Trump Started A Realignment And They Take Time

As of the writing of this article President Elect Trump will win the popular vote by around 2% and 3 million votes or so and walk into office with a 53-47 Republican Senate Majority and a slim 220/222 – 215/23 House Majority. No modern day President will walk into office with narrower margins after a successful election with a trifecta since George Bush in 2000. Keep in mind Reagan governed with divided government his entire time, Clinton had an almost 100 seat edge in the House and 12 seat edge in the Senate in 1992 while Bush walked into office in 2000 with a tied Senate and only 22 seats in the House. Only after 2002 and 2004 did Bush have solid majorities. As for Obama, he is the only modern President to have 60 seats in the Senate and a massive majority in the House.

Trump came into office in 2017 with 52 Senate seats and 241 seats in the House. This go -round, he will have one more seat in the Senate but drastically less seats in the House. Quite a few Democrats will sit in Trump districts thanks to his numbers in many blue districts and states.

So, the question has to be asked why? Well, let’s state the obvious. America is in the midst of a realignment. Not even the most establishment hacks will deny this. Realignments, historically, take time to filter through the system and are subject to external factors (voter systems, gerrymandering, incumbent bonus, etc.). Much of the chronically online analysis of Trump and the weakness of down-ballot Republicans has focused on traditional right/eft wing political tropes and divides. The right is generally divided between conservative vs. establishment and where funding went (particularly in the Senate) and the Left has found hope in how strong their incumbents ran because voters still agree with us on the issues. It was just “Kamala.”

It also is true there was an incumbent bonus. Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin ran head of Harris by about 2 points, Jacky Rosen in Nevada ran about 3 points ahead, even Bob Casey in Pennsylvania ran a couple points ahead. Meanwhile, Brown in Ohio and Tester in Montana ran five to 10 points ahead. Admittedly, these are just Senate races and if Trump had won states like Wisconsin by larger margins he would have carried a bigger Senate majority with him. Meanwhile, in the House, the incumbent bonus allowed Democrats to hold traditionally red seats like OH – 9 and ME -2 and also gain back blue seats in NY, OR and CA.

An additional factor is Trump’s dominance nationally. Trump won districts nobody was thinking about such as NJ – 09 (a Biden + 19 district). Trump only was able to win the popular vote by scoring historical margins among Hispanics, Asians and Blacks. But, that also meant his coalition was inefficiently distributed since Trump got more votes in dark blue states and districts but rarely enough to carry Republican candidates, again, because of the incumbent bonus and gerrymandering.

But, how do you explain Southern Texas then? Trump wiped the floor with Harris there but Democratic incumbents won both districts narrowly. The incumbent bonus can only explain so much. Well, that is where the realignment thesis comes in.

Historically, realignments start at the top of the ticket and it takes time to filter down to Congress and the states. The most recent example of this we have is Nixon in 1972. When he won a landslide in 1972 Democrats easily maintained their control of the House and Senate. Throughout his tenure Reagan dealt with a divided government while even Clinton ran as a moderate. It was only in 94, when the only alternative to a check on a Dem President was a GOP Congress that the realignment of Southern whites hit full steam and Democrats suffered the loss of their 40 year House Majority. Throughout that 40 year history of 54 – 94 (or even just the narrower 72 – 94 time frame) Democrats held many districts Republican Presidents won, 2024 is no different.

The factors mentioned above only exacerbate this dynamic. Sticking with Southern Texas as an example, it is very analogous to many former Southern, white Democrats. Longtime incumbents who sat in districts for decades, had their own brands, and thus were insulated from the realignment occurring at the Presidential level. In OH – 9 with Marcy Kaptur, ME – 2 with Jared Golden, and Henry Cuellar in TX 28, these clearly red districts did not view their Congressman or woman through the same lens as the Presidential contest.

So, what does this mean going forward? Well, it likely means the scope of the realignment won’t be realized until 2028 or beyond in the House (I assume Republicans are punished as is normal in the midterms). Short term, or I guess shorter term, the locus of power for the GOP will be in Senate. States cannot be gerrymandered fortunately. However, in close races, the incumbent bonus does matter. That partially explains how Democrats can have 10 Senators – 2 – AZ, 2 – GA, 1 – PA, 1 – WI, 2 – MI, and 2 – NV) in states Trump won in 16 and/or 24. Even so, due to how red formerly purple Midwestern states (OH, IA) and Florida have become and no Democrat now occupies greater than a R +3 state, Democrats ability to reach 50/51 seats in the Senate is extremely limited. Nothing similar can be said yet for the House.

Trump’s Election is A Rejection of All We Thought We Knew About Politics

On Election Night, Donald Trump was called the 47th President Elect of the United States. Most analysts and pollsters coming into the night wondered if we would be waiting until the wee hours of the morning or the entire week for the call, especially considering the split verdict in 2022.

To call these results a shock and repudiation of the political and electoral system we thought we knew existed is an understatement. Trump campaigned on mass deportation of criminals, backing away from abortion and tariffs and protectionism and he won a mandate potentially larger than George Bush’s in 2004.

While the results in the House are muddled (due to strong incumbents, Democratic and Republican, and gerrymandering), the results in the Presidential and Senate contests are an unequivocal repudiation of Kamala Harris. Words can hardly describe it, and I will leave it to better people than I to explain it (in data and visuals) but I will try.

The transformation of Florida under Trump is now complete. What was once a 1 point victory for the state in 2016 turned into a 13 point win. Trump actually carried Miami Dade and nearly took Palm Beach. Moving West, Trump carried Texas by Romneyesque margins (14 points). In a single night, all the gains Democrats had made in the state in the last decade disappeared.

To put Florida and Texas in context, both states are now further to the right of the nation than New York. And while no other blue states flipped, Virginia was closer than 2016, New Jersey was within 5, Illinois was within 9, and though votes are remaining to be counted in California, it is now less left leaning than Washington. Again, no non swing states flipped but if the GOP believes it can actually expand the map in states with large blue collar, minority populations (NJ, NM, etc.).

The Senate was always an almost impossible hold. Joe Machin’s retirement made West Virginia a pick – up for the GOP. John Tester had a tough task in Montana, similar to Sherrod Brown in Ohio, while others in MI, PA, WI, AZ, and NV had to plan to be able to outrun the top of the ticket.

Well, some did and some didn’t What is most notable, is the survivors, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin and Melissa Slotkin in Michigan, ran the furthest away from Harris the earliest. Luck? Maybe. But they may be the survivors. Tester, Brown and Jon Casey in Pennsylvania (fabled inheritor of the family name), all have lost. Jacky Rosen is about to fall to Sam Brown, a candidate the GOP literally left for dead. Arizona could go right but Kari Lake has major issues.

To be fair, in the end, I am not sure any Democrat could have planned for this with an agenda which was shown to be as unpopular as we just witnessed. Trump’s coattails extended all the way down the ballot and through every demographic, and that hits deeply in a multi-cultural working class state like Nevada. His support was almost even among all age groups, he won Hispanics and Asians in some states, and actually shed some of its white boomer support. This younger support makes irrelevant the belief the GOP is demographically doomed.

While the electoral impacts are still being felt it is clear the President has a mandate. The President Elect will have a dominant Senate majority and though narrow, a House majority. In other words, Trump enters the White House for the second time with another trifecta.

The difference? He has a mandate!

In The Last 48 Hours the Polls Have Become Less Clear

Stop me if you have heard this before, the race is a toss – up. Okay, I’ll stop. As we come to the closing of a historic Presidential election where one party ditched its nominee and the other party’s candidate saw two assassination attempts we are left with the same muddled message in polling we had at the beginning; it could go either way.

But, in the last 48 hours we have seen some subtle shifts. Whether it is actual voter movement or just methodology shifts remains to be seen but it is obvious the industry is hedging its bets.

First, nationally, we have seen a subtle shift back to Harris. This shift has been seen in the New York Times, Marist and ABC/Ipsos where Democratic leaning voters have flooded into the zone and created some solidly blue samples. For example, the last Marist survey found a partisan electorate of 39D/35R and more Republicans crossing over than Dems in their LV sample. But among registered voters, the race was tied at 49. Nate Cohn, polling for the Times, found in his data that white Republicans were less likely to respond than white Democrats possibly leading to a bluer sample.

Two theories are possible. The first is that the movement into the surveys is organic, suggesting a late surge for Harris. However, late deciders are not the most likely to answer a survey and identify their most important issue as a partisan talking point (preserving democracy). The other is just as simple; the pollsters assumptions about the electorate is off, whether through some sort non response bias they are not weighting for or their LV screens being too tight for the actual voting electorate.

Then we move to the state polls and it has been a roller – coaster (minus the whole this damn thing is really, really close). What looked like a solid edge for Trump has shrunk somewhat, though we also have solid EV data to consider as well. More importantly, a deeper debate was provoked on Saturday when the Des Moines Register/Selzer poll released a nuclear bomb on the Electoral College. Harris led 47/44 in their sample and its cross tabs read like a liberal’s wet dream. For reference, Trump won Iowa by 8 points in 2020.

Since that time, not a single poll, of either Iowa or the rest of the Midwest, has confirmed such findings. But, because of history and reputation, some treat it as gospel. If that wasn’t enough, the spate of final polling has coalesced into a fairly traditional Presidential/downballot races split whereby Trump winning a state widely is dragging down-ballot Republicans across the finish line but in the Rust Belt where Harris and Trump are trading leads Democratic incumbents are generally narrowly leading.

What this means is Montana is no longer in doubt for the GOP (and with it the Senate majority). Meanwhile, Texas has become more of a reach for Dems and Florida is all but off the table minus the largest polling miss in history. More importantly for the size of the GOP majority, the tightening of top of the ticket contests means Ohio is now likely to go Republican, and if Trump’s margin is large enough in AZ, he carries Lake (I doubt this though). Right now, the Senate is 52 – 48 GOP unless a blue wave develops.

For some time myself and others have expected down – ballot races to coincide with the presidential contest and that expectation seems to be coming true barring a polling miss.

Admittedly, none of us know what will happen for the rest of the week and I will not make any predictions one way or the other. I think Trump, despite a bad week, still is a slight favorite, but I may be wrong in my beliefs based on the numbers we have. We will see.

The Race May Have Finally Shifted

As we approach the closure of the 2024 election one cannot help but look back at where we were in 2016 and 2020, at least from the polling perspective. In 2016, on October 25th, Hillary Clinton led Trump by 5.1 points nationally. In 2020, Bide led by a whopping eight points. But, per RCP, behold where we are below. The race is a dead heat.

What is also notable is Trump seems to be doing better in more recognized pollsters such as the NY (tie), WSJ (+3), CNBC, and Fox (+2). Meanwhile Harris leads in the polls like Morning Consult and Reuters which have become random number generators this election (ie. minimal movement the entire cycle).

While this is notable, it is more important to consider where the race was when Harris became the Democratic nominee. And for that, we can look at trends. When the race truly began on July 21st, Trump led Harris by 3.1 points. Within two weeks, Harris had overtaken Trump in the national averages and the swing states followed. Since that time, until the beginning of October, the race stuck around a narrow Harris 2 point national lead on average. Yet, now, in the last two or so weeks, we are now at a tied national race (polling wise) and swing state polls from a plethora, not just a Rasmussen or Trafalgar, are showing Trump ahead. The trendline of polling is clearly in Trump’s favor.

But, we also now have clear picture of the early returns (mail, In Person Early Voting), in states by partisanship (ie. Virginia, North Carolina, Florida) and race (Georgia) and, at least relative to 2020, the GOP is leaps and bounds ahead of 2020. Just as an example, I know Florida is not a swing state (sorry Election Twitter), but in 2020, Democrats led in IPEV and mail turnout by registered partisanship on Election Day. The same thing in Nevada. Same in North Carolina (to be fair in NC the lead is oscillating).

In Georgia, the tea leaves must be read through racial turnout and in this case while white turnout is about the same, black turnout has blocked while “other” as a share of the electorate has grown. Plus, while the electorate is more female than past exit polls (positive for Dems) the boost in turnout is from primarily rural areas (plus GOP). It is also important to note Georgia, even more so than North Carolina, is very racially polarized which means college educated whites turning out remains a positive for the GOP (they win them).

These positive numbers for the GOP would not be possible if not for the registration changes we heard about percolating under the surface for years. Florida now has a one million voter GOP edge. Nevada’s partisan registration is almost a dead heat. Pennsylvania’s edge has been halved from 600,000 to a 300,000 Dem voter edge. On and on and on. The list continues in state after state.

It’s also hard to ignore the narrative and actions coming from both campaigns. Kamala Harris is doing townhalls, which, from my admittedly biased perspective, continue to remind voters of what they don’t like about her (empty platitudes and never answering a question). Trump’s campaign is continuing to lean into its message on immigration and taxes.

Notably, the campaign of joy is gone from the Harris team and it has been replaced with a much darker tone. Ignored are the lessons from Trump’s prior two assassination attempts and Harris and her surrogates are labelling him a fascist. Tim Walz told a group of college students they would be on a list. This darker tone is not a sign of a winning campaign but one that is rightly worried.

I have always been cautiously bullish about Trump’s chances and I remain so. But, if Trump wins, it will be because of the fundamentals, a bad nominee who never was vetted in a primary, and voters exhausted with the excesses of a Democratic elite who only promises to do things for them around election time.

The Two Adventures In 2024 Polling

We are now less than 40 days from Election 2024, early and mail voting has started in some states, and the depth and scope of polling is hard for anybody to keep track of and make sense of. Enter dozens of election prediction algorithms (most are garbage in my opinion) because as elections get closer they give outsized import to polling outcomes. The problem, those polls can be wrong.

This gets me to the point of this article. This cycle, two divergent tracks of polling have emerged at both the state and national levels.

The first consists of the Rasmussens, NYT/Sienna and Atlas pollsters of the world who see a tight to slight Trump lead in the NPV (national popular vote). Rasmussen* consistently posts a one to two point Trump lead nationally while the Times and Atlas have shown tied to narrow Trump leads.

However, none of the pro (in the sense of a tight NPV) find Trump running away with the battleground states. Instead, they still find those states tight as can be. This is a startling change from when WI, MI, PA, AZ, NV, GA and NC were to the right of the nation by varying degrees. I am not discussing TX and FL here because while polls show those states tight the misses there have been significant and it tends to be polls underestimate significantly states where the incumbent party will dominate (TX, Fl, OK 2022).

If this polling “adventure” as I call it comes true and the NPV is super close or Trump even wins it but loses the EC this would be a startling turnaround from 2020 when every swing state was to the right of the nation.

Some pollsters, particularly Nate Cohn of the NYT, has put forth theories for why this is happening. As seen in 2020, and accelerated in the midterms of 2022 in some states such as New York, GOP and Trump inroads in deeply blue areas such as metro LA, Philly and NYC, have increased GOP popular vote gains but had minimal impact on statewide or district vote margins. This is one of the reasons how the GOP could win the NPV vote for the House by about 3 million in 22 but only gain a handful of seats (horrible geographic vote distribution).

To their credit, NYT/Siena polls have backed up their theory with tied NPV surveys but Harris + 4s in PA and WI. Others such as Rasmussen and Atlas do fewer individual state surveys and are less bullish on Harris in these states (generally suggest tied to narrow leads one way or the other).

The other “adventure” in polling are the Marists, Emersons, CNN’s NBCs, ABCs and Morning Consult/Bloombergs of the polling universe that suggest a somewhat more conventional 2020 redux where Harris enjoys national leads anywhere from 1 – 6 points but find the swing states neck and neck. This would suggest the GOP Electoral College advantage is real and not diluted.

Of course there are outliers to these two “adventures.” I mean Morning Consult/Bloomberg suggests a Harris win nationwide and in the states that would make the 2008 Obama wave look tame while ABC and NBC don’t really poll individual states (maybe ABC learned from 2020’s infamous Wisconsin Biden + 17 in October). Others do the same but they tend to be outliers.

Then there are the smattering of individual statewide pollsters; Selzer – Iowa, Marquette – Wisconsin, Texas Tribune/Houston Chronicle – Texas, George Washington University – Virginia, and so on which suggest a crazy environment with polls from +1 Harris in Virginia (a 9 point shift rightward from 2020) to a Texas +5 (1 point leftward) and so forth.

As has been said, “pick your adventure.” We will know which one is right in about 40 days.

*Rasmussen is a daily tracking survey.

Polls Are Repeating A Similar Senate Story

Amid all the chatter about this election, particularly as it relates to polling, a major story has gone unreported. While it appears Harris has a slight edge in the national popular vote (if the majority of pollsters are right), it is endlessly litigated on endless news platforms and social media. Yet, this same level of analysis is not conducted down – ballot and it has serious repercussions for what to expect in two months and beyond.

The basic premise goes like this. Stories and articles have shown Senate GOP candidates are significantly under -running Trump in basically every swing state. While West Virginia is expected to easily go red because it is an open seat, it took some time for polls to catch up to the reality in Montana and now it appears Ohio is breaking right (thanks Activote)

This is not new for either. The same thing happened in the 2020 Montana Senate race while Ohio saw this in 2022 when both states broke late for Senate Republicans. This fits with the modern day coalitions flipping and Republicans becoming more downscale and less likely to express initial preferences vs. college educated Democrats who, if anything, have made pollsters struggle to correct for response bias.

This has become even more pronounced in 2024. While I am generally not a fan of the “polls” Morning Consult puts out, they have shown a wide divergence between Presidential and Senate margins with Republican Senate candidates running far behind Trump. The rub? Their Democratic opponents aren’t running up their numbers. As in, the set of voters expressing no preference in the Senate race prefer Trump at the Presidential level.

But, let’s take a look at a pollster I think generally is better, Emerson. They have consistently found a significant divergence between Senate and Presidential result. Note the average is for Senate Republicans to be running about 5 points behind Trump on average. This suggests room for significant growth for these GOP Senate candidates as many undecided voters are leaning right and, really, one has to question if they are undecided.

State	Trump %	Harris %	R Senate %	D Senate %	R Difference
AZ	49	48	42	48	-7%
MI	47	49	42	47	-5%
PA	48	47	42	47	-6%
WI	49	48	46	49	-3%
NV	48	48	41	48	-7%

Admittedly, this story might get more traction if pollsters had not been burned by state polling in 2022 when Republicans gained in polls up to Election Day to almost uniformly lose. But, those races margins never went beyond the Margins of Error. Plus, Trump was not on the ballot.

Most polling models and analysts are ignoring this phenomenon or at least downplaying its impacts. Hence while most Senate maps or predictions don’t forecast any of the above races being likely to flip. But, that is simplistic. It ignores Democratic Senate candidates only post large leads when the Republican percentage drops and undecided grows. Their margins do not.

I should add, importantly, we have a test case state this cycle of where these voters are likely to go, Pennsylvania. For the most part this cycle, polls have shown Democrat Bob Casey with a wide lead over Republican Dave McCormick, but Casey rarely crosses 50%. Well, when partisans or leaners coalesce the race closes as evidenced by recent Fox News and WashPo surveys.

I am not saying Democrats will lose these races. But their wins appear on a trajectory similar to 2020 where they tracked closely to Biden’s wins in marginal states with limited crossover. Crossover will happen, and that could be the difference, but Democratic Senate candidates are not going to win by five to ten points. Election analysts and pollsters ignore these trends at their own peril.

 

The Polling Is Just Getting Silly and the Impact of the FDR Endorsement Could Be Profound

The number of unprecedented events this cycle continues unabated. First, we had the debate of the century which led a party to force out its President and replace him with an untested VP. Then, an attempted assassination of a former president (Trump) likely in some way aide by the corruption and ineptitude of a broken Secret Service. Finally, we come to a scion of a Democratic family who ran a quixotic third party bid endorsing a candidate (Trump) he has publicly said he detests. If aliens came down to Earth I am not sure it would be quite as much high drama.

But, first, recent events. The DNC concluded Thursday and Democrats have to feel giddy in the sense the party is united behind Harris. To her credit, Harris, has run away from her past liberal positions. Not to her credit, her speech was about 25 minutes of nothing substantive and whereas Trump has been on a campaign circuit, Harris has yet to give a single interview. This includes friendly outlets. Her chameleon effect likely gets her 48 to 49 percent of the vote nationally, but, as Biden and the polls showed in 2020 that isn’t enough to win the Electoral College.

Speaking of the polls, they are just getting outrageous. The latest national surveys are either from pollsters with no track record or are older than two weeks. We have a 47-42 Harris lead from Angus Reid, an RMG survey of Harris +1, a Harris +3 from Redfield & Wilton, Outward Intelligence is Harris + 5 and ActiVote is Harris + 5. And the crème de la resistance comes from Farleigh Dickinson who literally primed voters on race and gender and reported the topline numbers from that D +7, vs. the R + 1 results when voters were simply asked the question.

This is the sorry state of polling. New pollsters spitting out totally online surveys, weighted samples which make 2008 look like a red wave, and pollsters literally priming survey results. The only poll worth a grain of salt was a two week old Marquette survey which found Harris up one, though this is a drop from their prior poll for her.

What remains notable is in the swing states though, polling has generally oscillated between narrow Trump leads to narrow Harris leads with every few of these large leads. This reminds me of 2012 when Romney had narrow leads nationally but persistently trailed or could not hold large leads in the swing states of the day (Ohio Iowa, Florida, etc.). Further, swing state polling still has seen response bias, but more reputable pollsters (that’s not saying much) have been the ones tracking these races to a greater degree.

Lastly, we come to the big news of the week. No, it was not Kamala’s nothing burger of a speech at the DNC, but rather FDR’s massive announcement and endorsement of Donald Trump for the Presidency. As befits RFK, it was an interesting endorsement.

Beyond the bombshell of an endorsement of Trump, RFK stated he would work to get his name off the ballot in 10 swing states (this would include leans states like FL, MN and VA). Now, some states like Michigan have said he cannot but the endorsement is the bigger story. Meanwhile, he will keep his name on the remaining state ballots.

Now, RFK’s impact nationally is minimal for two reasons. First, a large share of RFK votes were from disaffected Democrats who just did not want to say they were supporting Biden (though even before Biden dropped out that was waning). Secondly, Harris’s ascension has grabbed the remaining share of these Democratic leaning voters leaving him primarily with third party and burn the system down conservatives. Now, one percent nationally doesn’t mean much, but in the deciding states, it matters. A lot.

To that end, the Trump campaign and GOP pollsters have surveyed RFK voters and found 40 to 50 percent would swing to Trump. For Harris, that share is closer to a quarter of RFK voters. Considering this, these voters could be crucial and that is what is important.

From a political history standpoint, having a Kennedy endorse Trump is a massive repudiation of the modern Democratic party. It would be the equivalent of George Bush endorsing Harris. The question needs to be asked why politically? The party has embraced past Republicans who have hated Trump.

Well, it’s pretty easy to figure out. These figures asked for nothing in return. Kennedy wanted something for his endorsement (a reported cabinet post) and he made his views known. In todays day and age, disagreement is not something only Republicans do not brook.

The Amazing & Unchanged 2024 Election

It has always amazed me how people will run with the narrative that fits their bias (myself included). In this case, it has been Democrats convincing themselves that Trump is self – destructing (despite being very disciplined for Trump) and believing every poll sample showing Harris ahead as if it is gospel.

The NYT has jumped on the bandwagon and come out with this gem about the Trump campaign flailing and the candidate berating donors and staff. Never mind, there is no evidence of this and Adelson, not known for tolerating slights, has not withdrawn his support.

No, actually what is most distressing to me is not the lack of changing nature in the race (if you believe the polls and media narrative which does not come from Peoria), but rather the desperate need for people to believe them.

I guess this is understandable. Republicans, eager and gleeful to finally see Trump lead in the polls, jumped on survey after survey showing him ahead of Biden. Now, Democrats gleefully jump on every survey showing Harris ahead nationally or in swing states, and demonize the minority of polls which contradict that narrative.

And….. don’t get me wrong, there are numerous issues with the polls. I’ll just use the most recent example, the newest NYT/Siena survey, though I could find many, many more examples. In this survey, Harris leads Trump 50/46 in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The topline numbers are not concerning, the samples are.

I’ll just focus on a couple things. First, the samples in Wisconsin and Michigan in the H2H are D+5. For reference, Wisconsin’s 2020 exit polls had an R+5 electorate while Biden won by 11. Michigan’s partisan sample was even in 2020 exit polls. Even if we say the exit polls were swayed by Republicans turning out on Election Day, it would only swing the actual turnout composition a point or two compared to Independents breaking for Biden. Pennsylvania’s sample is a little better from a sample perspective of D + 1, the bigger problem is the 2020 recall vote. Indeed, in all three states, the recall vote is Biden +6 or greater. For reference, Biden barely won Michigan by over 2 points and the other duo by less. Then, there are the gems of Harris tied among white voters in the three states. Again, for reference, Tudor Dixon won them in 2022 while losing her gubernatorial bid in Michigan by 10 points. Say it we me now, “Response bias.”

Meanwhile, the on the ground narrative actually is the opposite of what we are seeing in the polls. For example, partisan registrations for Republicans is increasing in almost every state relative to Democrats. Additionally, primary turnout in competitive races has shown Republicans turning out at higher rates in competitive states (the latest result being in Michigan’s Senate contest).

But, the partisans will turn a mountain into a molehill (or should I say Twitter Bros) and have trumpeted the Washington State primary results as indicating anywhere from a D + 1 to a D + 7 result. The absurdity of saying a primary result can be within 8 points of the national result on top of an additional five point discrepancy is absurd. That’s not accuracy. Meanwhile, both campaigns are raising money, holding rallies, and exciting their bases (okay, well only one candidate actually talks to the media).

So the campaign has not changed, but the narrative people are weaving makes it seem like it has. This race remains incredibly close and will be determined by turnout which is what survey after survey shows. At this point, the only value in surveys generally is seeing if Harris is outrunning the partisan sample. If she can’t even do that, which in a majority of surveys she is not, and the electorate is less than D + 2 she probably loses. If the electorate nationally is far more favorable to Trump than the polls show he likely wins (minus a massive geographic disparity).

The Verdict On Harris So Far Is Not Positive

Kamala Harris’s campaign appears to be firing on all cylinders. Almost every party elite, including Joe Biden, has endorsed her for President and all potential rivals have backed down in challenging her. DNC delegates have flocked to her banner and she reported raised $250 million in 24 ours after her candidacy (though a chunk of this was likely campaign transfers they counted as donations). Interestingly, the only party elite who has not endorsed her is Barack Obama. Does he know something we don’t? Well, he might considering the polls we have so far.

The caveat to the data we have is it is recent and limited. We don’t know if Harris’s bump is manifesting or if she even will get one. But, at first glance, short of money and social media hype, it does not appear Kamala is positioned any better than Biden to win the White House this November.

Below is the RCP aggregate of head to head polls of Trump vs. Harris. Note: The Morning Consult poll was the first survey taken after her pseudo nomination.

The numbers are no better for Harris when the five – way is portrayed.

Keep in mind these are national numbers. If Trump is ahead in the popular vote nationally it is very likely he will easily win enough swing states to retake the White House. Now, to be fair, there are not a lot of swing state polls we have seen since Harris was endorsed by Biden but these numbers are enlightening.

Further illuminating is digging into the cross – tabs of these surveys and I do want to highlight a couple things. First, in many of the surveys the samples are highly Democratic leaning. For example, the YouGov sample was D + 6. For perspective, exit polls in 2020 showed the electorate was 37D/36R/27I. Biden won the popular vote by 7 million votes in 2020 due to his 54/43 win among Independents. Which brings me to my second point, the leanings of independent voters. Independent voters are going to Trump y anywhere form 3 points in the CNN survey to a whopping 14 points in the YouGov survey. If Trump is winning Independents so massively in D skewed surveys it is a very good sign. Lastly, the way voters view Kamala is not very positive. Quinnipiac found Trump had a higher favorability rating than Harris and even CNN has her approval rating barely above Biden’s. So, while it seems Harris is a fundraising phenom and she may be bringing more voters off the sidelines it is working both ways.

I go back to what I said before, maybe Obama knew something we didn’t about her. While reports indicate Obama and Harris are old friends, politics seems to trump that connection. Harris’s weakness among certain groups is exactly how Obama won in 2012.

There are a lot of misconceptions around how Obama won reelection. The reality is while Obama did goose black turnout he also won key blue – collar white voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Groups anecdotal evidence indicates Harris is particularly weak with. And with the party going all in on college educated whites and women the party is also hemorrhaging blue collar Hispanic and Asian voters.

Maybe Harris can address these apparent deficiencies through her VP pick. But, rarely do voters sway based on VP (despite the endless punditry on balancing the ticket and so on). Harris’s VP selection could be a game – changer, but history is against her. As for right now, it looks like for all the excitement and history making of the last nine days, the fundamentals of the election have not changed.

Harris Does Not Automatically Equal Better

By now, the political world has had time to digest the somewhat expected news that Joe Biden will not run for reelection. Almost immediately afterward, Joe Biden endorsed his heir apparent, Vice President Kamala Harris. In the span of less than 24 hours, more than two – thirds of the Democratic House Caucus, man up and coming Governors, former WV Senator Joe Manchin and more endorsed her candidacy. But notably, former President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did not. Do they know something we don’t?

The answer is probably. Democrats would be wise to remember the grass is not always greener on the other side. A cursory glance of Kamala Harris’s record gives cause for concern.

Harris came of political age in the ever moderate arena of San Francisco politics (that is called sarcasm). She once pledged to never prosecute the death penalty and the then three strikes rule for violent offenses. For the next six years she served as Attorney General of California after 8 years in the attorney’s office in SF, until 2017, when she replaced Barbara Boxer.

Long considered an up and comer in the party, Harris’s liberal positions were never really considered. Those positions have so far been far more of a liability nationally than they have been a benefit.

Two instances stand out. The first was in the Democratic primary back in 2020. Harris was leading (albeit narrowly) the Democratic pack and had laid out a liberal position on healthcare…. And she wilted. Her campaign was never able to sufficiently respond to accusations her plan would take away healthcare from people. Later, in the same campaign cycle, the Biden camp’s belief that her selection as Vice President would yield massive black margins fell flat to be honest (Democrats improved in the suburbs, not the inner city).

Since 2020, Harris has not done herself any favors. For example, the one task she was handed by the Biden administration which was to handle the border fell unbelievably flat. Since then, she has receded into the background and done nothing to improve her image. Indeed, it is striking that she has a favorable rating on par with Donald Trump.

The Trump campaign has telegraphed its national attack lines even as it has many localized issues to hit in specific regions (ie. Harris’s ardent opposition to fracking in PA, her liberal positions on crime from CA, etc.). The first attack is on Harris’s cover – up of Joe Biden’s mental decline. Right or wrong, involved or not, she will be linked to that. Secondly, while the economy is marginally improving she is tied to the Biden admin’s handling of major issues. And since she has been in lockstep with the President on virtually every issue it is an attack that might stick.

Understandably, if not smartly, Democrats are hailing Harris as a transformational and solid candidate. Yet, a mere four years ago, these same candidates wondered and saw just how weak a candidate she really was.

How much better Harris runs compared to Biden is an open question. We know she is not very popular, and generally you don’t get more popular during a campaign, and for all her strengths it seems they are cancelled out by weaknesses though one must consider the lack of head to head polls we have with her and Trump.

For example, Harris will probably run better among college educated women and black women. But, she will probably run worse among white men of all stripes and see a collapse in the rurals. It is also unclear if she really helps the party among black men and in the suburbs (considering her weakness among college educated white men). The one thing she may help the party with is enthusiasm which will help at the margins but is unlikely to swing the final result.

At best, right now, Harris’s entry into the contest introduces more uncertainty into the race. But in the absence of strong polling for Harris and the fact she starts the contest no more popular than Trump, Democrats might have just given themselves a reprieve and little else.