numbers like that, he can't compare crowds and brag: "Mine is bigger than yours." He cares about that more than anything. His rally did have a much higher number of slurs against Puerto Ricans, however, so there is that. (V)

Supreme Court Approves of Last-Minute Purge of Voters

In an unsigned order that overturns decades of precedent about not interfering with an election in the 90 days preceding it, yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia could spend the rest of the week purging voters who were suspected of not being citizens. Voting rights groups were outraged, because the purge is sure to disenfranchise some eligible voters without giving them an opportunity to appeal the disenfranchisement.

The case involves only about 1,600 voters in Virginia, which is not a swing state, but opens the door to more purges in other states. After all, there are 5 days left until the election. That's time for emergency lawsuits in Georgia, North Carolina, and other states.

Once again, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the whole concept of stare decisis is now a dead letter. It feels it can throw out any precedent it doesn't like. One of the most sacred of precedents has always been not to interfere with elections just before an election. That precedent had a solid basis in law. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act bars states from making any systematic changes to the voting rolls within 90 days of an election. That's gone now, opening the door to much more mischief in the future.

What is especially dangerous and confusing is that the opinion was unsigned and provided no explanation of why the Court was willing to allow a state to purge the rolls so close to an election. It could have ruled that a purge of noncitizens was allowed, but only after this election, to avoid having any citizens accidentally removed. But it didn't.

However, one consolation for eligible voters who are disenfranchised is that Virginia allows same-day registration. Any voter who has been stricken can show up with proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or U.S. passport, and reregister on the spot and then vote. (V)

Kennedy Will Remain on the Ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin

While we are on the subject of last-minute election changes, the Virginia decision is not the only one of them. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal from Robert Kennedy Jr. to get off the ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin, which he had fought bitterly to get ON a few months ago. But that was when he thought his presence would hurt Joe Biden. Now he thinks it will hurt Donald Trump. That makes all the difference.

Both Michigan and Wisconsin said it would be impossible to remove Kennedy now. Early voting has started and millions of ballots have been printed and mailed out already. In fact, in Michigan, 1.5 million ballots have already been returned and another 264,000 people have already voted in person. Having some voters get one list of candidates and other voters get a different list of candidates would tie the courts in knots after the election—not that printing and distributing new ballots before Tuesday would have been feasible. It would have been chaos to even try.

In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court turned down Kennedy's request. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented. Was he expecting Michigan to go to FedEx Office and have them produce over 5 million new ballots by Friday and then get them distributed by Tuesday? What about people who already cast a ballot? Would all those votes be burned and people told to show up on Tuesday to vote in person? This is beyond despicable and shows what some justices will do to help the Republican Party any way they can. Remember, what Kennedy wanted was unambiguously illegal. He wanted to get off the ballot after the deadline for getting off the ballot had passed. He had zero legal case. He just found the law inconvenient. Gorsuch felt that was good enough.

Of course we don't know how many votes Kennedy will get and who the voters would have chosen had his name not been on the ballot. If the people doing the exit polls on Tuesday ask every Kennedy voter: "If Kennedy had not been on the ballot, who would you have voted for?" then we might know, otherwise, we will probably never really know. (V)

Harris Is Betting the Farm on the Suburbs

In the final days of the campaign, Kamala Harris' main focus will be on suburban voters. Multiple polls show her leading in the suburbs by 6-7 points. She wants to increase that and also run up turnout there. If she can pull that off, that would probably compensate for any loss of young Black and Latino men. She is especially aiming at the suburbs around Philadelphia, Detroit, and Atlanta.

In 2020, Joe Biden won the suburbs by only 2 points. Hillary Clinton actually lost them in 2016. Part of this is explained by the movement of college-educated voters to the Democrats nationally and part due to the Dobbs decision. Many of these voters, including Republicans, simply despise Donald Trump, even if they like his policies. Affluent college-educated suburban voters are not typically the kind of folks who like macho would-be authoritarians. For these reasons, Harris is holding many of her final events in suburbs, often with Liz Cheney in tow to reassure dyed-in-the-wool Republicans that she (Harris) is not a Bolshevik. In contrast, Trump is not explicitly appealing to suburban voters anymore. All his dark rhetoric, sexism, and racism do not play well there at all.

Some Democratic strategists don't want to bet the farm on the suburbs. They want to focus on turning out low-propensity voters, most of whom do not have college degrees. The strategists, especially progressive ones, are not keen on Harris dragging Cheney along wherever she goes. But Harris is crossing her fingers and betting that the biggest group of undecided or hesitant voters are moderate college-educated suburban Republicans, basically the 20-25% of the people who voted for Nikki Haley in the primaries even after Haley dropped out. They were expressing their displeasure with Trump and wanted to embarrass him. Harris feels that if they can be made to feel safe with her, she can get them to vote (grudgingly) for a Democrat for the first time.

Hillary Clinton famously didn't bother campaigning in Wisconsin in 2016, which probably cost her that crucial state. Harris is certainly not making that mistake. She has been there many times and has a robust operation there, especially in the suburban WOW (Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington) counties surrounding Milwaukee. All of them used to be Republican, but are trending Democratic. Harris is trying to speed up the process. She is keenly aware that it is the women who are moving the fastest towards the Democrats and she wants to egg them on. The data say that Harris needs about 6% of the Republican vote to carry the state, and the WOW counties are where she is hunting for it.

One interesting note is that while Liz Cheney is an experienced politician, her experience is about getting rural conservatives in Wyoming to vote for her. That experience is less valuable in suburban Wisconsin. She is being trained by Obama strategist David Plouffe and all-around long-time Democratic consultant Stephanie Cutter. All these folks are aware of polling showing that there are more Republicans potentially willing to vote for Harris than Democrats potentially willing to vote for Trump. Their marching orders are to make it actually happen. (V)

Democrats' Closing Message in Pennsylvania: Abortion, Abortion, Abortion

As we have mentioned more than a few times, Pennsylvania is the biggest swing state and may even be the closest. Consequently, it is getting quite a bit of love right now. Kamala Harris' message there is largely about abortion, especially in the suburbs. Here is a typical Harris billboard there.

Pennsylvania is special in another way, besides being the biggest swing state. It has the only divided state legislature in the country. The state House is 102D, 100R but the state Senate is 20D, 28R, and two Forward/Democrats. Harris and the Democrats are trying to beef up the House and possibly even flip the Senate. That only adds to the urgency surrounding Pennsylvania. Both chambers used to be controlled by the Republicans, but the Democrats flipped the state House in 2022. They believe that abortion played a role in that and are pouring money into state races like never before. They are hoping the synergy with the Harris campaign will do the trick.

State Democrats have an extensive GOTV operation and are now knocking on doors for the second or third time. Some are focused on getting Democrats to vote. Others are focused on getting moderate pro-choice Republicans to flip and vote based on that one issue. There are enough of them that it could matter, especially in places like Bucks County, north of Philadelphia. (V)

PollWatch 2024, Part IX: The Pollsters on the Polls

The New York Times published an op-ed on the polls yesterday jointly authored by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican pollster Amanda Iovino. Their main observation is expressed in this one bar graph:

As you can see, the gap between noncollege men and college-educated women is 43 points. It is like they are living on different planets. Possibly Venus and Mars. They experience completely different economies and have completely different top issues. College-educated women tend to be financially secure and don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from. They are free to prioritize abortion as a top issue. Working-class men are much more concerned about the economy and how it has changed over the past few decades, especially society's use for men who don't even have a high school diploma. They also have many grievances about how things are now, including the role of college-educated women.

What is also interesting is that education trumps sex. Suppose you are a noncollege woman. The "woman" part of you says "vote for Harris," but the noncollege part of you says "vote for Trump." Noncollege women are Trump +4, so the education part is apparently dominant. Now the other way, college men. The college part of them says "Harris" but the "man" part says "Trump." College men are Harris +7, so again education is more important than sex. In other words, it looks like education is the most important determinant of how people will vote. In reality, there is more, though. Race and age are also important, otherwise Trump would win in a landslide. All racial and ethnic minorities skew Democratic and so do young voters. That we have achieved an exact balance and kept it like that for 8 years is amazing, but apparently true.

The two groups consume media in completely different ways. Men spend a lot of time on eX-Twitter and Reddit and listen to YouTube personalities who concentrate on gaming, sports, and politics. Women tend towards TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, especially content about personal growth, style, and crime. It is not surprising that they have different voting patterns, especially with one of the major candidates now a woman. The result is the biggest gap between men and women, especially between noncollege men and college-educated women, in history. This isn't the first election with such a gap, just the one with the biggest gap.

While Joe Biden got 5% more votes from noncollege men than did Hillary Clinton in 2016, current support for Kamala Harris is back to Clinton levels. Much of that is due to noncollege men's attitudes toward women in executive positions. They worry whether the women are strong enough, are respected by foreign leaders, and are able to boost (and are interested in boosting) manufacturing. Years ago, any Democrat could count on support from male-dominated unions. That is not the case anymore. For example, the UAW endorsed Harris, but the Teamsters did not. Unions that are heavily female, like the AFT (teachers) and SEIU (service workers), are strongly pro-Harris.

The two pollsters note that there aren't a lot of issues in which noncollege men and college-educated women are on the same page, but there are a few. Both groups are anti-corporation, against air and water pollution, and pro-public education and giving people job skills. Both want to preserve nature, albeit for different reasons (the men for hunting, the women for dealing with climate change). Candidates who get this can attract both groups, but it requires some carefully prepared ads. (V)

PollWatch 2024, Part X: Can the Polls Capture Gen Z Voters Correctly?

It turns out that some people lie to the people around them (presumably including pollsters) about who they voted for/will vote for. Gen Z voters 18-27 are the worst offenders. Nearly half of them lie. Most of them came of age during the Trump era and are sensitive to perceived pressure from people they know. The solution: Just lie about it. Here are the data:

Gen Z voters are the biggest liars, with 48% fibbing, followed by millennials (28-43). Boomers are the most honest. The four cohorts are roughly equal in size. The reasons for lying to friends and family members vary, but toxic polarization is high on the list. Younger voters don't want to get into fights with friends and family members over politics. Boomers have no fear.

A key issue—to which we don't have an answer now—is how many younger voters have lied to pollsters about their presidential pick this year. If they have, the polling error could be more consequential than we think. Younger voters on the whole are more Democratic than older ones, and if they have tried to hide this, there could be a secret vote for Harris, the opposite of the "shy Trump voter" of 2016. But this is just one possibility. On the other hand, young Black men may not want to reveal they support Trump for reasons their family and friends might not approve of, so they might lie to everyone.

Harris' campaign understands the problem of telling your family and friends about how you are going to vote. In particular, it understands that in some (working-class) families, the man thinks he is the boss and can dictate to his wife how she is expected to vote, namely for Donald Trump. The wife may not be on the same page as her husband, but doesn't want him to know that. So the ads emphasize that her vote is secret. They don't exactly say she should hide her ballot from her husband, but they kind of imply that. The problem arises when they show up together at the polling place and go into adjacent voting booths. If they come out at the same time, the husband might insist on seeing his wife's ballot before she puts it in the ballot box. This could require the wife to vote quickly (perhaps only for the top few races), then putting the ballot in the box before the husband emerges from the voting booth, then lying about her vote. As far as we can recall, "lie to your husband" has not been the campaign slogan of any major-party candidate since women got the vote nationwide in the 1920s. (V)

Republicans Miss... Nancy Pelosi

One old standby ad that Republicans ran for years and years attacked Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for her "San Francisco values"—a not-very-well-hidden swipe at her pro-LGBTQ views. Having a foil they could run against who unified nearly all Republicans was a godsend. Dozens and dozens of ads were made attacking her and attacking Democrats for supporting her. It was golden.

But now that Pelosi is just an "ordinary" backbencher (even if still a respected party elder), ads attacking her are falling flat. Too many voters don't realize that they are supposed to know she is the devil incarnate so any association with her is toxic. Those ads just don't work anymore, so the Republicans have stopped running them. They are now focusing directly on her former constituent, Kamala Harris.

Pelosi is still in the House, of course, at least when she is not out on the campaign trail raising money for the Democrats. On Tuesday, she was in court when the man who brutally attacked her husband was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of ever getting out on parole.

Republicans don't have another bogeyman or bogeywoman to replace her with. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) represents eastern Brooklyn, not an area many voters associate with gay people. Also, Jeffries is kind of low key, not in the news as much as Pelosi was, and is not well known. He is not as good a foil as Pelosi was. One survey showed that 40% of the voters had never even heard of Jeffries, whereas Pelosi was very widely known.

So the Republicans are still searching for a foil. One possibility is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She is even more left-wing than Pelosi, but she has a number of drawbacks as a foil. She is not as well known, she has relatively little power, and attacking an extremely well-spoken young woman is probably not going to work well at all. It might even be counterproductive, by alienating Latino voters. So the search goes on. (V)

The Other National Campaign

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not running for a new term as minority leader, even though he will remain in the Senate at least until Jan. 2027 (but probably not beyond that). The race to replace him is well underway. Three Republican senators have announced: John Cornyn (TX), John Thune (SD), and Rick Scott (FL). Scott runs a close second to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the honor of being the most hated member of the Senate—by both parties. So it is virtually certain that one of the Johns will win.

So are they hanging around the Capitol campaigning? Not at all. Both of them are crisscrossing the country looking for votes from other Senate Republicans and wannabe Senate Republicans. Thune has been to Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania recently. He has also been to a fundraiser for Kari Lake, albeit in New York City. The idea is that if he is out there campaigning for a Republican senator or wannabe senator in a tough race, and that person wins, one way to express gratitude for the help would be to vote for Thune in December when the Republican conference elects its leader. Cornyn is doing the same thing, largely in the same places, though, since nobody thinks Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) or Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) needs any help. Of course, with both candidates stumping in the same Senate races, the effect kind of cancels out, but what's a guy to do?

Still, the Senate is a clubby kind of place, at least within each conference, and votes for leader generally go to the most collegial candidate, not the one whose policies are most agreeable, since there is virtually no difference between the candidates. It's all about friendship and being connected to the candidate and in politics, there is no better way to bond with a senator or would-be senator than to be out there on the hustings with them.

There are a couple of other things that could matter, though. Cornyn is from a very big and very rich state. He knows all the movers and shakers in Houston (Pop. 2.3M), San Antonio (Pop. 1.6M), Dallas (Pop. 1.3M), Austin (Pop. 1.0M), and everywhere else in Texas. He could raise a lot of money from his friends down there. In contrast, Thune is from South Dakota. He knows all the residents of Sioux Falls (Pop. 211K), Rapid City (Pop. 81K), Aberdeen (Pop. 28K), and Brookings (Pop. 25K). He might not be able to shake the money tree as effectively as Cornyn. On the other hand, although Thune is 63, he looks much younger and is very energetic. Cornyn is 72 but looks a generation older than Thune. All Republican senators are painfully aware of the times McConnell froze midsentence and had to be helped from the stage. They don't want a repeat performance, which might favor the younger guy, Thune. And again, the key factor is which one you like more personally.

Finally, if Trump wins the White House and demands that all senators vote for Scott, there is a small chance that he could win. On the other hand, Senate leadership elections are by secret ballot, so every senator could swear they voted for Scott and act befuddled when Scott got only six votes. (V)

Today's Presidential Polls

It's Halloween. Time for scary stuff. How about this. Look at the map. Suppose Kamala Harris wins Nevada and Arizona. Then the EV score is Harris 268 and Trump 270. Trump wins. But we haven't accounted for NE-02 and ME-02. We are basically assuming the whole state goes the same way. Donald Trump will probably win ME-02 because it is R+6. However, it is not a sure thing because Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) represents the district in the House. Suppose Harris wins Nevada, Arizona, and both ME-02 and NE-02, then we get 269-269 and a contingent election in the House, with each state getting one vote. Imagine what would happen if some rich people, let's just make up some fictious names here, Elon Soros or George Musk began offering LARGE "incentives" to the new members of the House to encourage them to cast their votes a certain way. Remember that seven states have only a single member in the House and another seven have only two members. Still not scared? You're tough. OK, you want to hear the story about the Egyptian government? No? Coward. As we said above, Happy Halloween!

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	45%	43%	Oct 25	Oct 27	RABA Research
Michigan	47%	47%	Oct 24	Oct 27	Suffolk U.
Michigan	48%	43%	Oct 25	Oct 28	SSRS for CNN
Michigan	49%	49%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Beacon + Shaw for Fox
North Carolina	49%	50%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Beacon + Shaw for Fox
Nebraska	40%	55%	Oct 21	Oct 28	YouGov
New Hampshire	51%	46%	Oct 28	Oct 29	St. Anselm Coll.
New Jersey	55%	35%	Oct 15	Oct 22	Rutgers-Eagleton
Pennsylvania	46%	47%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Monmouth U.
Pennsylvania	47%	49%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Quinnipiac U.
Pennsylvania	48%	48%	Oct 23	Oct 28	SSRS for CNN
Pennsylvania	49%	50%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Beacon + Shaw for Fox
Utah	34%	54%	Oct 25	Oct 28	Noble Predictive Insights
Wisconsin	50%	49%	Oct 16	Oct 24	Marquette Law School
Wisconsin	51%	45%	Oct 23	Oct 28	SSRS for CNN

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

Today's Senate Polls

If any pollsters are reading this, we have a small request: Forget all the Senate races except Florida, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas. Those are the races that are very likely going to determine control of the Senate. With all due respect, the Nebraska special election is not where the action is. But as long as you are calling folks in Nebraska, why not ask about the race that seems to be the important one? We had thought Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) was safe, but maybe with Pennsylvania so close and so partisan, even a hedge fund CEO who lives in Connecticut (Dave McCormick) could win if Trump carries the state. It now appears that if Trump wins big, he might get a majority of as much as 3-4 seats in the Senate, more than it appeared a month ago. If Harris wins, Democrats will probably get at least 48 or 49 seats in the Senate, maybe even 50 or possibly 51 (unlikely though). (V)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Ruben Gallego	49%	Kari Lake	34%	Oct 25	Oct 27	RABA Research
Massachusetts	Elizabeth Warren*	56%	John Deaton	36%	Oct 24	Oct 26	Emerson Coll.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	47%	Mike Rogers	45%	Oct 24	Oct 27	Suffolk U.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	48%	Mike Rogers	42%	Oct 23	Oct 28	SSRS for CNN
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	51%	Mike Rogers	47%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Beacon + Shaw for Fox
Minnesota	Amy Klobuchar*	52%	Royce White	35%	Oct 24	Oct 28	SurveyUSA
Minnesota	Amy Klobuchar*	52%	Royce White	40%	Oct 16	Oct 22	Embold Research
Nebraska	Dan Osborn (I)	43%	Deb Fischer*	50%	Oct 21	Oct 28	YouGov
New Jersey	Andy Kim	49%	Curtis Bashaw	26%	Oct 15	Oct 22	Rutgers-Eagleton
New Jersey	Andy Kim	57%	Curtis Bashaw	39%	Oct 20	Oct 27	Fairleigh Dickinson U.
Nebraska-special	Preston Love	36%	Pete Ricketts*	54%	Oct 21	Oct 28	YouGov
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	45%	David McCormick	44%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Monmouth U.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	48%	David McCormick	42%	Oct 22	Oct 28	YouGov
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	48%	David McCormick	45%	Oct 23	Oct 28	SSRS for CNN
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	50%	David McCormick	47%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Quinnipiac U.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	50%	David McCormick	48%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Beacon + Shaw for Fox
Utah	Carolyn Gleich	26%	John Curtis	54%	Oct 25	Oct 28	Noble Predictive Insights
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	49%	Eric Hovde	47%	Oct 23	Oct 28	SSRS for CNN
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	51%	Eric Hovde	49%	Oct 16	Oct 24	Marquette Law School

* 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