By Dave Andrusko

Let’s begin, as we often do, with a sample of headlines. They are very instructive. Naturally, they come to very different conclusions, given that the contest between former President Donald Trump and pro-abortion Vice President Kamala Harris shows every evidence of being a nail biter. The exit of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has shaken up the race. How much of a difference his endorsement of Trump makes we can’t tell at this moment.

“Harris Has the Momentum. But Trump Has the Edge on What Matters Most.” — Patrick Healy

 

“Frank Luntz signals RFK Jr’s backing could help Trump win battlegrounds.” — Filip Timotija

 

“Walz extinguishes Democratic doubts with convention performance.” — Mike Lillis 

Let’s start with Patrick Healy because the Times desperately wants Harris to win. “The Democrats’ Joyfest is Over. Now Comes The Slugfest,” he writes.

Kamala Harris was flying high last week, but Donald Trump is poised to bring her back down to earth.

 

But consider this: Harris has won the vast majority of news cycles since she declared her candidacy. And yet, she is only two or three percentage points ahead of Trump in the national polling average and effectively tied with him in the seven swing states that will decide the election. Structural factors — polarization, the gender gap, Republicans’ advantage in the Electoral College — are keeping this race tight.

Healy concludes

Right now, Harris has the momentum, but I think the Electoral College currently favors Trump. Nothing will be more critical than the Sept. 10 debate to define the race, Trump and Harris. A debate changes things in an instant. Just ask Joe Biden.

Then there’s Timotija, writing about pollster Frank Luntz:

Luntz said that while Kennedy’s poll numbers have dropped since Vice President Harris ascended to the top of the Democratic Party presidential ticket, his remaining supporters could provide enough backing to tip some swing-state results in Trump’s favor. 

 

“It’s probably worth about 1 percent for Trump and that 1 percent could be everything if it’s in the swing states,” Luntz said during his Friday appearance on NewsNation’s “On Balance” with Leland Vittert. 

Luntz also “dinged” the media, saying there would have been a far different response had Kennedy endorsed Harris:

“If he had endorsed Harris, I do think he would be regarded as a hero but because he endorsed Trump, the people who are communicating that are not giving him the credit that he deserves, and I think we have to be careful in the last 73 days of this election campaign to understand the motivations of the people providing us information like what I’m doing right now, because I am dedicated to getting this election correct.”

Lillis has the media consensus on “Coach Walz” down to a “T.”

Democratic lawmakers said the crowd-thrilling address not only helped to introduce Walz to voters around the country, but also extinguished any apprehensions about his place on the ticket. 

One other column, written by Matt Vespa explores why Democrat pollsters are issuing “a fair warning” to the Harris campaign. (Everyone will have their own opinion whether or not this is sincere or just a feint.)

So, what is it that “Has Dem Pollsters Panicking About Kamala Harris”? The fear that “the low-propensity voters, the folks they view as idiots,” will be “coming out of the woodwork during presidential cycles.”

Vespa quotes Politico, which is largely a mouthpiece for Democrats.  Steven Shepard writes

So now that Kamala Harris has caught Trump in the polls in her first month as a candidate, it’s left Democrats wondering: How real is her surge? 

 

Here at the Democratic convention this week, some in the party’s professional class are trying to tamp down the exuberance. Officials with the top pro-Harris super PAC said their polling “is much less rosy” than public surveys. Other Democratic pollsters noted that — even if their polling is right — Trump still maintains a lot of advantages. 

 

“It’s still a very tough race, and that feels consistent with everything we know,” said Margie Omero, a partner at the Democratic polling firm GBAO Strategies. 

 

There are plenty of warning signs hidden in the data: A poll commissioned by the Democratic messaging firm Navigator Research and unveiled during the convention showed Harris and Trump essentially tied across the swing-state map. And the candidate characteristics that are best correlated with voters’ preferences — whether a candidate is up to the job, has the right vision and is a strong leader — generally favored Trump in the survey. 

 

[…] 

 

One major part of the effort was a lengthy experiment in the swing state of Wisconsin. The goal wasn’t to predict the result of an election; it was to see which voters could be captured by a monthslong survey using multiple ways of finding people, including a door-to-door component — and how that group differs from the voters reached in the typical phone or web surveys conducted over the course of a few days. 

 

The main finding: Standard polls capture voters who are more engaged with politics and consider it more important to their identity. That kind of bias wouldn’t necessarily cause problems in a low-turnout election, like an off year or midterm, because those are exactly the kind of voters who show up.

 

But in a presidential race, when lower-propensity voters also turn out, that could be an issue. And the kind of time, effort and expense that went into getting those voters to participate isn’t scalable in a fast-changing election.

There are plenty of media types and Democrat operatives who confidently believe, like Juan Williams, that “After Chicago, Kamala has the wind at her back.”

It’s up to us to make sure that this is just Williams’ whistling in the dark.