By Dave Andrusko
The New York Times/Siena College polls released this past weekend of likely voters across the three swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin clearly grabbed the attention of the commentariat. Understandably so because they showed pro-abortion Vice President Kamala Harris 4 points up on pro-life former President Donald Trump in each state.
But what to make of it?
“While the reshaped race is still in its volatile early weeks, Democrats are now in a notably stronger position in these three battleground states that have long been key to the party’s victories — or defeats,” according to Lisa Lerer and Ruth Igielnik of the New York Times. “Still, the results show vulnerabilities for Ms. Harris. Voters prefer Mr. Trump when it comes to whom they trust to handle the economy and immigration, issues that remain central to the presidential race.”
It’s not a state secret that reporters are not Donald Trump’s biggest fan. So, initially they, by and large, took the approach that the elevation of Harris had “fundamentally changed the race” [Nate Cohen].
However, a noticeably calmer, more balanced approach appeared as the week went by.
CNN’s Harry Enten is one sharp cookie. Formerly a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, he is well respected for calling it like he sees it. Isaac Schorr provided the following transcript.
On Tuesday, Enten preached caution.
“We put out those poll numbers yesterday, you know, New York Times-Siena College, we covered them. I showed you the Ipsos polling, all of which showed Kamala Harris with clear momentum and enthusiasm potentially on her side. But I just want to take a step back and sort of point out we’ve kind of been here before,” began Enten. “So August 13, how far where the polls off in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and this is in 2016 and 2020 — Trump was [under]estimated both times around and by significant margins. Take a look here, in 2016 the average poll in those states they mentioned, those Great Lakes battleground states, Trump was underestimated by nine points on average at this point in 2016. How about 2020? It wasn’t a one off, look at this: He was underestimated by five points on average.”
“And of course Kamala Harris’s advantage in those New York Times-Siena College polls were four points in each of these key battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. The bottom line is this: If you have any idea–if you’re a Kamala Harris fan and you want to rip open the champagne bottle, pop that cork, do not do it,” he continued. “Donald Trump is very much in this race. If we have a polling shift like we’ve seen in prior years, from now until the final result, Donald Trump would actually win. I’m not saying that’s going to happen, but I am saying that he is very much in this ballgame based upon where he is right now, and compare that to where he was in prior years.”
If you look at polling data on registered voters who said they were certain they were going to vote, Enten said, the numbers for neither Biden-Harris nor Trump had changed since Harris became the Democrats’ nominee.
“I will note this, Donald Trump is more popular today than he was on August 13 in either 2020 or 2016. So the bottom line is yes, Kamala Harris is doing better in the polls, but there’s a long way to go. The polls can shift. The almost certain to vote hasn‘t actually shifted, and Donald Trump is more popular than he was at either 2016 or 2020 at this point.”
Politico, also not a hotbed of Trump supporters, ran a fascinating piece headlined “Will Kamala Harris’ polling lead last? Our polling expert explains.”
Steven Shepard begins
Kamala Harris has that new-candidate shine, and it’s propelled her into the lead.
Just three weeks into her campaign, the vice president is riding a wave of support in the horserace polling, reversing a persistent gap that Joe Biden was never able to overcome.
But it’s hard to know how real — or durable— that is.
He continues
A glut of surveys over the next few days will start to answer those questions, and it will be followed by an intense two months of polling. There are several key measures to watch that have so far buoyed Harris’ nascent candidacy: metrics like her personal favorability, which has spiked, or Trump’s narrowing advantage on the economy, one of the former president’s core issues.
Harris’s favorables, prior to becoming the Democrats’ nominee, were in the 30s. Now she is at 45%.
Will it last? “Trump’s campaign has started an advertising barrage in battleground states, trying to paint her as ‘dangerously liberal.’ That could dent her favorable ratings, especially as scrutiny of her record ratchets up following her initial campaign rollout,” Shepard writes.
Republican pollster Neil Newhouse says, “Image is a precursor to ballot change,” adding, “You’ll see her image change before the ballot changes. You’ll see her unfavs go up, her very unfavs in particular.”
“With Kamala Harris, it’s like ‘A Star is Born,’” said Mark Mellman, the lead pollster for then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race. “It’s not unreal. It’s not unnatural. It’s not fake. But it’s not necessarily permanent. I can certainly imagine a situation where both candidates’ favorabilities decline a little bit.”
There a several other key numbers—a decline in the number of people saying they will vote for one of three independent candidates; an increase in enthusiasm among Democrats; a slimmer advantage for Trump on the economy; and no change in the percentage of people who think the country is headed in the right direction (25%) and the percentage of people who think the country is headed in the wrong direction (65%).
Conclusion? Hold on to your hats. As we knew from the beginning, this contest will go down to the wire.