We’re in the endgame now.
As the election nears, the polls tell us it’s anyone’s game, but seasoned observers and political instincts suggest otherwise. After a significant momentum surge for Donald Trump, the mainstream narrative is attempting to suggest that his lead has mysteriously evaporated, with Kamala Harris suddenly performing better in critical states. But for many who’ve followed these races for years, the reality may not be as close as polls are letting on.
Fox News senior analyst Brit Hume recently touched on a rarely discussed angle: the gap between today’s reliance on polling and the instincts that once guided election predictions. Before polling became the election-season industry with an endless supply of polls to sift through, reporters once had to sizee up a candidate’s standing by observing their rallies, organization, and crowd energy. As Hume noted, “You relied on their events, how the events seemed to go, how well-organized they seemed to be. You looked at the response of the audience at these events. … You watched for other signs to pick up a sense of the race. And you could pretty well do it. … There are upsets in every election cycle, but you could get a sense of it.”
By those old-school measures, Hume argues that Trump is the clear frontrunner, with high-energy rallies and enthusiastic crowds that hint at a strong support base.
I have to agree with Hume that the momentum right now is with Donald Trump, not Kamala Harris. If Liz Cheney is begging George W. Bush to endorse Kamala, that’s not a sign that Kamala is winning. That’s a sign that they’re desperate to find more voters.
Of course, that’s not what the polls say. Mainstream polls insist on portraying this as a neck-and-neck race, which raises questions. Even Nate Silver is calling out pollsters for putting their fingers on the scale to make it appear closer than it is.
“I kind of trust pollsters less,” Silver said during a recent episode of his podcast. “They all, every time a pollster [says] ‘Oh, every state is just plus-one, every single state’s a tie,’ No! You’re f***king herding! You’re cheating! You’re cheating!”
Related: This State May Be More Important Than Pennsylvania on Election Day
“Your numbers aren’t all going to come out at exactly one-point leads when you’re sampling 800 people over dozens of surveys,” Silver continued. “You are lying! You’re putting your f***king finger on the scale!'”
With that in mind, maybe Hume’s suggestion about relying solely on polls isn’t all that bad. Perhaps the bigger picture is going to tell us a lot more about how this election is going to turn out. Are the polls blinding us to the bigger picture, especially when the broader indicators of enthusiasm and voter discontent weigh heavily against Kamala? Maybe.
Instincts, as Hume describes, suggest that Trump has the edge. “If I were covering it the same way we used to cover it, I would look at this and say, Trump appears to be in the ascendancy,” Hume continued. “His campaign seems to have momentum. His events seem to be more exciting. They seem to be going better,” while Kamala “seems to be struggling. She struggles to answer questions. She’s not doing well in interviews. And so on.”
At a time when polling is less reliable because pollster are either trying to influence voters or are too scared to make a prediction, perhaps it is time to just go old school.
