Is it just a coincidence that Vice President Kamala Harris appeared 15 minutes behind schedule, who has an interview, Bret Baier from Fox News the day before the aggregation of Nate Silver survey, which showed her the chances of winning elections below 50%? Probably not.
What can be associated with the Harris slide in the polls and her delayed performance to the interview, in which she served to salads of words with Baier’s questions about immigration and inflation, and then prompted, sometimes awkwardly, with the condemnation of former President Donald Trump? October was not a good month for Harris or her party.
It was also not completely bad. The Silver model still gives her a 47% chance of winning, much higher than 29% Trump in Eve Eve 2016. But this is noticeably below its 57% chance of September 27, which reflected the results of the survey after the debate of September 10. “Since then,” writes Silver – the race has sailed away from her.
Slightly but perceptively. The Silver model gives a reduced weight for polls carried out as long as six weeks ago. Another way to look at this trend is to take over the raw average of all polls carried out within a month. This method shows that Harris runs Trump in the country by 3.6% in September and 1.7% in October.
The average RealClearpolitics, which covers only surveys from October 9, causes a lower Harris advantage of 0.8%. Silver estimates that the number of Harris’s popular voices is less than 2%, has only a 16% chance of producing most Harris electoral votes.
Medium surveys in this year’s seven target states show something similar. The September surveys had Harris in four out of seven states. The October survey showed her in one, and Trump was ahead of four and associated for two. 34 Target polls listed by the RCP carried out primarily or completely from October 9 show Trump in advance in all seven states, on average by 48.5% to 47%.
Similar changes below the presidential level. In the general vote of the RCP to the House of Representatives, the Democrats were reduced by half, from 1.8% 30 September to 0.9%. In recent years it has been consistent, and the Republicans have won most of the domestic places.
In the Senate’s races, Republicans seem to win two democratic fines-in Montana, where the claimant Tim Sheehy led a three-year-old Jon tester in two polls by 52% to 44%, in Western Virginia, where it seems that no one was interrupting in the polls, because he was probably replacing the retirement Democratic Joe Manchin. In Ohio Trump-Vance, Democrat Sherrod Brown runs republican Berni Moreno by only 0.6% in three October polls-a danger of danger for a three-year income.
Republicans challenge five sitting or more eminent democrats in presidential destinations. Democrats are still ahead of the survey in October – from 2.2% to 3.8% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, as well as by much higher 5% and 6.2% in Nevada and Arizona. Under no circumstances is the democrat at the top of magic 50%, which leaves at least three and perhaps all five democrats susceptible to standard political principles.
Why the campaign away from Democrats? Three hypotheses: one of them is that “vibrations” are not enough for even a four -month campaign. The “joy”, which was felt by the Partisan Democrats after the withdrawal of President Joe Biden prevented a catastrophic defeat, was not divided by most voters.
In addition, what I called the strategy “Hide the candidate” Democrats, and the republican analyst John Ellis calls their “bubble” strategy, made many voters uncertain what they really think.
The choice of president is the most personal political choice of voter, and even a cautious discipline of Harris and a great smile did not establish personal connections. It seems that her campaign recognized this by changing the strategy and booking “60 minutes”, Fox News and CNN performances, with disappointing results.
This meant that Harris Open – my second hypothesis – on attacks on the radical positions she took, especially in her campaign for the presidential nomination in 2019. Republicans, including the Senate candidates, as well as the Trump campaign, conducted television advertising in the opposition of Harris in the face of fracturing (especially in Pennsylvania), her support for withdrawing non -electrical cars (especially in Michigan), her support of transgender operations for prisoners and support of biological boys in sports girls. “The Kamali agencies are they/they, not you”, is one effective slogan.
If you are outside the target television market, you probably haven’t heard much about these ads. As I wrote in September, part of Harris’s strategy is “trust mainly of the nice press, every 90%, of which members want to lose Trump, and it’s not hard to press on any topic that may not help in the campaign.”
Reporters and commentators who mostly agree with Harris’s positions, but recognize that they are very unpopular, tried to avoid these uncomfortable topics. But they cannot suppress Harris video cassettes or convince voters that after installing the Harris administration will not be realized by a politician who enthusiastically supported and who were rejected by anonymous tweets or reluctant promises of Harris to “follow the law.”
My third hypothesis, developed the day after the debate to the vice president on October 1, is that the calming tone of sleep. JD Vance (R-Ohio) weakened the fears of the irregular administration of the second Trump, while Governor Tim Walza (D-Minn.) Definitely “can harm the morale of the democratic voters” by the difficulties with his liberal core. “
It could have been an episode – or it may turn out to explain what seems to be a lower democratic participation in an early vote this year. The only clear example is the target state of Nevada, in which the respected experienced journalist Jon Ralston notes that the Republicans lead in early voting this year and states that “if it becomes a trend and not anomalia, it will end” for democrats. However, anecdotal data suggesting similar trends in other target states should be treated with caution.
Of course, polls may be wrong once again. This year they show less undecided, leaving less space for Trump to overestimate its percentage of survey. This is possible, as Nate Cohn suggests, the New York Times analyst, that the reaction reaction polls resembling voting in 2020 may underestimate the current strength of Harris.
On the other hand, we also saw the increased support of Trump from the Latin and black men, and the universal census data show the population, and therefore likely attendance falls in central cities such as Philadelphia and Detroit and some poviats.
The basics still favor Trump in matters, and voters evaluate Trump’s administration more positively than the Biden-Harris administration. While many voters have Trump’s problems, his personal assessments are higher than in 2016 or 2020.
Perhaps as indicative as the miniature but indefinite profits of Trump in October, there were reactions to his stay in the Fryer and Drive-Thru window at McDonald’s, Pennsylvania last weekend were even more revealing. Trump’s supporters, like the candidate, everyone smiled, while Trump’s opponents – check online conversations – they leaned out with rage. Guess which side thinks he is winning.
