No one knows who’s going to win the presidential election, so it’s recreational to contemplate the effusions of confident pontificators. For example:
Rasmussen issued a Trump v. Harris likely voter poll today that should be as reputable as any:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, in a two-way matchup, 50% of Likely US Voters would vote for Trump, while 43% would vote for Harris …..
So, a seven-point lead, which tends to confirm past data suggesting that Harris is not an improvement upon Biden, at least not before his final collapse.
This is John Hinderaker of the loony Power Line blog. He probably knows that the poll aggregate site RealClearPolitics currently shows the results of 15 surveys. Of these, eight are based on interviews conducted entirely after Biden dropped out. Hinderaker highlights Rasmussen’s result, which, of the eight, is by far Trump’s best: his second best, from CNN, is +3. The average of the eight is Trump +1.6. If you throw out the Rasmussen result and average the other seven, Trump’s lead drops below a single point. (Harris is ahead in two of the polls.)
According to Hinderaker, the Rasmussen survey “should be as reputable as any.” Why? Because it’s an outlier? I’ve sometimes wondered why Republicans, when they lose, leap to the conclusion that they were cheated—and actually appear convinced. One factor might be the way in which they spend their lives lying to one another and end by believing their own b.s.
The New York Times’s take on the current state of the unsettled race is in line with the evidence and still pretty sobering for us Democrats:
In the Times’s national polling average, Trump is ahead of Harris by one point, 47 percent to 46 percent. That’s narrower than Trump’s recent lead over Biden, but similar to Trump’s lead over Biden before last month’s debate…. The race has in some ways reset to where it was.
There are also a couple of important differences. Harris is a far stronger campaigner than Biden. She’s a fiery, skilled speaker who can describe her own agenda and make the case against Trump in ways that Biden could not. She has more potential to make gains than Biden did.
That said, polls point to a potential weakness, too: Harris appears to be a worse fit for the Electoral College than Biden. She is stronger among younger voters and voters of color but weaker with older voters and white working-class voters. Because swing states are disproportionately old, white and working class, Harris is likelier to win the popular vote and lose the election than Biden was.
Think of it this way: It’s a bad trade for a Democrat to win more votes in California and fewer in Pennsylvania. As a result, Trump’s narrow national lead is probably a bit stronger than it looks.
Though not “a bit stronger than it looks” on John Hinderaker’s Earth-2. That would be almost impossible.
I part ways with the Times’s take only with respect to what isn’t said. They’re essentially saying that Harris appeals to the wrong type of voter—young brown ones instead of the old white ones she needs to win. Weird that you can say that without commenting on how weird—undemocratic—it is.
Comments