Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ FL GA MD ME MI NC NV PA TX WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA NV
Are You Stressed Out? You Are Not Alone
So many people are stressed out about the election these days, organizations are starting to poll about it. In particular, the American Psychological Association (APA) commissioned a Harris poll to ask people about their stress level. The results were enough to make anyone feel stressed out.
Two of the topline results of the poll are that 77% of Americans are worried about the future of the nation, although not everyone is worried about the same thing. Also, 69% are worried about the election, presumably due to the possibility of their disfavored candidate winning and then "ruining" the country. One California resident interviewed said: "It doesn't help to have your phone buzzing with headlines and stuff. There's always kind of like a background radiation of stress happening." Of course, the ever-increasing partisanship also plays a huge role since many people now feel that their entire lifestyle is on trial and if the "wrong" candidate wins, it will be all over for them. That was not true at all 50 or more years ago.
In addition, there are some specific new fears this year, compared to previous years. One is election violence or the results of the election leading to violence. Over 70% of the respondents mentioned this. They are no doubt thinking about Jan. 6 on steroids this year.
The APA has given two contradictory recommendations for managing the stress. First, stop paying attention to all the news. Just turn it off. Second, get involved in the political process in one form or another, so you feel you have control and it is not just washing over you.
Two mental health providers interviewed for the above article gave other advice. One said to set a timer to limit how much doomscrolling you do on social media. Another said to focus on those parts of your life you can control, not those you can't. (V)
PollWatch 2024, Part V: How Has the Polling Changed Since 2020?
Will the polls nail it this time? Ask us, say, Nov. 10. In a sense, they probably won't get as bad a rap this time as in 2016. Then the national polls predicted that Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin would be 3%. It was actually 2%, so in fact, the polls did very well. But because they "predicted" a Clinton win and she didn't win, many people thought they were way off, even though they weren't really since they weren't trying to predict a winner, just what percentage of the national popular vote each candidate would get.
This time, the polls are so close that the pollsters aren't predicting anything except that it will be close. One day Donald Trump is ahead, next day Kamala Harris is ahead. No matter the outcome, it will be hard for people to say: "The polls said X will win and X lost," because there is no clear favorite. The only way the polls could really be way off is if the election is not close. If either candidate wins in a landslide, then we can say the polls were way off.
Needless to say, the pollsters are trying to make sure they do better this time, so they have adjusted their methods to try to avoid the errors of 2016 and 2020. In addition, there are other differences between this time and last time. Some of the main ones are:
- Data Collection: In the past—say, 15 or 20 years ago—all polling was done by
random-digit dialing. The area code and first three digits of a phone number used to indicate where a (landline) phone
was located. The computer then picked a random four digit number, prefixed it by the area code and exchange (first three
digits of the phone number after the area code) and dialed it. The pollster then knew where the person who answered the phone was. For
example, the number (212) 602-xxxx was likely to be in lower Manhattan. With cell phones, even the area code doesn't
tell you where the caller is. One of us has a (212) cell phone number despite never having lived in Manhattan. In
addition, many people now don't answer the phone when it is from an unknown caller. That used to not to be the case so
much.
Pollsters have thus been forced to try new methods. One improvement is sending text messages to random phone numbers asking the recipient to go online at a certain URL and fill out a survey. That works better than calling.
Another new method is—get this—snail mail. It is possible to buy lists of valid mailing addresses. The pollsters then pick random addresses and mail letters to those addresses, asking them to go online and fill out a survey, usually for a small payment for a completed survey. It turns out that people who would never answer a phone call from an unknown caller are willing to open letters from unknown senders. Weird! When the letter offers a payment for going online and spending 10 minutes filling out a survey in return for a gift card from one of a list of well-known companies (Amazon, Apple, Visa, etc.), many people do it. This gives much better response rates than random-digit dialing.
Some pollsters recruit a very large number of people using random addresses and tell them that they can sign up to be on a panel and will be contacted by e-mail from time to time with a survey request (in return for a gift card). Then a random selection is made from the panel members, many of whom are hoping to be picked so they can get the gift card. This changes their mindset from "I don't want to be bothered" to "I hope I get picked." Of course, "people who are motivated by a gift card" is probably not a perfect representation of the general populace, even if the sample is adjusted to match the (expected) demographics of the electorate. One can imagine, for example, that someone who places great value on a relatively low-denomination incentive would also be particularly concerned about, say, higher taxes.
Another change since last time is the use of the benchmark survey. One of the big problems in 2016 (and since) is that the pollster's model of the electorate may be off. With this scheme, people are contacted either by text or snail mail and asked only (or mostly) demographic questions in return for a larger gift card. Due to the major financial incentive, response rates on these surveys are fairly good, as much as 30%. This gives the pollster a much better idea of what the electorate is like. Questions can be included to get an idea if the respondent is a likely voter (e.g., how certain are you to vote this year, from 1 to 5). Pew does this NPORS survey every year and makes the results available to interested pollsters.
- Weighting: No survey exactly matches the expected electorate, so all pollsters weight
each respondent in many ways. If, for example, the pollster expects 52% of the voters to be women and in the actual
sample has only 48% women, each woman will count for 1.083 (52/48) women. If the pollster expects 23% of the voters to
be Catholics and 25% in the sample are Catholics, then each male Catholic is assigned a weight of 0.920 but a female
Catholic will be weighted as 1.083 x 0.920 = 0.996, and so on. Most people will have multiple weighting factors.
Pollsters work with statisticians to try to correct for sampling errors this way.
Given all the partisanship nowadays, trying to figure out what fraction of the electorate will be Democrats and what fraction will be Republicans (including people who call themselves independents but really aren't) is crucial. One method being used this year is "recalled vote." Many pollsters are now asking respondents "If you voted in 2020, who did you vote for?" They then weight for that to make sure the weighted sample matches the 2020 results. It is believed this measure will counteract a well-known problem of getting a sample with too many highly-engaged voters and not enough unengaged voters. Of course, if the ratio of Democrats to Republicans this time is different, this weighting will ruin the poll, even if the sample is correct.
In 2016, few pollsters weighted for educational level and it turns out that was very important. Voting behavior correlated strongly with educational level. They now know that. Will they miss something else this year? Some people think gender may be this year's defining issue, maybe even more important than the economy, even though it is not discussed much. Kamala Harris is going out of her way to refuse to answer any questions about the "first woman president" thingie, but many women (and some men) are keenly aware of it. In likely-voter screens, pollsters often ask "Are you planning to vote" but rarely ask "Is having a woman president important to you?" Nor do they ask: "Do you think women should go back to the kitchen where they belong?" Maybe they should ask that. People who study voting patterns say that gender, including people's attitudes toward the role of women in society, could be the defining issue of this election, much more than education in 2016, in part due to Dobbs.
- New Data Available: We now have data on two elections with Donald Trump as a candidate,
one of which he won and one of which he lost. This data is invaluable. For example, we now know that Democrats tended to
vote by mail but Democrats who voted in person disproportionately supported Trump. We also know that Republicans tended
to vote in person on Election Day, but those Republicans who voted by mail were mostly Biden supporters. This
information can help get a sample not only weighted by party, but also make sure it has the right kinds of Democrats and
Republicans.
Another important piece of data is that for a long time, Trumpy voters were registered as Democrats and simply hadn't bothered to correct their registration to Republican. In the past, that meant if, say, 38% of the registered voters in a state were registered as Democrats, that didn't mean they would all vote for the Democrats. The Trumpy Democrats were never going to vote for a Democrat, despite the (D). Registrations are more indicative now of true allegiance and pollsters study the change in partisan registrations and what it means.
- Different Pollster Mix: Not all the pollsters operating in 2016 and 2020 are still
running polls and there are plenty of new ones. SurveyMonkey has dropped out altogether. PPP
is nearly gone. In contrast, we have over 35 new pollsters this time that did not poll in 2020. Steve Bannon once said
he could manipulate reality by flooding the zone. Indeed, we have tried hard to eliminate suspicious "pollsters" who are
just making up numbers to help Trump, but we may not have succeeded. Other aggregators don't always do this because then
they are adding their subjective judgments into the mix and they don't like to do that. As academics, we trust all the
small colleges not to cheat (although we sometimes wonder if they have enough experience with getting good samples), but when new
pollsters pop up and their websites do not indicate that they are basically in the polling business, we tend not to use them.
Anyway, the point is that pollsters are trying very hard not to repeat the mistakes of the past when there are so many new mistakes they can make. (V)
Nobel Prize-Winning Economists Endorse Harris
It is clear that the economy is going to play a big role in the election (whether it's the #1 issue, or just one of the top three or four or five). Fundamentally, by nearly every measure every economist uses, the economy is doing very well. Unemployment, inflation, and gas prices are way down. Yes, prices are higher than 4 years ago, but if the definition of a "good" economy is "prices are lower than they were 4 years ago," then the last election with a good economy was in 1932, and at the time, many people thought the economy was not so good.
Given the indicators, economists think the economy is doing great and yesterday 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists signed a letter saying that Kamala Harris' economic agenda is "vastly superior" to Donald Trump's. The letter said that Harris' program will "improve our nation's health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump." The letter specifically points out that Trump's tax and tariff policies would cause inflation and balloon the federal deficit.
The letter was spearheaded by Columbia University Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, who received the Prize in 2001. This is his second foray into the election. In June, he got a group of 15 Nobel Prize winners to write a letter saying that Donald Trump's economic plans would destabilize the economy. Trump slammed them as "worthless out of touch" economists. Stiglitz is getting closer and closer to full participation, as there are only 38 winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences who are alive and eligible to vote in U.S. elections. And three of those 38 were born in Canada, so we assume Stiglitz excluded them on principle.
Will these letters matter? Without giving away our view of the electorate too much, we suspect that the endorsement of one popular rap artist—for example, Lizzo—carries more weight than 23 Nobel Prize winners in an area people do care about: the economy. But will it have ANY impact? It might, particularly among affluent college-educated suburban voters who have always voted Republican and who dislike Trump personally. These are basically the Nikki Haley voters. They despise Trump personally but like his policies, especially on taxes. But if they read that economists who understand this kind of stuff say his policies will cause inflation to come roaring back, that might just get some of them to flip. (V)
House Republicans Are Planning for the Trifecta
The House is not in session now since most members are out campaigning. Two members who don't need to campaign are Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), whose district is R+14, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, whose district is R+23. So they have lots of time to cook up what they are planning to do if Republicans get the trifecta on Nov. 5 (or Nov. 6 or Nov. 7 or Nov. 8 or... Jan. 2). Even though they are more familiar with the House rules than the Senate rules, they do know that unless the Republicans abolish the filibuster, they are not likely to get much through the Senate except by using the budget reconciliation process. So reconciliation is what Johnson and Scalise are thinking about.
Their top priorities are: (1) cutting taxes and (2) funding Donald Trump's pet border wall. Unlike Trump, they understand Mexico is not going to pay for it, so Congress is going to have to. If the wall is more than a short stretch that Trump will need for a photo op, and it actually covers all of the entire 2,000-mile long border that is not already fenced, it will be very expensive. However, cutting taxes while greatly increasing spending is going to rev up inflation. Some Republicans, more likely in the Senate than in the House, might check with the 23 economists in the item above about this for confirmation and not be willing to have inflation shoot up when they control all three branches of government and won't be able to blame the Democrats so easily (even if Fox will try).
Cutting taxes is something Republicans love to do, but this time it might not be so simple. Normally, Republicans cut the top marginal tax rates and the corporate rate to keep their donors happy. But Trump has campaigned on not taxing tips, overtime, or Social Security. These are not small items. If Congress actually did these things it would not only blow a huge hole in the budget, but it would make the donors angry, because that's not what they want at all. They want lower marginal tax rates at the top, both for individuals and corporations. It is true that hedge fund managers often work hard and put in lots of overtime, but they don't get paid by the hour. It would take some very, very creative accounting to make a billion-dollar deal completed on a Sunday at 10 p.m. count as overtime and not be taxed.
Some Republicans also want to slash the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act. That could partially counter the spending on the wall. The tradeoff of worse health care for poor people in exchange for fewer immigrants might well appeal to Republican senators, as long as it doesn't rev up inflation. The Republicans have burnt their fingers on Obamacare before and might not want to try again, especially if their margins in each chamber are tiny since they could lose them in 2026. (V)
House and Senate Might Make History
The first congressional election was in 1788. In the 118 federal elections since then, it has never happened that partisan control of the Senate and House flipped in opposite directions in the same election. Not when the Federalists were around, not when the Whigs were around, not ever. This year there is a realistic chance that it could happen, because the dynamics of the Senate and House are so different, with the entire House up but only 34 seats in the Senate, the majority of which are in blue states.
Most observers think the Republicans are likely to capture the Senate. It is by no means a sure thing, especially if Democrats can win at least one of Florida, Montana, or Texas, or if independent Dan Osborn can win in Nebraska, but the polls seem to favor the Republicans.
The House is completely different. There are 17 districts that Joe Biden won in 2020 that have a Republican representative. All of these are in danger. To make it worse, a majority of them are in California and New York, where anti-Trump turnout is likely to be very high (and see below). Democrats need only to flip four seats to capture the chamber, assuming they can hold all of their own seats. There is a very realistic chance of the Democrats picking up the net four seats they need.
Of course, if both chambers flip, we will have divided government for at least 2 years and nothing will get done. Certainly nothing new there. (V)
House Democrats Are Curtailing Spending in Some Races
Sounds grim, no? Democrats don't have enough money to defend key seats? Two more years of Speaker Mike Johnson? Actually, no. It is the opposite. In a number of competitive races, the House Majority PAC (HMP), the House Democrats' main PAC, is so confident of their horse winning that they don't think spending money for them is a good investment anymore. They would rather divert money to tighter races. Specifically, the HMP has canceled planned ads in certain districts in Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because they don't think they are needed.
The ad time was reserved months ago, when it was cheaper, because the HMP was afraid that Joe Biden would drag their candidates down. That fear has been resolved. Here are the places where ads have been pulled:
- Kansas: Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS) is in a tough district, KS-03, which is R+1. She ought
to be in big trouble. She is a good fundraiser and has raised and spent $3.3 million. Her Republican opponent, Prasanth
Reddy, has spent only $502,000. The HMP thinks Davids is doing well enough on her own that they are not going to spend more
on her so they canceled the $318,000 worth of ad time they had reserved.
- Michigan: The HMP had reserved $603,000 worth of air time in the district of Rep. Hillary
Scholten (D-MI). The MI-03 district is D+1, slightly better than Davids', but still very balanced. Scholten has raised
$4,756,570 and had $1,820,580 on hand as of Sept. 30. Her opponent, Paul Hudson, has raised $882,571 and had $154,877 on
hand as of Sept. 30. The Democrats don't think Scholten needs any more help. She's also doing fine on her own. It is
surprising the Republicans didn't think Hudson was worth helping in such a competitive district.
- Nevada: Three of the four Nevada representatives are Democrats and all are in the greater
Las Vegas area. The HMC had $3.5 million worth of air time reserved, but their three opponents are all awful and the
NRCC didn't help them, so the HMP is not bothering. They expect all three to be reelected easily. The fourth district is
very red and Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) will be reelected easily.
- New Hampshire: Both New Hampshire districts are competitive. NH-01 is technically EVEN
and the open NH-02 is D+2. But Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) in the first one and Maggie Goodlander, the Democrat running for
the second one, are doing so well, the HMP didn't think they needed any help.
- New Jersey: When Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) jumped into the Senate race, the HMP reserved $1.5
million to defend his open seat. For some reason, the Republicans didn't bother seriously contesting it, probably
because D+5 looked like too steep a hill to climb. Now the HMP can spend the $1.5 million somewhere else.
- Ohio: OH-01 is a badly gerrymandered D+2 district in the southwest part of the state
covering Cincinnati and areas north of it. It is represented by Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), who had $1,922,572 on hand at
the end of September. His opponent, Orlando Sonza, had only $308,319, so the HMP canceled $1 million in planned ads.
- Pennsylvania: PA-17 is an EVEN district near Pittsburgh. The HMP reserved $1 million to
help Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA). However, he had $1,651,658 on hand vs. the $625,012 his opponent Robert Mercuri had, so
the HMP decided to save the $1 million planned for him.
- Wisconsin: Here is the one example where the HMP gave up. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) in
WI-01 (R+3), in the southeastern corner of the state, had over $3 million in the bank on Sept. 30. His opponent, Peter
Barca, had only $98,000. The HMP saw the handwriting on the wall and it said: "Get out of here right now."
Money isn't everything, but these ad cancellations do show the Democrats' confidence in all but one of the races.
The next House is likely to be closely divided, just as the current one is. This means every vote will be needed to elect a speaker. If the Democrats get 218 seats, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will be elected on the first ballot. If the Republicans get 220 seats or maybe even 225 seats, the balloting will go on for days because the Freedom Caucus is going to cause trouble. There are at least four House Republicans who are a hard "no" on Johnson, and probably more. Johnson tried to appease them by saying that he will not make a deal with the Democrats to keep his job. Fine, but then he is going to need 218 Republican votes. If the GOP has only 220-225 seats, that may not be enough and we could get a repeat of the drama around Kevin McCarthy's election as speaker. (V)
There Are Many Initiatives on the Ballot in November
The presidential race and half a dozen Senate races are sucking up so much of the oxygen that very few people are talking about the many downballot races and especially not ballot initiatives, although there are quite a few of them. Here is a quick rundown of some of the more interesting ones:
Abortion| State | Name | Description |
| Arizona | Proposition 139 | Would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability |
| Colorado | Amendment 79 | Would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability |
| Florida | Amendment 4 | Would extend the current 6-week ban to the point of fetal viability |
| Maryland | Question 1 | Would establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom |
| Missouri | Amendment 3 | Would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability |
| Montana | Amendment 128 | Would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability |
| Nebraska | Amendment 434 | Would ban abortions in the second and third trimester |
| Nebraska | Amendment 439 | Would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability |
| Nevada | Question 6 | Would establish a constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability |
| New York | Proposition 1 | Would ban discrimination based on various grounds including reproductive healthcare |
| South Dakota | Amendment G | Would allow abortions in the first trimester but allow laws regulating them later |
Marijuana
| State | Name | Description |
| Arkansas | Issue 3 | Legalizes medical marijuana |
| Florida | Amendment 3 | Legalizes recreational marijuana |
| Massachusetts | Question 4 | Legalizes Psychedelic substances |
| Nebraska | Amendments. 437 & 438 | Legalizes medical marijuana |
| North Dakota | Measure 5 | Legalizes recreational marijuana |
| South Dakota | Measure 29 | Legalizes recreational marijuana |
Labor issues
| State | Name | Description |
| Alaska | Measure 1 | Sets the minimum wage at $15/hr and requires 7 paid sick days |
| Arizona | Proposition 138 | Lowers the tipped minimum wage from $14.35/hr to $10.77/hr |
| California | Proposition 32 | Increases the minimum wage to $18/hr |
| Massachusetts | Question 3 | Allows rideshare drivers to unionize |
| Massachusetts | Question 5 | Phases out the sub-minimum wage and expands the tip pool to backroom workers |
| Missouri | Proposition A | Increase the minimum wage to $15/hr and mandates paid sick pay |
| Nebraska | Amendment 436 | Requires business to offer paid sick leave to workers |
| South Dakota | Amendment F | Paves the way for the state to require work to get Medicaid |
Elections
| State | Name | Description |
| Alaska | Measure 2 | Would repeal the current ranked-choice voting system |
| Arizona | Proposition 133 | Would require partisan primaries and outlaw ranked-choice voting statewide |
| Arizona | Proposition 140 | Would require open primaries with a top-three ranked-choice general election |
| Arizona | Proposition 137 | Would end elections for judges and invalidate this year's judicial elections |
| Arizona | Proposition 134 | Would make it harder for citizen initiatives to get on the ballot |
| Colorado | Proposition 131 | Copies the Alaska system (open primary plus top-four ranked choice general election) |
| Connecticut | Amendment 1 | Allows any eligible voter to vote by absentee ballot |
| Florida | Amendment 1 | Makes school board elections partisan |
| Florida | Amendment 6 | Ends public funding for gubernatorial candidates and three other statewide offices |
| Idaho | Proposition 1 | Copies the Alaska system (open primary plus top-four ranked-choice general election) |
| Iowa | Amendment 1 | Allows 17-year olds to vote in primaries if they will be 18 by the general election |
| Maine | Question 1 | Would restrict campaign contributions to PACs to $5,000 |
| Montana | Initiatives 126 & 127 | Would require an open primary and getting 50% in general election |
| Nevada | Question 3 | Repeat of the 2022 vote to use open primaries and ranked choice voting |
| Nevada | Question 7 | Would require photo ID to vote |
| Ohio | Issue 1 | Creates a redistricting commission to draw district lines |
| Oregon | Measure 117 | Would require ranked choice voting for president, Congress, governor, AG, and SoS |
| North Dakota | Measure 2 | Would require initiatives to be approved by voters twice in the same year |
| South Dakota | Amendment H | Would create open primary and top-two general election |
Gay rights
| State | Name | Description |
| California | Proposition 3 | Would remove language banning same-sex marriages & repeal Proposition 8 from 2008 |
| Colorado | Amendment J | Would remove language banning same-sex marriage from state Constitution |
| Hawaii | Question 1 | Would remove language banning same-sex marriage from state Constitution |
Changes to terminology
| State | Name | Description |
| Nevada | Question 2 | Replaces "insane" and certain other terms in the state Constitution with euphemisms |
| North Dakota | Measure 1 | Replaces "insane" and certain other terms in the state Constitution with euphemisms |
| South Dakota | Amendment E | Removes generic male pronouns from the state Constitution |
As you can see, some of the initiatives have spawned counterinitiatives. In addition, there are many municipal initiatives, bond approval measures, and measures (often local) on housing, climate, transportation, guns, education, and taxation. We didn't list the many states that have initiatives for banning noncitizens from voting because they mean nothing. Federal law already prohibits them from voting. (V)
Asians Don't Care
By "Asians" we mean people who live in Asia, especially leaders of Asian countries. We don't mean Asian-American voters. They tend to be Democrats because Republicans, especially Donald Trump, often use minorities as whipping boys (and girls). Americans are worried silly about the election, but Asian government and business leaders in India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and other Asian countries (except China) don't think there is much difference between the candidates. For them, the biggest issue is dealing with China. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have put reining in China high on their to-do lists. They have different plans but neither one is China-friendly and that's what counts for the leaders of the various Asian nations.
However, there is one aspect where Asian leaders do prefer Harris: defense. Asian countries are more dependent than European nations are on the U.S. to defend them if China decides to attack; the U.K. and France have nuclear weapons. The U.S. has troops in Japan and South Korea, which serve to deter a direct attack by China. Trump might withdraw them. Harris is very unlikely to do so. Somewhat related to that is that in Asia, the war everyone is interested in is the one in Ukraine. That one tests U.S. resolve to defend its friends. Taiwan, especially, cares about that one and is worried that Trump doesn't care. Nobody in Asia cares about Gaza.
Another concern in Asia is North Korea. There is some concern that Trump could get played by Kim Jong Un, but that is not a major concern. There is also concern that the U.S. is a declining power and China is a rising power, but that is independent of who the president is.
The situation in Europe is completely different. Just about every European leader except Viktor Orbán wants Harris to win and most of them hardly try to hide it. For them, the U.S. is important not only for trade, but also for defense. They most certainly do not want the U.S. to withdraw from NATO and most of them regard Trump as an unhinged imbecile unfit for any public office. (V)
Wall Street Is Preparing for the Election
Depending on who wins the election, some industries will do well and others will do badly. If Kamala Harris wins, then companies making solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles will do very well. So will home builders, especially those specializing in entry-level homes. If Donald Trump wins, then the above will be losers, but coal mines, oil companies, drug companies, crypto exchanges and banks could do well. DJT stock ($35.91 yesterday) will head straight to the moon. Companies that make, import, or sell things from China will be in trouble. Defense contractors are a bit tricky. Companies that make weapons that can be used in Ukraine will benefit from a Harris presidency and lose from a Trump one, but general defense spending will probably go up more generally under Trump.
Smart and professional investors know this, so Election Day and the day after will probably be extremely volatile on the stock markets. Any small news tidbit about who is going to win will move markets, possibly very quickly. If turnout is up or down in some state, that is big news. If it rains in Atlanta, certain sectors could zoom and others crash. The weather report in Milwaukee could move markets fast.
If the winner is not known on Election Night, a real possibility, the volatility will continue until the fat lady sings or it's all over, whichever comes first. As the last few precincts in Las Vegas or Tucson begin reporting results on Nov. 6 (or maybe later), buy and sell orders will pour in.
Stock exchanges, brokers, banks, and other financial players are expecting a huge amount of volatility as orders pour in every time some tiny tidbit of news affecting the election is released. They are preparing for it by hiring more staff and upgrading their IT and telecomm systems to be able to handle the load smoothly. They don't want angry customers later screaming: "It took you 3 seconds to execute my order and in that time the stock dropped/rose by $8." (V)
Tulsi Gabbard Makes It Official
If you always thought former Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard always sounded like a Republican, you were right. She always was a secret Republican, just one who had to bow to the reality that she was trying to fashion a political career in an overwhelmingly blue state (Hawaii). Now she has come out of the closet and made it official. She is now a proud Republican and has now endorsed Donald Trump. At least this ends the years of hypocrisy.
What is she up to? She was elected to Congress as a Democrat and even ran for president in 2020 as a Democrat. Now she is a Republican toadying up to Trump. Maybe she is hoping for a job in a Trump administration. He might grant her one because she has two of the most important characteristics of female job seekers: (1) She is attractive and (2) she pretends to worship him. As a bonus, Trump could put her in the Cabinet and then claim she is really a Democrat so, look, he is bipartisan. That would make The New York Times so happy. On the other hand, she is a relatively recent convert to the Church of Trump and he tends to prefer long-time worshipers.
One small observation: Political commentators, including us, make much of the fact that most people vote based just on the (D) or (R) next to the name, without paying much attention to anything else. We're not wrong about this. That said, when Gabbard ran for president with a (D) next to her name, Democrats had zero interest, while she was very popular among Republicans, and among Republicans claiming to be independents. This shows that, at least sometimes and at least at the presidential level, voters are actually paying attention to something besides the (D) or (R). (V)
Today's Presidential Polls
Maybe Harris is starting to pull ahead in Michigan. Maybe not. And we are still not sure if pollsters have managed to figure out how turnout in western North Carolina may be affected by the hurricane.
If Harris wins Michigan and Pennsylvania, she needs only one of Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina (and maybe the blue dot in Nebraska). Trump would need all three of them.
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 49% | 49% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| Arizona | 49% | 50% | Oct 17 | Oct 22 | Marist Coll. |
| Florida | 46% | 54% | Oct 18 | Oct 20 | Emerson Coll. |
| Georgia | 48% | 50% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| Georgia | 49% | 49% | Oct 17 | Oct 22 | Marist Coll. |
| Maryland | 64% | 34% | Oct 19 | Oct 21 | Emerson Coll. |
| Maine | 48% | 41% | Sep 10 | Oct 07 | Critical Insights |
| Michigan | 50% | 46% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| Michigan | 50% | 46% | Oct 17 | Oct 21 | Quinnipiac U. |
| North Carolina | 48% | 50% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| North Carolina | 48% | 50% | Oct 17 | Oct 22 | Marist Coll. |
| Nevada | 49% | 48% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| Pennsylvania | 50% | 48% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| Texas | 46% | 53% | Oct 18 | Oct 21 | Emerson Coll. |
| Wisconsin | 48% | 48% | Oct 16 | Oct 20 | Morning Consult |
| Wisconsin | 48% | 48% | Oct 17 | Oct 21 | Quinnipiac U. |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
Could Cruz lose? Seems unlikely to us.
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | Ruben Gallego | 53% | Kari Lake | 45% | Oct 17 | Oct 22 | Marist Coll. |
| Florida | Debbie Mucarsel-Powell | 47% | Rick Scott* | 53% | Oct 18 | Oct 20 | Emerson Coll. |
| Maryland | Angela Alsobrooks | 57% | Larry Hogan | 43% | Oct 19 | Oct 21 | Emerson Coll. |
| Michigan | Elissa Slotkin | 52% | Mike Rogers | 44% | Oct 17 | Oct 21 | Quinnipiac U. |
| Texas | Colin Allred | 47% | Ted Cruz* | 48% | Oct 18 | Oct 21 | Emerson Coll. |
| Wisconsin | Tammy Baldwin* | 49% | Eric Hovde | 48% | Oct 17 | Oct 21 | Quinnipiac U. |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers