Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AK MT NH SC
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA NV WI
PollWatch 2024, Part VI: Which State Has the Best (and Worst) Polls?
FiveThirtyEight has some advice about predicting the winner of the presidential election: Flip a coin. In four of the swing states, the margin is less than 1 point; in the other three it is less than 2 points. The margin of errors on these things is typically ±4 points or so, not counting methodological errors. With numbers like that, all seven could go one way or the other way and it could end up being a landslide in the Electoral College in either direction.
This raises the question of: How good are the polls? Actually, that question can be answered. Sort of. After all, there is a lot of historical data. In particular, 538 took a look at historical polling data and election results for president, governor, and senator in the swing states. Here are the results since 2016 (they also looked at earlier data, but they might be less relevant than the data produced since Donald Trump appeared on the scene).
| State | # Polls | Error |
| Nevada | 86 | 3.3% |
| Georgia | 188 | 3.4% |
| Arizona | 162 | 3.7% |
| North Carolina | 157 | 4.4% |
| Pennsylvania | 147 | 4.5% |
| Michigan | 133 | 5.4% |
| Wisconsin | 81 | 5.6% |
Clearly, the error is substantial in all cases, with polling in the Sun Belt states being better than in the Rust Belt states. This suggests we could be in for big surprises next week.
The article compares polling in the seven swing states to polling in other states. It is actually much better in the swing states. In Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming, the average error is over 10 points. There is far more polling in the swing states than in these four, so maybe practice makes perfect—well, all right, less bad. (V)
Democrats Are Biting Their Nails but Neither Candidate Has It Nailed
The second graph on our Electoral College page looks like this:
The message here is that neither candidate is anywhere near 270 electoral votes when only states where the polling is outside the margin of error (assumed to be 5% here) are counted. Leads of 1% or 2% mean nothing, especially in light of the above item.
Democrats are wetting their pants, as they are wont to do, but the polls say it is simply a coin flip or a jump ball or whatever other metaphor you like for a tie. Democratic strategist Morgan Jackson said: "Democrats always see the glass as half-empty rather than half-full. I think the reality is this election is so tight, it's exactly where we thought it would be 3 months ago, that it was going to come down to a jump ball election, that there were a handful of states that were going to really be on the razor's edge."
Democrats, especially the college-educated ones, tend to be rational and look at the facts and the candidates' demeanors and policies. Then they conclude that theirs is obviously the best one, so why isn't she 20 points ahead? They have trouble understanding that some other people see things completely differently (e.g., young men idolizing Donald Trump's fake alpha male image because he can "grab 'em by the pu**y" and get away with it). Or Trump as an anti-hero who is sticking it to the elites (that won't accept him as one of theirs). And the Democrats don't fully realize that some things they consider obvious are an abomination to many other people (hence Trump building his closing argument around gender reassignment surgery for prisoners). Democrats also don't see the worldwide trend of incumbent parties losing postpandemic and some countries moving to the right, neither of which has anything to do with the personal qualities of Trump or Harris.
It is true that Harris has dropped from her high after the Democratic National Convention. That always happens. After a week of nothing but positive news, it is hard to maintain that momentum, although Harris' fundraising has gone through the roof and stayed there.
Part of the problem for Democrats is that many of them remember 2016, when polls in October had Hillary Clinton way ahead and she lost anyway. Of course, James Comey isn't FBI director anymore, and Harris doesn't have a private e-mail server. Also, Trump is far more unhinged now than he was in 2016, but his support is so solid now that it doesn't matter.
Republican strategists like the fact that Trump has edged up in the past 2-3 weeks, but are also very nervous. One national GOP strategist said: "Could it be a wave? Sure, absolutely. However, these polls are still close, I'm hoping Republicans don't get so excited that they forget to go and vote. That's kind of what you see right now is that Republicans have this almost out-of-body experience of how we're going to win all these states, and it's not going to be close." So overconfidence could be even worse than underconfidence if Democrats think it will be close and Republicans are already ordering the champagne.
In the end, it might come down to 50,000 votes in seven states and the weather in 10 big cities in those states. (V)
The WaPo Story Revisited
On Saturday, we had an item about Jeff Bezos ordering The Washington Post not to publish the endorsement of Kamala Harris an editorial writer had already written. The endorsement wouldn't have changed a single vote, but the whole story may matter a lot.
Jonathan Last over at The Bulwark has a somewhat different take on the matter. The story begins in 2003 in Russia. Vladimir Putin was in his first term as president. He was busy consolidating power and realized that the oligarchs who supported him were independent power centers and could be a threat to him, especially those in the media or banking. And like the good autocrat he was, Putin understood that having other power centers around was unacceptable, so they had to be neutered.
At the time, the wealthiest man in Russia was a guy named Mikhail Khodorkovsky. You are not expected to remember—or even pronounce—this so let's call him Mike. His source of wealth was a massive oil company, Yukos, he had cobbled together from former state-owned assets that he basically stole. He (foolishly) began making noises about running for office. Putin instantly understood what this meant so he had Mike arrested, tried in a kangaroo court, and shipped off to a forced labor camp in Russia's Far East. His company was dismantled and pieces were given to Putin's cronies on the understanding that they could keep them as long as they were totally obedient to Putin. The other oligarchs got the message real quick. If Putin could take care of Mike, he could take care of anyone. So they all fell in line. Instead of power centers, they became vassals.
Now fast forward to Oct. 25, 2024. If Donald Trump could cow Jeff Bezos, the second richest man in America, with a
net worth north of $200 billion, into submission without even being in power, all the other American oligarchs
business leaders understood instantly what that meant for them. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of the biggest bank in the world
and a long-time Democrat, is not going to talk about his support for Kamala Harris. Neither is Bill Gates, even though
he quietly donated $50 million to a super PAC supporting Harris in the hope it wouldn't leak out. The captains of
industry now all understand that if Trump wins, they had better be good vassals and obey, even if they know
that the orders they are receiving are disastrous for their companies, their country, and the world. If Trump wins, the
show is over for them. And if guys like Bezos and Gates are scared, what does that mean for everyone else? (V)
The Legal Battles Are Escalating--Even before the Election
We have some more legal news. Oddly enough, it doesn't involve either Rudy Giuliani or Donald Trump—at least, not directly. Republicans are clearly worried about not getting enough votes a week from tomorrow, so they would like to get the Supreme Court to just call the election for them and get it over with now. Would save a lot of trouble. Here are the major legal battles going on now.
- Arizona: Republicans are claiming that noncitizens are voting. Due to a (somewhat
complicated) computer glitch, 218,000 voters were found to be registered despite not having shown proof that they were
citizens. The Republicans sued to have them removed from the voting rolls but lost in the state Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the RNC is fighting the state's election procedures manual. A court threw out its suit, but the RNC is
appealing it. This suit is about electioneering, photography, and intimidating activity within 75 feet of a polling
place. The appeals court hasn't ruled on the merits yet, but has suspended restrictions on the banned activity while it
gears up to consider the case.
- Georgia: The Republican-controlled Georgia Board of Elections passed a number of
last-minute rules that affect the election, including one that allowed precincts and counties to delay certifying the
vote if they suspect that something is amiss with the election. Democrats sued and a judge ruled that the Board had no
authority to investigate suspicious voting. That was up to the courts. The RNC appealed but the Georgia Supreme Court
refused to expedite the case, so it will come up next year. Another Georgia judge also ruled that county officials may
not delay certifying the count, even if they think something is wrong. State law does not grant them investigative
authority.
- Michigan: In one case, the RNC sued Michigan because it didn't like how the state was
maintaining its voter rolls. A lower court ruled that: (1) the RNC didn't have standing to sue and (2) if it had, it
would have lost on the merits of the case. In another case, the RNC tried to block votes from overseas voters who have
never lived in Michigan. Under federal law, if an American citizen is born overseas to American parents and has never
lived in the U.S., that person is legally entitled to vote in federal elections. Michigan state law allows them to vote
in state elections if Michigan was the state his or her parents last lived in. The RNC lost
this, too, because the law is crystal clear on this. So the RNC naturally appealed, but the appeals court declined
to expedite the case.
- Nevada: The fights here revolve around voter rolls and absentee ballot procedures. The
RNC sued Nevada SoS Cisco Aguilar (D), claiming he has failed to purge noncitizens from the rolls. It claims that 6,136
noncitizens are registered and some of them voted in 2020. The DNC argued that election procedures should be determined
by the state legislature and the SoS according to state law, not by the courts, so the case should be thrown out. The
case is pending.
- North Carolina: Litigation in North Carolina delayed sending out absentee ballots by 2
weeks as Robert Kennedy Jr. tried to get off the ballot after the legal deadline for ballot changes had already
passed. The Republican-controlled Supreme Court agreed with Kennedy that state law is only advisory and what random
candidates want is more important. But wait, there is more. The RNC challenged 225,000 voter registrations. The DNC
challenged the lawsuit on the grounds that the National Voter Registration Act bars purging voter rolls within 90 days
of an election. A federal appeals court will hear the case today. The real problem is that there aren't always penalties for
bringing totally frivolous lawsuits.
- Pennsylvania: Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that absentee ballots where
the envelope was not dated may not be counted, even if the ballot arrives before Election Day (in which case there is no
question at all that the vote was cast before Election Day). Since then, the Court ruled 4-3 that voters whose ballots
are rejected for lack of a date must be given an opportunity to cure the ballot. The RNC doesn't want the ballots
cured (because it believes most absentee ballots are from Democrats), so it has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule
the Pennsylvania courts. In addition, six Republican congressmen are trying to block overseas ballots because they say
the state is not taking adequate measures to prevent fraud. The judge hasn't ruled yet.
- Wisconsin: A disability rights group has challenged the state's absentee balloting system
which doesn't allow electronic voting except for overseas voters. The group wants disabled voters to be able to vote
electronically even though all electronic voting, domestic and overseas, is potentially subject to hacking and is a
horrible idea. The case is still pending and a ruling could still come down before Election Day. Given that election
boards don't know beans about security and given a year to prepare probably couldn't get it right, we are not optimistic
that if some judge issues an order on Friday to allow electronic voting on Tuesday for people who say they are
disabled, all will be rainbows and unicorns.
And these are just the major cases filed already. There is still a week to go. Think of all the cases we might have pending next Monday. In principle, the election system works, but when one party is trying to break it, well, it wasn't designed to be resistant to legal attacks. (V)
Could We Have a Trump Presidency and a Democratic House?
Since the entire House is up in every presidential election year, it is common for a president's coattails to win the House for his party. But this year could be different. Even if Donald Trump wins, it is entirely possible that his party loses control of the House.
How can this be? First of all, it is unlikely that Trump will even win the popular vote, let alone surf a red wave that sweeps in endangered House Republicans in his wake. The national popular vote is a better predictor of the House than the Electoral College, which has nothing to do with control of the House. Most polls show Trump trailing in the national popular vote in the 1-3% range.
Second, many competitive House races are in the 17 districts won by Joe Biden in 2020 but are represented by Republicans. They are known as the Biden 17. They used to be the Biden 18, but "George Santos" resigned and was replaced by Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) in a special election. Five of these are in New York City suburbs where Harris is campaigning hard and likely to win, just as Biden did in 2020. She could have coattails. Another five are spread around California. Here is the list sorted by PVI. The representatives near the top of the list are the most vulnerable:
| District | PVI | Incumbent |
| NY-04 | D+5 | Anthony D'Esposito (R) |
| CA-22 | D+5 | David Valadao (R) |
| CA-13 | D+4 | John Duarte (R) |
| CA-27 | D+4 | Mike Garcia (R) |
| NY-17 | D+3 | Mike Lawler (R) |
| CA-45 | D+2 | Michelle Steel (R) |
| OR-05 | D+2 | Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R) |
| NY-22 | D+1 | Brandon Williams (R) |
| NE-02 | EVEN | Don Bacon (R) |
| NY-19 | EVEN | Marc Molinaro (R) |
| PA-01 | EVEN | Brian Fitzpatrick (R) |
| NJ-07 | R+1 | Thomas Kean Jr. (R) |
| AZ-01 | R+2 | David Schweikert (R) |
| CA-40 | R+2 | Young Kim (R) |
| VA-02 | R+2 | Jen Kiggans (R) |
| NY-01 | R+3 | Nick LaLota (R) |
| AZ-06 | R+3 | Juan Ciscomani (R) |
Seven of the eight districts with D+x are in New York or California and the eighth one is in blue Oregon. Anti-Trump sentiment is running high in all three states and with the presidential race a statistical tie, there will be few Democrats who think "Harris is a shoo-in so I don't have to vote" (i.e., no repeat of 2016). All of the other districts are potentially flippable as well. In addition, the courts have redrawn AL-02 and LA-06 to make it very likely that a Black Democrat can win them. Coattails could matter, but unless Trump wins in a red wave, it is hard to see how he could help enough in D+x districts in blue states.
Of course, there is the other side of the coin as well: the eight Democrats in districts Donald Trump won in 2020. Here they are:
| District | PVI | Incumbent |
| NC-14 | D+6 | Jeff Jackson (D) (open) |
| NC-06 | D+4 | Kathy Manning (D) (open) |
| NC-13 | R+2 | Wiley Nickel (D) (open) |
| OH-09 | R+3 | Marcy Kaptur (D) |
| PA-08 | R+4 | Matt Cartwright (D) |
| WA-03 | R+5 | Marie Perez (D) |
| ME-02 | R+6 | Jared Golden (D) |
| AK-AL | R+8 | Mary Peltola (D) |
Democrats will have to fight to hold these. None of the North Carolina districts are in the western, storm-ravaged part of the state. On the other hand, the districts were recently regerrymandered to make them unwinnable for any Democrat. For this reason, all three incumbent Democrats chose to retire.
Finally, there are Democrats in districts with an R+x PVI that Biden won. There are no Republicans in a district with a D+x PVI that Trump won. Here are the other vulnerable Democrats.
| District | PVI | Incumbent |
| KS-03 | R+1 | Sharice Davids (D) |
| MI-08 | R+1 | Dan Kildee (D) (open) |
| OH-13 | R+1 | Emilia Sykes (D) |
| MI-07 | R+2 | Elissa Slotkin (D) (open) |
| PA-07 | R+2 | Susan Wild (D) |
These 28 (31 minus NC) competitive races will determine control of the House. On Election Night, keep your ears perked for results in them.
NBC News has an interesting take on most of these races. They are disproportionately in the suburbs of big cities and that is where Harris is strong. In some cases these are traditionally Republican districts with many college-educated voters going for the Democrats these days. One Democratic strategist said: "The math for our battlefield does not actually dictate that Harris needs to win the presidency in order to take the House." The strategist means that strong Democratic turnout in the suburbs nationwide could mean a Democratic House, even if Trump rolls up enough votes in rural areas to win the state. This is simply because few of the competitive House districts are rural.
Of course a Trump presidency, Republican Senate and Democratic House would be a formula for disaster for the country. Trump would probably get most nominations approved by the Senate on a party-line vote (including judges), but he wouldn't be able to pass a budget or get any laws passed. That means few of his projects that cost money could be carried out. Deporting millions of undocumented immigrants? Building a wall on the Mexican border? Those would cost trillions of dollars. Even Elon Musk doesn't have that kind of money. Trump could impose tariffs on his own based on a Depression-era law where Congress ceded the power to impose tariffs to the president. He would also sign as many XOs as he wanted, but those would just order Executive Departments to do certain things, like having the IRS cease to audit anyone making $1 million or more or having the EPA not look at violations of environmental law in states whose governor supported him. He could vigorously enforce the Comstock Act (which bans the mailing of abortion pills) and order the FDA to rescind approval of mifepristone, although the latter would certainly end up in the Supreme Court. But there is a limit to what he could do using only XOs.
A Democratic House would put the Democrats in a bind. Many of them might (secretly) hope for total chaos in the country, since it is usually the president who gets the blame when things go south. They could demand a budget that financed many of their priorities and few of Trump's. If the result was a government shutdown, Trump would probably get the blame, especially if the Democrats were fighting to preserve school lunches, subsidized day care, and the Affordable Care Act. The goal would be to rile up the country and get people angry with the Republicans in order to win big in 2026. Of course, people would suffer in a shutdown and Democrats don't like that, but they also don't like the idea of Trump forcing the House to bow down to his wishes. It could get really nasty, especially since the Supreme Court ruled that presidents can break the law while presidenting. (V)
When Will We Know?
Don't count on knowing who will be president an hour after the polls close on the West Coast. Or even a day after. That notwithstanding, do expect Donald Trump to claim victory on Election Night, possibly soon after the polls close in the Eastern Time Zone. How long did it take the AP to call the winner in each state in 2020? Axios has produced this graphic to show it.
As soon as Trump declares victory, he is also likely to demand that the counting of votes stop, even in states where ballots postmarked on or before Election Day must be counted even if they arrive after Election Day (up to some limit). His supporters may back him up, but of course, local election authorities will follow state law, not Trump's wishes. There could be a period of confusion and uncertainty all night and possibly the next day, especially if not all counting has been completed on Election Night. Many states do not want election workers to work through the night because they are in stressful jobs and are entitled to get some sleep. So counting often stops around midnight and starts again around 8 a.m. the next day, possibly with no result when they stop.
This pause will cue the rumor mill to start generating falsehoods and conspiracy theories at full blast. A CBS study showed that 55% of Elon Musk's 48,000 tweets about election security since 2020 contain false or misleading information. He won't be the only one. If Trump believes he is losing, he will flood the zone with lies.
In close races, it can take a very long time to get a final count. It took the AP 3½ days to make a call in Pennsylvania in 2020. North Carolina (10 days) and Georgia (16 days) were the worst and were only called after hand recounts of all the ballots had been completed. Fortunately, Biden didn't need those electoral votes to win, but suppose he did. It would have taken over two weeks to know who won, with all the uncertainty and screaming that would have entailed. Shades of Florida in 2000. With seven swing states this time, we might have to wait a bit. And it is possible that the Supreme Court gets involved, as it did in 2000. We are not lawyers, but we do know that presidential elections are run according to state law, so the final call should generally rest with the relevant state Supreme Court, unless some state clearly violated federal law, which is unlikely. But the Supreme Court might not see it that way. Chief Justice John Roberts was allegedly very surprised by the public reaction to the Dobbs decision. If he and his buddies overrule some state Supreme Court and declare Trump the winner, the reaction to Dobbs will be small potatoes.
Each state has its own procedures for counting votes. Here are the procedures used by the seven swing states:
- Arizona: Many people in Arizona drop off their absentee ballots on Election Day.
This means the signature verification can't realistically start until after the polls close, since the election workers are
busy helping in-person voters until then. Then the ballots have to be removed from the envelopes and put in the tabulating
machines. Fox News called Arizona on Election Night in 2020, but the other networks took 9 days to call it.
- Georgia: In 2020, Biden's victory in the Peach State wasn't known until days later. The
legislature has changed some laws, including one requiring counties to continuously count until 5 p.m. the day after the
election. If workers have to stay on the job until then, they will be dead tired and probably make mistakes. It could be
a real mess.
- Michigan: In 2020, the call came at 6 p.m. the day after the election. This year,
absentee ballots can be processed before Election Day. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson expects to be able to
certify the results the day after the election this year, the same as last time.
- Nevada: Elections in the Silver State are run by mail and state law allows ballots
postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted up to 4 days later. If it is close, the results won't be known until
Nov. 9 or later. Fortunately, there are not many scenarios in which Nevada's six electoral votes determine the winner.
- North Carolina: Despite the lack of any hurricanes in 2020, the winner wasn't declared
until 4 p.m. on the Friday after the election. This year, the damage caused by Hurricane Helene has to be factored in.
If phone lines are still down and roads impassable in some counties, that could slow the reporting process.
- Pennsylvania: This is the biggest swing state and possibly the closest and slowest.
Tabulation of absentee ballots may not even begin until the polls close. In the midterms, a quarter of the votes were
absentee ballots. Will that happen again? It could. The election wasn't called in Pennsylvania in 2020 until the Saturday after
Election Day.
- Wisconsin: The two biggest counties, Milwaukee and Dane, are usually pretty slow about
counting and statewide results can't possibly be known until both of them are in.
So expect prolonged uncertainty, rumors, lies, conspiracy theories, disputes, court challenges over everything, and probably hand recounts in multiple states. Markets will be in turmoil. Election workers will be worked to the bone and harassed. We wouldn't be surprised if some of them simply gave up midcount and quit their jobs, creating even more chaos. And when all the results are in, the court challenges will be revved up. We hope John Roberts and his eight friends have cleared their docket for November and December. They're going to have to work overtime then. (V)
The Youth Gender Gap Is Gigantic
A new Harvard Youth Poll has Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump 60% to 32% for likely voters 18-29. It also has some other interesting data points. One important one is that the decision to vote depends on peer pressure. When someone believes his or her friends will vote, 79% will also vote. But when one's friends are not interested in voting, that drops to 35%. On the whole, 58% of voters under 30 say they will definitely vote. Half plan to vote on Election Day, up from 37% in 2020. Only 12% plan to vote early.
The gender gap among young voters is enormous. Harris leads by 30 points among women and 10 points among men. Also, men are less likely to vote than women, which could make the actual gap bigger. Harris knows this and is appealing to women all day and every day. Trump knows this too, and is appealing to men at sports events and other places where men gather. In the battleground states, Harris' lead is smaller than nationally, namely 50% to 41%, with 1% for Jill Stein and 1% for Chase Oliver.
Another important result is that only 20% of young Americans expect a peaceful transfer of power after the election. If there is anything that characterizes a banana republic (other than growing bananas) it is the lack of a peaceful transfer of power after a (disputed) election. Welcome to Bananaland.
The same poll was held earlier this year, so the new results can be compared to the first one. Among white men, there has been a 20-point swing toward the Democrats. Among nonwhite men, Trump has picked up 7 points. Among white women, Harris is doing 9 points better than Biden. But among nonwhite women, the surge for Harris is immense, with 70% for Harris (vs. 36% for Biden earlier). This is consistent with many other stories about nonwhite young men moving toward Trump but all other young voters moving toward Harris.
Harris leads on all the issues, but there is a lot of variance depending on the issue. On abortion it is Harris +41, on strengthening the working class it is Harris +25, on immigration it is Harris +12, on the economy it is Harris +11, on Gaza +4. Across most issues, Trump does better among registered voters than among likely voters. His campaign knows this and is trying hard to get marginal voters to the polls. The problem is that they are marginal voters for some reason they think is important. (V)
The Realignment Is Here--and Democrats Don't Get It
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria has an interesting column on the ongoing party realignment. He notes that a recent cover of the Economist has a rolled-up dollar bill taking off like a rocket with a headline: "The Envy of the World." Yet the strong economy hasn't helped Kamala Harris one bit. In fact, she is often blamed for a terrible economy. This indicates that something is afoot.
It is even stranger since Biden's economic policies, such as bringing more manufacturing jobs to America and massively upgrading the national infrastructure, have been specifically designed to help working-class men. Improvements to roads, bridges, harbors, airports, etc. create jobs in construction and related fields that are largely filled by noncollege men. Despite this, the noncollege workers don't like the Democrats. Polls show Harris will do about 9 points worse among working-class men than Biden did in 2020. What's going on here?
Zakaria argues that after decades of globalization and the digital revolution, the old order is fading and a new one is taking place. It used to be that the rich and upper middle class voted for Republicans and the working-class and poor voted for the Democrats. Also, white people were Republicans and minorities were Democrats. Now the main division is not economic, but educational, with college-educated voters (and some minorities) being Democrats and noncollege voters being Republicans. A second key factor is gender. Democrats are becoming the mommy party and Republicans the daddy party. As a consequence, Harris will probably get more white votes than Biden did because for college-educated white women, education and gender beat race.
The institutional Democratic Party doesn't get it. Party leaders think that Donald Trump has tricked working class voters into voting against their own (economic) interests, and when he goes away, all will be right with the world again. But Biden has tried to woo the workers, with little success. Some studies have shown that the most worker-friendly politician in America, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is much more popular with the educated elites in the Democratic Party than he is with actual workers. How can the workers be so stupid?
Leaders of the Democratic Party do not understand that their problem is not that they are insufficiently worker- or union-oriented on economic policy. It is that they have moved far too far to the left on social and cultural issues and are way out of step with the working class. Their educated voters don't give a hoot about who marries whom or which bathroom anyone uses. It turns out that many working-class voters give many hoots about these issues and see the Democrats way off in la-la land on them. Many Democratic leaders are unable to comprehend why what they see as perfectly normal and reasonable is anathema to many working-class voters. So what do the Democrats do about these "stupid" people? They call them a "basket of deplorables." Probably not a good idea.
But even if the Democrats get the message, there is no easy way out. When economics was king, the solution was to grow the economy so everyone got more money. That was easy. But with divisive social issues being central now, it is hard to find positions that satisfy both Harvard graduates and high school dropouts. They have different ideas about the proper social order and especially the position of women in it. To the Democrats' great disadvantage, there are many more voters without a college education than voters with one.
All this suggests that the new alignment will mean a Democratic Party supported by college-educated voters, young people (primarily women) and minorities (again, primarily women). It will also mean a Republican Party supported by older working-class men and women and young men.
Among seniors (65+), the situation is somewhat different, with education and gender playing less of a role. Traditionally, seniors tended to be Republicans, but that is changing. For many seniors, Social Security and Medicare are big issues. In one poll, 55% of seniors said that Social Security is or will be a major source of their income and 80% said it is a major issue in how they vote. Republicans often talk about cutting it or privatizing it. Seniors don't like this, which is moving many of them to the Democrats, regardless of education or gender. Also, Black seniors tend to remember who was on which side during the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s and are still strongly Democratic. (V)
Arab Americans Favor Jill Stein
Although many Arab Americans think that Donald Trump will be worse for their community than Kamala Harris, they nevertheless plan to vote for Jill Stein, just to punish Joe Biden for his role in supplying Israel with weapons it is using in Gaza. The technical term political scientists use for this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
They may or may not have heard about Young Jared's plan to turn Gaza, with its great beaches and excellent weather, into Miami Beach East, filled with expensive condos and hotels. And they may or may not have heard that Donald Trump thinks even bigger than Young Jared. He wants to turn Gaza into Monaco, creating another paradise for the ultrawealthy. Neither of these plans seems to have much room for the Gazans who live there, although some could maybe become hotel maids. But opposing Harris feels so good that many Arab Americans are planning to vote third-party, even if that means Trump wins.
Hudhayfah Ahmad, a media representative for the Abandon Harris Campaign, was clear: "We want to break our community out of the mindset of the lesser evil." He said that of the many tools in his toolbox, voting is one, and it must be utilized morally, ethically, and consciously (and apparently without regard to the consequences). Another Arab-American leader, Abed Hammoud, hasn't formally endorsed Stein, but is actively campaigning against both Harris and Trump. Senan Shaq, a Stein surrogate, said that Arab Americans in his community have begun to feel hopeless about Biden's ability to end the war in Gaza, so he joined Stein's campaign and is raising money for her. Leading imams and Arab scholars have urged Muslims to snub Harris over Gaza.
Stein has called not only for a cease fire, but also for an end to Israeli occupation of Gaza, as well as accountability for war crimes. This sounds appealing to many Arab Americans. But some Arab Americans think that voting for Stein doesn't deliver a strong enough message to Harris, and the toughest punch to her is to actually vote for Trump, even though he is more or less calling for all the Gazans to be removed from Gaza.
Harris understands that she has a problem with Arab Americans, primarily in Michigan. She has talked about the suffering of the Gazans at length, but she also said her Middle East policies wouldn't be all that different from Biden's. Consequently she doesn't appear to be making much progress with them. She's in a bind because far more voters are pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, and many voters regard the attack on Israel last year that killed a larger proportion of Israelis than 9/11 killed Americans as justification for some kind of response, even if they think Israel has overreacted.
Trump is trying to take advantage of the situation, meeting with Muslim leaders in Michigan and other states. He said he would end the war in Gaza just as he would end the war in Ukraine. After all, he can't rebuild Gaza as Monaco in the middle of an active war zone.
For Arab Americans, voting for Stein en masse is playing with fire. If Trump wins, his plan for ending the war is for Israel to win it. He has already told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "finish the job." Arab Americans aren't going to like the results. And if Harris wins Michigan without the Arab American vote, that sends her the message that she doesn't need them, rather than the message that they are an important part of her base. (V)
Shapiro Is Working Full Time for Harris
Theoretically, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) has a day job—governing Pennsylvania—but from his actions, you wouldn't know it. When he is not out stumping for Kamala Harris, he is busy telling her how to win Pennsylvania. He is absolutely not sulking about not getting his way (being chosen as Harris' running mate). He wants to show that he is absolutely a team player, even if that hurts him personally (If Harris wins, he can't run for president until 2032, whereas if she loses, he will probably jump into the 2028 race on, say, Jan. 21). His efforts to help Harris have not gone unnoticed.
Shapiro is not only barnstorming Pennsylvania, where he is popular and well-known, but also Michigan and Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent, some other states. He fully understands that if he helps win these states, it will help his reputation going forward. He is 51 and clearly has ambitions for higher office some day, first and foremost, the presidency, but he would (initially) settle for the Senate should one of those seats become vacant—for example, if Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is disabled by another stroke.
Shapiro understands like no other that James Carville hit the nail on the head when he said that Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in between. Shapiro spent a lot of time in the "Alabama" part during his three statewide runs, winning all of those races. He even won some of the "Alabama" counties and reduced the usual Democratic losses in the others. Harris is more than a little bit interested in how Shapiro pulled that off.
A large part of it was just showing up. Democrats rarely went there and when they did, they talked and didn't listen. Shapiro went and listened and is telling Harris to do that as well. She is definitely listening to him and is showing up. One thing he has emphasized is that in his gubernatorial run, he made a promise to open up many state jobs to people who didn't have a college degree. That was extremely popular in rural areas where people feel discriminated against simply because they don't have a college degree. Shapiro has urged Harris to make the same promise about some federal jobs. Does a degree in philosophy or French literature really make someone a better postmaster or EPA inspector? Harris definitely listened to Shapiro and has incorporated that idea into her stump speech in rural areas.
With Shapiro's guidance, Harris is not making the same mistake Hillary Clinton made in 2016. Clinton basically just campaigned in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Harris is campaigning all over the state. These county maps make it clear that Shapiro knows what he is talking about. The map on the left is Clinton in 2016. The one on the right is Shapiro in 2022:
The first thing that should strike your eye is how dark the red in the middle is on the left (i.e., Clinton was walloped) and how light the red is on the right (Shapiro lost, but much closer). Consider Bedford County, in the southwestern part of the state, for example. Donald Trump got 83% of the vote in 2016 and Clinton got 15%, with Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson getting most of the rest. Clinton got only 3,645 votes. In 2022, Republican Doug Mastriano, who is trumpier than Trump, won in a landslide with 77% of the vote, but Shapiro got 4,721 votes. That is 1,076 more votes than Clinton. Those 1,076 votes are just as valuable in a statewide race as another 1,076 votes in some Philadelphia suburb. Shapiro gets that. Pennsylvania has 67 counties. An extra 1,000 votes x 67 is 67,000 votes. Clinton lost Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes. You don't have to do the math. We just did it for you.
Just showing up was enough for Shapiro to actually flip six counties that Trump won in 2016. They are marked with asterisks. In case you are wondering what that strange blue county in the middle of the state is, it is the well-named Centre County (British spelling was still common in 1800). Penn State University, with 50,000 students and 12,400 staff, is located there. The total population of the county is 158,000. This time you get to do the math.
Based on Shapiro's intimate knowledge of Pennsylvania, Harris has been campaigning in Appalachian towns, ancestral coal hubs, and deep exurbs. She is showing up in places where no national candidate has ever been and is sounding like a moderate, not a female version of Leon Trotsky, as Trump likes to paint her. She may not win these little towns, but the key to winning the state may be losing less badly, as Shapiro did in 2022.
Shapiro is also working hard to help Democrats in other races. Last week he was at a rally in PA-10, where Janelle Stelson (D) is trying to oust MAGA firebrand Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) in an R+5 district. Polling shows that Shapiro is by far the most popular politician in the district, with an approval rating of 67%. That is amazing, and his showing up to help Stelson and Harris could add some votes to both of their totals. (V)
Wisconsin Is in Play
We don't mean the 10 presidential electors. You already knew that. And we don't mean the Senate race. You knew that, too. We mean the massively gerrymandered state Assembly, where the Republicans have 64 seats and the Democrats have 35 seats—in the mother of all 50-50 states. This time could be different because the state Supreme Court, where the Democrats now have a majority, threw out the old legislative maps and drew new ones that are quite competitive. Since all 99 seats are up next week, the Democrats actually have a shot at getting a majority in the Assembly. The Republicans have a 22-10 supermajority in the state Senate (with one vacancy), but only half the Senate is up this year, so the effect of the new map won't be fully felt until 2026.
As in Pennsylvania (see above), a lot is riding on winning rural areas. Democrats are seriously contesting 97 of the 99 Assembly districts, something of a record, since almost none are completely hopeless now. Nevertheless, they will have to totally revamp their normal Wisconsin strategy to capture the Assembly. Usually they just show up in Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) counties and try to get everyone to the polls. That obviously does not work in the other 70 counties, some of them quite rural.
One of most contested districts now is centered around Wausau, a city of 40,000 in Marathon County, in the middle of the state, 140 miles north of Madison and 150 miles northwest of Milwaukee. There, and elsewhere in small towns in rural areas, the Republicans have a well-oiled machine at work. They can easily find candidates who are a good match for the district and who are well-known in the community, either as a member of a town council, a school board, or a business leader. Democrats are poorly organized in areas they never won before and are having trouble recruiting candidates in many districts. County parties have become moribund since they always lose. A new map doesn't suddenly revitalize the party committees.
Another district that has suddenly become winnable is AD 51, in the southwestern part of the state along the Iowa border. The new map added more of Dane County to it, so it is now a 50-50 district. The Democrats found a candidate in realtor Elizabeth Grabe, who is now crisscrossing the 50-mile district in an effort similar to the triathlons she used to compete in. Wisconsin has a population of 5.9 million and 99 assembly districts, so a district has to have about 60,000 people. To collect 60,000 people in rural areas, the district has to be quite large. National candidates have large staffs of advisers who organize rallies, do fundraising, and plot the air war. For a state assembly district, it is just the candidate going door to door, a campaign manager and maybe a few volunteers. The current assemblyman, Todd Novak (R), is better known than Grabe and probably has more money for signs and a proper headquarters. Nevertheless, with a 50-50 district and many voters simply looking for who has the (D) and who has the (R), she has a chance. The same holds in all 99 districts and also those state Senate districts up this year. It is entirely possible that the Democrats could capture the Assembly this year and the state Senate in 2026. (V)
Today's Presidential Polls
We are very suspicious of the Praecones poll.
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Alaska | 45% | 55% | Oct 20 | Oct 22 | Alaska Survey Research |
| Montana | 40% | 59% | Oct 23 | Oct 25 | Emerson Coll. |
| New Hampshire | 50% | 50% | Oct 24 | Oct 26 | Praecones Analytica |
| New Hampshire | 50% | 47% | Oct 21 | Oct 23 | Emerson Coll. |
| South Carolina | 42% | 55% | Oct 18 | Oct 22 | East Carolina U. |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
If you live in Montana, we suggest you turn off your TV this week. All programming will be preempted and replaced by ads. Tester is running way ahead of Harris, but will it be enough?
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Montana | Jon Tester* | 48% | Tim Sheehy | 51% | Oct 23 | Oct 25 | Emerson Coll. |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers