It\u2019s Labor Day weekend. Traditionally, Labor Day is the beginning of the fall election campaigns. This year that\u2019s more acute. Like the \u201cbad old days\u201d of politics, one party didn\u2019t fill out \u201ctheir ticket\u201d until just a few weeks ago. Now we know: it\u2019s Trump and Vance versus Harris and Walz. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s been a lot of pre-game activity. Since the Democratic Convention ended; Harris barnstormed south Georgia, and finally did an interview. Walz got \u201cvetted\u201d by the press: yes, he really was a Sergeant Major; no, he didn\u2019t get deployed in 24 years of National Guard service, yes he had a DUI back in the 1990\u2019s, and yes, he quit drinking after. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump also was busy.\u00a0\u00a0The Arlington Cemetery moment is one more example of the ex-President pushing through an event that might have ended a \u201clesser\u201d candidacy.\u00a0\u00a0Oh, and Prosecutor Jack Smith is pushing forward, on criminal charges against Trump in two courts.\u00a0\u00a0And Vance, he\u2019s getting vetted too.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s all about \u201csingle cat ladies\u201d and telling the opposition to \u201cgo to Hell\u201d (must be the mark of that Yale education).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So here we go, an election match-up we didn\u2019t expect just a month and a half ago. What we thought we going to be the sad sequel to 2020, now is a fresh, new, race. What was a battle of the old Boomers, is now a battle of Boomer versus Gen X (that \u201cflipped the script\u201d on Trump). And Harris brings the hidden values of race and gender fully into play. Obama won decisively in 2008 and 2012. Clinton won, but still lost the election in 2016. What lessons should Harris learn from both? And just to increase the anticipation \u2013 in some states, early voting opens in a week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As Hillary Clinton would be the first to remind us, the election of the American President is not by \u201cpopular vote\u201d. If it was, our recent history would be very different: think Al Gore instead of George W Bush, and Hillary instead of Donald. It\u2019s not that the popular vote doesn\u2019t \u201ccount\u201d, but it only counts by state. Our arcane and flawed Electoral College system will determine the Presidency again. And when it\u2019s all told, forty-three states and Washington, DC, are likely already determined. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sure, those of us in Ohio and California and Texas need to go through the motions: we need to vote. But the likelihood of Ohio going \u201cblue\u201d, or California going \u201cred\u201d is small. If either happens, we are in the \u201clandslide\u201d territory, unseen since 2008. And while Texas is on the verge of turning \u201cpurple\u201d, don\u2019t hold your breath. The good old boys counting votes down there will make sure \u201cRed\u201d prevails once more (Florida too).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When you split the \u201c44\u201d into Red and Blue, Trump has 219 Electoral votes, and Harris has 226. 93 votes remain in the seven \u201cswing states\u201d that will determine who gets to 270; becomes our next President, and decides the fate of the free world (whoops, fell in Biden-esque language there, but still true). From left to right they are: Nevada (6), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (15), Georgia (16), North Carolina (16), and Pennsylvania (19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By the way, North Carolina is a surprise. It\u2019s been a Presidential \u201cRed\u201d state for a while, and, like Red Florida; Democrats are hesitant to spend \u201cgood money after bad\u201d there. But Harris\u2019s candidacy changed the Biden strategy of completely depending on the Midwest \u201cBlue Wall\u201d of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania; putting North Carolina and Georgia back into Democratic play. Keep in mind though: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania total 44 electoral votes. Add that to 226 and it equals 270, the magic number for election. That\u2019s all the \u201cswing\u201d a Democrat needs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where is Trump\u2019s path to victory? Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and, crack the Blue Wall say at Wisconsin; that\u2019s 272 votes. It all makes North Carolina\u2019s 16 votes win or die for Republicans, as much as Pennsylvania\u2019s 19 is for Democrats. What happens in those seven states will make all the difference. As Pennsylvania and North Carolina go, so goes the Nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We won\u2019t know who won until after election day. Likely, we won\u2019t know until long after election day. Like 2020, the margins are so narrow, that it took four days to know for sure. We know those margins are so narrow, because we\u2019ve fallen back into the trap of worrying about polling once again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Polling: the political equivalent of Lucy holding Charlie Brown\u2019s football. We think it\u2019s giving us answers, we want to believe it gives us answers; but in the end, in our narrowly divided country, it doesn\u2019t. But we still line up behind the ball, knowing that \u201cthis time\u201d, she won\u2019t let go. So what are the problems?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Polls are taken with small numbers of people (in the hundreds usually) used to project a result, and each poll has a mathematically determined \u201cmargin of error\u201d. So to start with, if Harris is ahead of Trump by 2%, and the margin of error is 4%; then Harris could be up by 6%, or Trump could be up by 2%, or any result in between. And here\u2019s the big point: there\u2019s no greater likelihood of a positive Harris result than there is a positive Trump result, even though \u201con paper\u201d, Harris is winning. The margin of error is literally a \u201cgray zone\u201d of indecision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we want a winner and a loser, and the poll \u201cshows\u201d a winner and a loser, so we get fired up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And polls aren\u2019t just random samples of people.\u00a0\u00a0The polling data is pushed through a \u201cmodel\u201d, a formula that hopes to reflect what the actual 2024 voters look like.\u00a0\u00a0So different pollsters could take the same data and come out with different results.\u00a0\u00a0Some of that is politically driven; but most is just the \u201cbest guest\u201d of what the 2024 electorate might look like.\u00a0\u00a0In both 2016 and 2020, most models under-counted Trump support.\u00a0\u00a0That\u2019s where the Harris \u201chidden values\u201d may change things.\u00a0\u00a0Trump versus Biden \u2013 pollsters had the solid evidence of 2020 to work from.\u00a0\u00a0But now it\u2019s Harris as candidate.\u00a0\u00a0She\u2019s Black, South Asian, and a woman.\u00a0\u00a0Pollsters literally have to take \u201ceducated guesses\u201d to determine what the 2024 electorate will look like.\u00a0\u00a0Who\u2019s right?\u00a0Who knows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what\u2019s the \u201ctrick\u201d to reading polls? I look at the \u201cRepublican Polls\u201d; Fox News, Rasmussen, Fabrizio among others. Their models are more likely to under-count Harris support. So if Harris is doing well on those polls, then she likely is doing even better in \u201creal life\u201d. And if Harris or Trump is outside the margin of error, then that\u2019s solid data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But polls are nothing more than snapshots of the present. How people respond on a poll today, is merely an indicator of how they\u2019ll vote in a week, or a month, or on election day. Polls might reflect the \u201ctrends\u201d of where we are going, they still do not determine the destination. They can make you \u201cbelieve\u201d in a candidate. But until those days after the election, nothing really matters. Believe what you will; only the actual votes count.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"