In 2016, I was convinced that Donald Trump was going to lose the election because I believed the polls. In 2020, I was convinced he would win because I didn't trust the polls. Polls are an imperfect tool, but they're what we have. For sure, Kamala Harris has a small lead in national polling, but thanks to the foresight of our country's Founding Fathers, that doesn't mean she's a lock.
Nate Silver's latest election model has Trump's chances of winning the election at 61.5% compared to Kamala's 38.3%. This has many on the left soiling their undergarments because Silver is supposed to be a Democrat cheerleader who tells them what they want to hear.
On Friday, Silver addressed the fact that Trump's odds of winning the presidency have skyrocketed over the past week in his model, even though Harris has a slight edge in national polling. Silver warned that "the Electoral College is starting to look like a challenge for Kamala Harris."
He added, "This was a problem for Democrats in 2016, of course, and also in 2020 — when Joe Biden won the popular vote by 4.5 points, but the tipping-point state, Wisconsin, went for Biden by only 0.6 points."
Silver points out that Harris is losing ground to Trump in key battleground states, which is a huge problem for her campaign.
"The problem for Harris is that Donald Trump has been gaining on her in our polling averages, too — at least in the most important Electoral College states," he noted.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the Founding Fathers for their brilliance in crafting the Electoral College?
They knew exactly what they were doing when they set up a system that prevents large urban centers from steamrolling the rest of the country. By ensuring that smaller states and rural areas have a voice, they made sure every corner of America mattered in our elections.
Is the system flawless? No, but it forces candidates to engage with voters across the entire nation, not just in major cities. The Founders knew the dangers of mob rule, and the Electoral College remains a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, preserving our nation's diversity. No wonder Democrats want to abolish it.
As for Silver's model, even after adjusting for a convention bounce, Harris is falling short, which Silver attributes to declining poll numbers. In swing states with high "tipping-point" probabilities, "there’s an 88 percent chance that one of these states determines the winner," making these losses even more significant.
Harris is ahead by 3.0 points nationally, a tick better than the 2.3-point lead she had coming into the convention. Although I’d note that this is down a bit, too. Her lead peaked at 4.3 points on August 23 in our last model run before Robert F. Kennedy dropped out and we removed him from our model. Still, her national polls are fine; it’s the state polls that are the big issue.
Worse for Harris is that she's been losing ground in all but one of the battleground states since the convention. The one oddball is Georgia.
"And her numbers are essentially unchanged in Nevada, although with just 6 electoral votes, it only has a 3 percent chance of being the tipping-point state," Silver notes. "But in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Trump has gained about a point. And the polling average has broken slightly more sharply than that against Harris in North Carolina and Arizona."
Why Trump's odds of winning the election are skyrocketing. pic.twitter.com/lfo6h1NSa5
— Matt Margolis (@mattmargolis) September 6, 2024
Honestly, I don't care if Trump opens up a ten-point lead in the polls; we should assume he's a couple of points behind and fight tooth and nail to ensure he gets elected.
