Movies Up Close

I’ve written a lot about this election, but only one thing really counts: the winner. So it’s time to make my predictions for tomorrow’s Presidential Election:

• Kamala Harris will win the popular vote by a lesser margin than Joe Biden did in 2020
• Despite this, Harris will win the midwestern battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by more comfortable margins than Biden, securing an electoral college victory
• Harris will also win the southeastern swing states of Georgia and North Carolina, although by narrow margins
• Donald Trump will reclaim the southwestern battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada
• Harris’s victory will rest on relative strength among White voters compared to Biden, especially those with college degrees
• Trump will make major gains with Hispanic voters and smaller gains with Black voters

What are the bases for my predictions? Well, I’ve already laid them out in my other updates. But I’ll summarize them here with links to the previous posts that contain more thorough analysis.

For starters, the 2022 midterms suggested that Republicans, despite big gains in New York, California, and Florida that enabled a recapture of the House of Representatives, had actually lost popularity in northern and midwest states—especially Michigan and Pennsylvania. This raised the prospect of a decreased gap between the popular vote and electoral college in 2024. (Update #1)

In addition, since Trump’s ascendancy, Democrats have made major gains among college-educated White voters from the suburbs, leading to flips of Georgia and Arizona, two states with exploding suburban growth around major metro areas. All signs point to continued gains with those voters in 2024—and suggest another state ripe for a possible flip: North Carolina. (Update #2)

Harris, though, has seen inconsistent polling in those three racially diverse states, thanks to disappointing numbers with Black and Hispanic voters. I predict that she’ll indeed lose some support with Black voters, although not as much as some earlier polls had shown. (Update #3) On the other hand, I believe the losses with Hispanic voters will be large, as they were in 2020, and will likely cost her Arizona and neighboring Nevada—especially given that voters of all ethnicities in these states may be more receptive to Trump’s rhetoric on immigration on account of their proximity to the southern border. (Update #4)

Democrats will undoubtedly wake up on Election Day with high anxiety, thanks to memories of polling underestimates of Trump in 2016 and 2020. But indications abound that, this time, pollsters may actually be overestimating Trump by using unsophisticated weighting techniques designed to beef up his numbers. (Update #5) Furthering suspicion for this phenomenon, polls in late October tightened in Trump’s favor despite no apparent change in the dynamics of the race, with notable statistical evidence of pollsters “herding” toward an exact tie instead of publishing their unfiltered data. (Update #8)

The nail in Trump’s coffin may have come on Saturday night, when J. Ann Selzer posted her final statewide poll of Iowa showing Harris up by 3 points in the state, a disastrous result for Trump given her unmatched historical accuracy and his previous victories in Iowa victories by around 8 points. Selzer’s poll seems to indicate that Trump has lost support among non-college White voters, particularly senior women. If other pollsters have in fact been herding toward Trump due to fear of underestimating him again, Selzer’s poll could in hindsight represent the canary in the coal mine: the first mainstream sign that Trump, in his bid to court new constituencies (especially disaffected young men), had left himself vulnerable to major losses among the demographic that fueled his initial political rise. (Update #9)

If Harris does prevail, postmortems won’t be kind to Trump’s 2024 campaign. He has run an unfocused, uninspired operation ostensibly intended to emphasize inflation and illegal immigration—but more frequently featuring hours of unrelated rambling that no casual voter could possibly comprehend without detailed knowledge of his myriad obsessions. Back in 2020, Trump seemingly refused to court moderate voters, instead spending the election season threatening the media, tweeting angrily at random civilians, and holding indoor rallies during a generational pandemic (and himself almost dying of the illness as a result). In 2024, he appears to have learned nothing—insulting moderates like Nikki Haley and Brian Kemp; choosing a smug, angry VP candidate; questioning Harris’s race (?); and concluding with an undisciplined rally that insulted various constituencies.

Why does he do this? Why is he like this? Regardless, I’m starting to stray from my carefully maintained evenhandedness. So it’s time to end this series. The election is tomorrow, and the voters will decide.

Good luck.

 

–Jim Andersen

 

 

A few of my posts have touched on the polling misses in 2016 and 2020 that led to relatively surprising outcomes in those elections. In 2016, polls underestimated Donald Trump in the Midwest, missing his eventual electoral college victory. In 2020, Trump was again underestimated, although he failed to beat his polls by enough to win reelection.

One pollster, however, predicted the outcomes in both cycles quite closely. And yesterday, she released her verdict on 2024.

Since 2012, J. Ann Selzer has conducted a statewide poll of Iowa for the Des Moines Register. Her record speaks for itself.

You’ll notice that Selzer’s average miss over seven polls is less than two points, reflecting an incredible level of accuracy. In six of seven polls, she correctly predicted the winner—and the margin of victory within just three points. Her largest miss was five points in 2018, hardly a terrible result by polling standards.

Perhaps even more important than her accuracy, however, has been her courage. I wrote in my last update that pollsters in this cycle appear to be “herding” toward a consensus of a tied election, presumably to avoid risking their reputations on an outlying result. This casts doubt on the authenticity of their data. Selzer, though, has consistently published data that goes against consensus—and, consistently, she’s been vindicated.

In 2016, polls showed Hillary Clinton performing solidly in Midwest states comprising the “Blue Wall”: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Clinton was also tied in polling averages in Iowa. Selzer’s poll, though, contradicted this conventional wisdom, showing Clinton down by 7 points in Iowa. Not only did this suggest that Iowa was not, in fact, a swing state, but it called into question whether other polls had been overestimating Clinton among the types of non-college White voters who could also be found in large numbers in the crucial Blue Wall states. We know the end of the story: Selzer was right; others were wrong.

Then, in 2020, polls showed Joe Biden with a large electoral college lead thanks in large part to an apparent turnaround with non-college White voters compared to Clinton in 2016. But Selzer again rained on the Democrats’ parade, showing Biden down 7 in the state, the same as Clinton four years earlier. This suggested that, if accurate, Biden had in fact not gained with non-college White voters, and his road to winning back the Blue Wall would be much more difficult than other polls had indicated. And again, Selzer was right.

That brings us to yesterday. Democrats waited with trepidation for Selzer’s poll, anxious that she would once again dash hopes—perhaps by showing Trump up by 10 or more points in Iowa, which would indicate an uphill climb for Kamala Harris in the electoral college. But the result?

Harris +3.

It’s difficult to understate the enormity of this result and what it means for Harris and the Democrats. As for electoral college math, it shows that Iowa’s five electoral votes may be within reach for Harris, a notion previously thought laughable given Trump’s high single digit victories there in 2016 and 2020. More importantly, though, it suggests that Harris may have done what Biden could not: win back non-college White voters in the Midwest who could restore Democrats’ Obama-level margins of victory in that region.

This might seem counterintuitive to casual observers. Biden, after all, centered his 2020 campaign on his relatable, everyman persona. He often emphasized his working class upbringing in Scranton, Pennsylvania and highlighted his cultural differences from the New York-born Trump. Harris, meanwhile, hails from San Francisco and would be the first Black woman to hold the presidency—hardly credentials typically considered ingratiating to the farmers and metal workers of Iowa.

Recall, though, that the Democrat who performed best among non-college White voters in recent memory was Barack Obama, another Black candidate who emphasized non-divisive themes of unity and progress. It may well be that the candidates’ ethnicities are distractions from what truly counts with voters: their messages. Looking back, one could make the case that Clinton and Biden, two White candidates, delivered messages that were more inflammatory regarding race—perhaps to shore up support among Black and brown voters—while Obama and Harris delivered messages of comparative unity—maybe because they were more focused on reassuring White voters given their own backgrounds. Selzer’s poll suggests that Harris may have, like Obama, succeeded in this regard.

Plus, although the Republican candidate has remained the same for the last three elections, his message has morphed through the years. Recall that in 2016, Trump often criticized multinational trade deals, which he blamed for the decline in American manufacturing—a talking point targeted especially to the Midwest. Now, though, Trump seems to have forgotten about trade deals. Judging by his rhetoric, he appears to believe that immigration is a stronger motivator for turning out his base in that region, preferring to bring attention to, for example, Haitian migrants in Ohio. But Selzer’s poll suggests that this may be a miscalculation. Have non-college White voters—the demographic most associated with Trump—soured on him in the Midwest as he has sharpened his attacks on immigration at the expense of other, more region-specific issues?

It may even be generous, though, to describe the late stages of Trump’s campaign, even on immigration, as “sharp.” If indeed voters are breaking toward Harris in the final days, as Selzer proposes, Trump can hardly blame anyone but himself. While Harris was touring swing states and reiterating a message of unity and centrism—campaigning, for instance, with former Republican firebrand Liz Cheney—Trump inexplicably threw a bizarre rally in New York City consisting mostly of surrogates taunting and mocking Democrats in crude and personal language. Meanwhile, he has resisted obvious moves to court moderate voters, such as mending tensions with Republican Primary opponent Nikki Haley.

Consider that moderate Republican women tuning into the election in the past week are likely to see Harris speaking alongside Cheney while Trump continues to snub Haley in favor of the likes of Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy. Meanwhile, at Trump’s Madison Square Garden Rally, surrogates called Hillary Clinton a “sick son of a bitch,” and implied that Harris is a prostitute: “she and her pimp handlers will destroy the country.” Is it so farfetched, then, that women (and men taken aback by these comments) would be breaking away from Trump in the final days?

This is to say nothing of the newly prominent issue of abortion, on which Midwest Republicans have performed poorly since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2021. For instance, in 2022, a state referendum in deep-red Kansas would have stipulated that a woman’s right to an abortion was not guaranteed. The referendum failed by a remarkable 18 points.

Republicans are already claiming that Selzer’s poll is an outlier, not to be taken seriously. The poll’s shockwaves have been so significant that Trump himself has even weighed in, accusing Selzer of being a “Trump-hater” and a Democratic operative (ignoring, of course, that her previous results had been quite favorable to him). Her poll is indeed a relative outlier compared to other data in the region, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact, if other pollsters are herding their data in fear of underestimating Trump for a third consecutive time, as I’ve speculated numerous times, Selzer’s result could be a sign that Harris is in much better shape than the consensus has allowed.

Plus, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that no other recent polls have shown good results for Harris in the Midwest. A recent poll of Kansas from Fort Hays University with survey dates ending on October 28th found Trump up by only 5 points in the state. (He won by 15 there in 2020.) At the time of its release, this was dismissed as an outlier—but now, Selzer’s poll has validated it as a potentially significant sign of Democratic improvement in the region. Likewise, a poll of Ohio conducted by Miami University, concluding on October 30th, showed Trump up by only 3 points. (He won Ohio by 8 in 2020.) These supposed “outliers” now seem to be forming a pattern of bad data for Trump in midwestern red states, suggesting, of course, that he may be primed for a similarly poor performance among non-college White voters in the Blue Wall.

One can’t be blamed for treating Selzer’s Iowa topline with some skepticism given Trump’s margins there in the past two cycles. A Harris victory in Iowa, in my opinion, would still register as a major surprise. But remember that Selzer has never missed the final outcome by more than 5 points (and has only missed by more than 3 points one time in seven tries). Trump won Iowa by 8 points in 2020 and still lost all three Blue Wall states to Biden. So even if Trump beats Selzer’s result by a relatively high amount, achieving a low single digit victory in Iowa, he would still have very little chance of winning the demographically similar states necessary to win the electoral college. He needs to outperform Selzer’s data by around 10 points, a feat no one has come close to accomplishing since she started in 2012.

We’ll see if Queen Ann reigns supreme yet again.

 

–Jim Andersen

In the final weeks before the election, the polls have tightened. Overall, this has benefited Donald Trump: he’s gained 1-2 points on Kamala Harris in national and swing state averages, causing polls-based statistical models to cast the race as 50-50 tie or even give Trump a slight edge.

As the final data comes in, however, something looks fishy.

While it’s perfectly reasonable for polls to show an average of a tie, what we’re now seeing is that nearly every swing state poll is now showing a tie—or at most a lead of +1 for either candidate. You might assume that such consistency merely proves that the race is, in fact, tied. But since polls typically feature margins of error of 3-5 points (due to the random error inherent in sampling a population), this grouping—or “herding”—of polls into a very narrow consensus is not consistent with a mathematically reasonable distribution. In other words, if the race really were tied and pollsters were releasing their data unfiltered, we would see a smattering of poll numbers loosely clustered around zero: Harris up four, Trump up three, et cetera. Instead, polls have shown almost no variation.

The only possible statistical explanation for this is that pollsters are deliberately influencing their topline numbers to avoid going out on a limb against the consensus. For example, if their raw data were to show Trump up by four in Georgia, they would alter it so that the final, published line shows Trump up by only one, more in line with the consensus. This way, if, say, Harris wins Georgia by one, the pollster won’t be too far off, and they won’t be singled out for being “wrong.”

Thus, the herding evident in the current data casts doubt on polls’ toplines. Indeed, several pundits, such as Nate Silver, have begun raising the alarm that the data isn’t adding up. And when Silver speaks on this, we should believe him: the last time he did so with such pointedness was in 2016, when final polls had suspiciously herded around a Hillary Clinton advantage of +3 to +4. As Silver and others had warned, it turned out to be a sign that pollsters were avoiding publishing data that ran contrary to the consensus—in that case, the consensus that Clinton was the clear favorite to win.

So what might the pollsters be hiding this time? More specifically, which candidate might be benefiting from the apparent herding?

We don’t know. And it’s entirely possible that the herding is benefiting neither candidate: maybe the race really is dead even, and the pollsters are merely herding their outlying numbers from both directions toward the center, where the truth actually lies.

But, as with my previous piece on early voting data, just because we don’t know won’t stop me from guessing. And I’m guessing that the polls are herding somewhat toward Trump, making it seem as though he’s doing somewhat better than he really is.

I base this optimism (being a Harris supporter) on a few pieces of evidence.

The first is that pollsters have already made public changes to their weighting methods that favor Trump. I covered this in Update #5. To summarize what I described there: following the second consecutive underestimation of Trump in the 2020 election, pollsters adopted certain weighting strategies designed to prevent a third underestimation. In particular, most pollsters now weight by recalled vote, which notoriously underestimates the winning party in the last election.

This indicates to me that pollsters in 2024 are more concerned about underestimating Trump than overestimating him. And there’s good reason for this: their credibility is on the line. Following their leans toward Democrats in 2016 and 2020, polls have come under fire from Trump and other Republicans, who have accused them, essentially, of being Deep State operations meant to sabotage them. It’s not surprising that pollsters would want to avoid attracting these criticisms again. In fact, dynamics like these explain why political polls have never underestimated the same party in three consecutive presidential elections: pollsters make adjustments to prevent the errors of the previous cycle and naturally wind up overcompensating.

Given the apparent concern for underestimating Trump once again, which has been reflected in pollsters’ behavior so far, it seems to me more likely that herding would be undertaken to boost Trump’s support, not diminish it.

The second reason I suspect that pollsters are herding in favor of Trump and against Harris is the strange data that has been released in a few swing state polls recently, which may give us a look under the hood at what might be going on more broadly. Take the TIPP poll of Pennsylvania released in mid-October. It reported a topline among registered voters (RV) of Harris +4. But among likely voters (LV), they reported that Trump was actually ahead by a point.

How could this be? LV samples are typically only one or two points different than RV samples—not five. TIPP, to their credit, released their data, so the answer was soon uncovered on social media: they had employed a likely voter screening formula that, somehow, filtered out almost the entire city of Philadelphia. This worked as follows: the RV sample included 93 respondents from Philadelphia. But only 12 of those were counted as “likely” voters by the screening formula. Meanwhile, in other regions of the state, the formula only screened out about ten percent of voters.

Something was clearly awry. And later that week, another Pennsylvania poll was released by Franklin & Marshall. Once again, it showed Harris up by four points among registered voters—but Trump ahead by one among likely voters.

Data like this indicates to me that polls are using likely voter screens—the methods of which are private and entirely up to pollsters’ discretion—to push toplines toward Trump. This can be an effective form of herding, and it’s theoretically easy to do, especially since the Democratic coalition includes some lower-propensity voting demographics. For example, a pollster could justifiably deem a portion of its nonwhite respondents as “unlikely” voters and remove them from the sample, since nonwhite people are indeed less likely to vote than White people. Of course, the pollster would have to leave a weighted total of nonwhite voters in the sample, but they could manipulate which voters were removed, thereby overweighting more Trump-friendly nonwhite voters, for instance those who live in non-urban regions. This to me seems like the most probable explanation for the TIPP numbers.

Plus, to me, the sudden and widespread phenomenon of Trump performing better in LV data compared to RV data doesn’t pass the smell test. In most polls this year until the past two weeks, data showed Trump slipping a bit among LVs compared to RVs. It makes sense why this would be the case: as I covered in Update #6, many of Trump’s supporters profile as lower-propensity voters, lacking college educations and generally distrusting politics. Meanwhile, Democrats have soared in popularity with White people above 45 years old with college degrees, who profile as the highest propensity voters. So it makes sense to me that Democrats would be doing relatively well in LV data, as they had been doing for most of the cycle—but recent numbers have swung in the opposite direction, even including some extreme examples like the aforementioned TIPP and F&M polls in Pennsylvania.

As previously described, pollsters have an obvious motive to jigger their LV data toward Trump: they don’t want to appear permanently biased against Republicans by underestimating him for a third consecutive time. But are they overcorrecting?

The third reason I suspect a general herding pattern in Trump’s favor is the results of district-level polls over the past few weeks. These polls cover a single House of Representatives district, not a whole state (or the whole country). They’re known to be more accurate than state polls, since they sample a relatively small, homogenous area and therefore encounter fewer challenges related to regional and demographic weighting. And unlike state polls, these smaller polls have recently shown Harris equaling or exceeding Biden’s 2020 margins.

In a poll of Pennsylvania’s 8th district, for example, Trump leads Harris by 3 points according a Noble Insights poll released on October 25th. That’s the same margin by which Trump carried the district in 2020, when he lost the state by 1.2 points. So the poll represents decent news for Harris. Similarly, in a Noble poll of AZ-02, a mostly rural district that Trump carried by 10 points in 2020 en route to losing Arizona by a few tenths of a point, he currently leads by 9. Again, very similar numbers in a state that Democrats narrowly won in 2020. In a poll of PA-10, a suburban district, Harris leads Trump by 5 points—although Trump won the district in 2020 by 4 points. The recent result is similar to the margin achieved by John Fetterman when he won the district by 5 points in 2022 on the way to winning the state overall by the same margin. In summary, then, it’s great news for Democrats—and more evidence that the suburbs are ground zero for Democratic gains.

The district polls are valuable when trying to look past the effects of herding. This is because pollsters have no reason to herd them. After all, 1) there’s no public scrutiny of district-level polls and 2) there’s no consensus to herd toward. So Harris’s apparent overperformance in district polls compared to state and national polls could indicate that the latter numbers are being nudged toward Trump by skittish pollsters hoping to avoid MAGA’s wrath when the dust settles in November. Some have pointed out that in 2016, district polls began showing warning signs for Clinton in September and October. These turned out to be harbingers of an eventual polling miss that was likely due in part to pollsters herding numbers in Clinton’s favor, wanting to avoid publishing consensus-defying, pro-Trump data.

I’ve laid out my reasons for interpreting the 2024 herding phenomenon as an indication that pollsters may be slightly underestimating Harris in crucial battlegrounds. There’s no direct proof of this, of course, and my interpretation might reflect bias toward her candidacy. But for Harris supporters looking for a bit of optimism as pundits proclaim the race a tossup, this is the optimist’s case.

 

–Jim Andersen

We’re just over a week out from the election, and people are antsy for news about which candidate might have the edge. It’s not surprising, then, that many have turned to the only hard election-related statistics available so far: early voting numbers.

Unfortunately, early voting is a notoriously unreliable indicator of which candidate will prevail. The most pressing problem with the public information is that it only pertains to who has voted so far—not which candidate they voted for, which is only revealed when votes are counted on election day. Some states do release data on the early voters’ party registration; for example, we might hear that 40% of Pennsylvania early voters are registered Democrats, while 30% are registered Republicans and 30% are unaffiliated. But even this isn’t extremely helpful, because we still don’t know which candidates those voters cast ballots for, and any unevenness in the data may simply reflect one party favoring early voting while the other waits until election day (as was the case in 2020, when Republicans in many states forewent early voting in favor of election day participation).

Plus, most states don’t even release party registration data, instead simply tabulating which counties have received early votes, or what the voters’ race and gender statistics look like. Some commentators have tried to spin these into newsworthy narratives—for example, highlighting that more females have voted early so far than males, suggesting a high level of enthusiasm among women due to the prominent issue of abortion rights. But under the slightest scrutiny, this narrative falls apart: women, in fact, always vote earlier at higher rates, and this year’s data looks no different. We men, it turns out, like to procrastinate.

Thus, if there are any valuable takeaways from the early voting data, they need to gleaned using comparisons to the last cycle. Even this poses major challenges, though, because 2020 represented a highly unique environment thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic. In several states, early voting had not been tried before on a large scale, leading supporters of the respective candidates to use it asymmetrically: supporters of Joe Biden were more likely to use mail voting due to their assessment that the virus posed a legitimate health risk, while supporters of Donald Trump preferred voting in person on election day, thanks in part to marching orders from Trump himself, who characterized mail voting as a sinister plot by Democrats to rig the election against him (in hindsight, a crushing blunder that probably cost him the election).

But you’re here for analysis, so let’s go through the seven swing states and see if we can find anything meaningful from the early voting data so far. In each case, I’ll give my assessment of whether the picture looks, on balance, good for Trump, good for Kamala Harris, or neutral.

Nevada

I’ll start with Nevada because of the swing states, it has the clearest record of early voting data providing useful information about the eventual outcome. Nevada political expert Jon Ralston, in particular, has been known to correctly predict outcomes in the state by assessing the size of the Democratic “firewall” of early votes coming from the Las Vegas area, which acts as a bulwark against the Republican election day advantage in Nevada’s rural counties.

But this year, something unusual has happened: no Democratic firewall has materialized. Instead, it’s the Republicans who have the early vote advantage, thanks to Republican in-person votes in Clark County (Las Vegas) far outpacing their usual early numbers.

Now, this development isn’t certain doom for Democrats. It could be related to Trump simply changing his tune on early voting: encouraging his supporters to use it, whereas in 2020 he actively discouraged it. In addition, the partisan comparison fails to take into account Independent voters, and some have pointed out that young, Democratic-leaning voters have increasingly preferred to register as Independent in Nevada rather than as Democrats.

So hope lives for Harris supporters in Nevada. But on the whole, the news is good for Trump. And as a reminder, I made a gloomy forecast for Harris in Nevada weeks ago.

Verdict: Good for Trump

Michigan

Michigan provides another example of a state with a track record of early voting before 2020, making it less susceptible to wild swings based on the pandemic or Trump’s flip-flopping instructions to his supporters. Unlike Nevada, though, it doesn’t release party registration data, so we have to make inferences.

The graph below uses data from TargetSmart, a political data firm. TargetSmart uses various factors—race, county of residence, etc.—to model party registration, thereby estimating which party’s voters have turned out.

To summarize the graph, which may be hard to see, TargetSmart’s Michigan data on modeled party early vote indicates that Democrats have turned out 22% of their total registered voters so far—compared to 25% at this point in 2020. Whereas Republicans have turned out 14% of their registered voters—compared to 28% at the same point in 2020.

I find this remarkable and highly surprising, given that it seems to me that, if anything, Republicans should be gaining in early vote share compared to 2020 now that Trump has endorsed the practice. But in Michigan, Republicans actually outpaced Democrats in 2020 early voting and have now fallen drastically behind, according to this modeling. I can’t think of a good explanation besides a lot of enthusiasm among Democrats in this state.

Verdict: Good for Harris

Wisconsin

A similar although less dramatic tale seems to be unfolding in Wisconsin.

In 2020, as per TargetSmart modeling, Republicans and Democrats had utilized early voting at about equal levels: each party had turned out about 30% of their registered voters at this point. In this cycle, though, early voting is down everywhere—not surprising given the absence of a generational pandemic. But while Democrats have turned out an estimated 17% of their voters, Republicans have turned out only 11%.

As with Michigan, I see no explanation for this gap other than a Democratic enthusiasm edge in the state. With Trump now encouraging his supporters to use mail voting, it bodes poorly for him that Republicans have lost ground relative to Democrats in this department compared to 2020. It’s not a big edge, but in a close state, Democrats will take it.

A quick aside. The numbers from Michigan and Wisconsin show that in 2020, contrary to trends in much of the country, Republicans actually voted early at equal or higher rates than Democrats. In my view, that suggests that Republicans in those states are of a fundamentally different political persuasion than hardcore MAGA supporters elsewhere. Remember, Trump’s pre-election speculation that Nancy Pelosi and a cabal of Democrats were stoking fear of COVID only to funnel votes into a corrupt mail system—a truly surreal accusation—were gospel for MAGA at that time. And Republican turnout rates from many states reflect that. But not Michigan and Wisconsin. Just the fact that Republicans in those states favored early voting methods during the pandemic and cut back when it was over indicates a certain independence from Trump that Republicans in other states haven’t necessarily shown. Democrats performed relatively well in both states in the 2022 midterms—especially Michigan.

Verdict: Good for Harris

Pennsylvania

The big one. So goes Pennsylvania, so goes the election, most likely.

Unlike Michigan and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania reports party registration data for early voting, so that could yield more informative data. But also unlike those states, Pennsylvania didn’t widely use early voting before 2020, and it shows in the data.

These numbers are more intuitive than the other states given developments surrounding the pandemic and Trump’s rhetoric: Democrats in 2020, encouraged by their party leaders, voted early at fairly high rates—while Republicans, discouraged by Trump and not already familiar with early voting, waited until election day. In 2024, with the pandemic over, Democrats have predictably cut back on early voting while Republicans have maintained about the same (albeit low) rate in the face of Trump, Elon Musk, and others urging supporters to vote early in the state.

To me, this says nothing important. It’s exactly what we’d expect the numbers to show. Only election day will tell us where the enthusiasm lies in the state.

Verdict: Neutral

Georgia

When early voting results started appearing in Georgia a few weeks ago Republicans were jubilant. Alarming to Democrats was a markedly reduced share of turnout from Black voters compared to the previous cycle. And since Georgia’s electorate is highly racially polarized—about 30% Black, 65% White—this was a big deal.

But in the past few days, the racial gap has narrowed. Votes have rolled in from diverse areas like Dekalb County and Fulton County. It seems that Black Georgians were biding their time and may well be on their way to another solid voting turnout.

Overall, Republicans continue to show relative improvement in the early vote via TargetSmart party modeling. Yes, they’ve reduced their early voting turnout compared to 2020, but by a slightly lower percentage than Democrats. Still, just as in Pennsylvania, this is, in my opinion, to be expected given the national environment. So I see no edge for either side.

Verdict: Neutral

Arizona

It’s a bit tougher not to credit Republicans in Arizona, though, for their early vote performance.

Both Democrats and Republicans have turned out about 28% of their voters so far. But at this point in 2020, Democrats had turned out 43%, while Republicans had only turned out 33%. So Democrats have seen a much larger decrease in early vote participation.

This may be again be attributable to the national environment—Trump encouraging his supporters to vote early, etc.—but then again, the relative improvement for Republicans is significantly larger than that seen in Pennsylvania or Georgia. Therefore, I award this one to Trump. Democrats can take solace in the fact that the outcome of Arizona elections typically hinges on moderate Republicans, who are found in large numbers in the state. These voters, apparently not fans of Trump or his minions, broke decisively for Biden in 2020 and for Mark Kelly in 2022. Perhaps they’ll do so for Harris, as well, which would make the apparent Republican enthusiasm edge a mirage—although we’ll see if they deem her sufficiently moderate to tolerate.

Verdict: Good for Trump

North Carolina

Another state that reports party registration for early votes, and another state with Republicans doing, on balance, better than in 2020.

As with Arizona, I’m not surprised by Republicans dropping off less steeply than Democrats in 2024. What I am surprised by is just how much Democratic early voting has declined compared to 2020. At this point in 2020, Democrats had turned out a huge 48% of their registered voters. Today, the number sits at just 34%. Republicans, meanwhile, have fallen only from 42% to 38% turnout, so they have a banked advantage. Maybe Democrats in North Carolina, particularly Black Democrats, will start showing up at the polls in the final week—as we’ve already seen in Georgia (after some pundits prematurely reported that the sky was falling). Until then, pro-Harris energy looks a bit weak.

Verdict: Good for Trump

Summary

Perhaps my reading of the early vote tea leaves is biased toward my previous commentary and predictions about the respective swing states. In Nevada and Arizona, which I forecasted as challenging for Democrats, I give Trump the edge. In Michigan and Wisconsin, which I highlighted as demographically favorable to Democrats, I give Harris the edge.

But I truly think that the early vote data reinforces a lot of the commentary in those earlier pieces. In the less diverse Midwest states, we’re seeing indicators of an enthusiasm gap favoring Harris. In the more diverse Sun Belt states, especially those in close proximity to the southern border and with prominent Hispanic populations, indicators suggest lagging enthusiasm for Harris.

The trend to watch, in my opinion, is the turnout rate in urban areas over the final week of early voting. Black participation across the nation has lagged so far compared to 2020, but it’s still very early, and in Georgia, we’re already seeing Black voters make their way to the polls (and to the mailboxes) after forgoing the first few days. The Harris campaign’s ground game has its work cut out for it.

–Jim Andersen

 

You don’t hear as much about voter turnout as you used to. That’s for a few reasons, but I think they can be best understood by revisiting Bernie Sanders’ 2020 run for President.

At that time, Sanders had revamped his political operation after narrowly losing the 2016 Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton. He was widely recognized as a major 2020 contender, but he also faced a significant obstacle: the concern that his progressive views made him less likely to defeat Donald Trump than more moderate candidates like Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg. Many anti-Trump voters appeared to believe that the Democratic Party couldn’t afford to gamble on a nontraditional candidate like Sanders.

Sanders responded to this concern by putting forward an interesting argument. He admitted that it was true that some moderate voters might be turned off by his policies. But he claimed that in today’s political climate, there aren’t many moderate voters left: the electorate is so polarized that persuading the tiny fraction on the fence is a fool’s errand. Instead, he said, much larger gains could be made by mobilizing previously unengaged voters. For example, young voters and Hispanic voters—heretofore the demographics with the lowest voting rates—were sure to turn out for him in record totals, growing the Democratic base significantly and dwarfing any losses among centrists.

The media, for the most part, loved this theory. After all, it seemed true. Indeed, the cable news viewers and social media followers who consume political media are highly polarized, and these are the people whom the media hears from most often and attempts to reach. Plus, the theory seemed to offer an explanation for Trump’s underdog victory in 2016: perhaps Clinton had fallen into a trap by trying to persuade nonexistent swing voters, while Trump had been ahead of the game in realizing that firing up one’s base had become more important in today’s politics.

But there was one problem with Sanders’ argument: it didn’t work. The supposedly surefire participation from traditionally low-turnout voters turned out to be a mirage. Although Sanders scored some early primary victories, Klobuchar and Buttigieg soon dropped out, allowing establishment voters to coalesce around Biden, who immediately began running up huge statewide deficits against Sanders—far greater than what Clinton had managed in 2016. There was no other conclusion than that Sanders’ strategy had backfired. He had alienated moderate Democrats while the young and Hispanic voting blocks on which he had staked his campaign continued to sit on the sidelines.

So the theory that contemporary elections are decided based on turnout, not voter persuasion, suffered a major blow. And in the 2020 general election, it suffered another. Because even with Sanders out of the picture, many in the media continued to beat the drum of turnout. For example, they asserted that the key to a Biden victory was to recreate the high turnout in Black communities that Barack Obama had achieved in 2008 and 2012, before it dipped in 2016 with Clinton on the ballot. In the end, though, Biden not only failed to recreate Obama’s nonwhite turnout, but he performed even worse than Clinton in this regard. Yet he still won the election—by winning over, as I’ve written, college-educated White voters from the suburbs.

Why does all this matter? It’s because in 2024, a candidate is once again betting big on high turnout among traditionally low-propensity voters. The candidate this time, though, is Trump.

Traits that increase one’s likelihood of voting in a United States election include being old, white, female, and college-educated. Young people, minorities, men, and non-college educated people are less likely to vote. These latter traits though, characterize the very people who seem to have moved toward Trump in the polls since 2020. As I wrote in Updates #3 and #4, in this cycle Trump has polled better among Black and Hispanic voters than any Republican in decades—particularly with younger members of those demographics and those lacking college degrees. The problem for him, though, is that these voters, compared to other segments of the population, vote at very low levels. Just ask Bernie Sanders.

Trump’s advertising and messaging strategies seem to indicate that he believes he can do what Sanders couldn’t: turn out young men of color who aren’t traditionally engaged politically. And he may not have a choice but to believe this. After all, as I wrote about in Update #2, Democrats have made major gains among college-educated White voters over the past two cycles, and they appear primed to gain yet again. For Trump to weather suburban losses in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, he has two options: 1) increase his margins among non-college Whites (his most favorable demographic), or 2) cut into Democratic margins among voters of color.

He’s certainly tried his best to achieve the former—ramping up his rhetoric on immigration and other culture war topics, such as transgender rights. But polls haven’t necessarily shown that he’s made any headway. This may not be surprising: remember that in 2020, he failed to gain any additional voter share among non-college Whites despite making large gains in 2016 compared to Mitt Romney. Judging by the data, he could simply be maxed out among this demographic. You can only demand a border wall so many times.

Also, non-college Whites comprise a shrinking portion of the electorate. In 2008, they composed 51% of people who voted, a slim majority. In 2020, however, they composed only 44%, ceding ground to Hispanics, Asians, and college-educated Whites. If trends hold, in 2024, they’ll be down to a 42% share.

This poses a significant problem for Trump if he seeks to lean on this demographic to make gains relative to 2020. Consider that if non-college Whites indeed decline from 44% of voters in 2020 to 42% in 2024, their collective voting influence would drop by about 4% compared to 2020. Thus, for Trump to merely hold steady in absolute vote totals, he would have to perform four points better among this group than he did in 2020—just to make up for their shrinkage as a portion of the whole. Again, the polls currently don’t show that he’s accomplishing that. Adam Carlson’s poll aggregator, for example, referenced in earlier posts, indicates that Trump is, if anything, performing a few points below his 2020 numbers with non-college Whites.

The polls do show, however, that Trump has gained significantly with young voters of color, especially men. Therefore, it’s no surprise that he’s made an aggressive effort to court them even further, appearing on popular Black podcasts and tailoring major ads toward Black voters. But will they show up for him at the polls?

In my opinion, Trump is, at best, playing a dangerous game. There’s a reason that non-voters don’t vote, and it’s usually because they don’t feel that politics truly impacts their lives. If Sanders, whose progressive platform promised to directly benefit voters of color through massive government spending, couldn’t convince them otherwise, how will Trump, whose platform contains hardly any specifics whatsoever?

In my first Update, I speculated that Trump’s apparent gains among voters of color were partly a reflection of recent Democratic headwinds in specific media markets that covered post-pandemic crime as a major threat. Black and Hispanic voters in these areas, disgruntled with what they perceive as Democratic permissiveness toward crime, may indeed shift strongly toward Trump; after all, they did so for House Republicans in the 2022 midterms. This won’t help Trump win the electoral college, though, because they reside disproportionately in New York, California, and Florida. Rather, Trump will need low-propensity voters—voters who didn’t vote in the midterms—to turn out for him at high rates.

The problem for him is: why would they? True, the polls show that some of these voters now support Trump after supporting Biden in 2020. But supporting is one thing; actually voting is another, and historically, they haven’t voted at high rates. If their support for Trump merely represents a kind of mini-protest—a registration of jadedness, of alignment with Trump’s anti-establishment approach—that seems, at least to me, to be an insufficient hook to draw the most historically reluctant demographics to the polls. Has Trump won over real voters, or has he only won the respect of, ironically, people who relate to his angry screeds because, in their view, this whole politics thing is all bullshit?

Bernie Sanders, any input?

 

–Jim Andersen

It’s time to talk about polls. Currently, most polling averages have Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 1-2 points in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—three states that would probably combine to deliver her an electoral college victory. Most supporters of hers, though, won’t be very reassured by this, thanks to traumatizing memories of polling misfires in 2016 and 2020 that underestimated Trump’s eventual performance. Won’t the polls underestimate Trump once again? Doesn’t he always beat the polls?

Well, let’s dig deeper. First, let’s revisit 2016 (an admittedly unpleasant exercise). Barack Obama had just won two consecutive general elections, including outperforming the polls in 2012 to decisively beat a strong opponent, Mitt Romney. His sky-high margins with voters of color and steady performance with working class Whites seemed to represent an unbeatable coalition, promising endless Democratic victories into the future. Furthering this perception, the Republican party appeared in utter disrepair, having failed to prevent the nomination of a rambling, braggadocios billionaire with no political expertise, an atrocious record of scandals, a baffling soft spot for Vladimir Putin, and a penchant for melting down on Twitter in response to the slightest political criticism. Because of all this, a persistent media narrative emerged that Hillary Clinton was primed for a breezy victory.

The problem was that the polling numbers didn’t quite support this. In reality, the final national polls showed Clinton ahead of Trump by only 3.5 points on average—hardly a forecast of a blowout. In addition, Trump had made clear gains over the final two weeks, suggesting that, in the final days after all polls had concluded, he would stand to gain even further. Ultimately, Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.1 points, only a 1.4 points below what the last polls had reflected. But because the media had complacently ignored the warning signs for her in the data, a narrative emerged after the election that the polls had missed terribly, fooling everybody. So 2016 offers primarily a lesson in media unreliability, not poll uncertainty.

Despite this, you may correctly point out that a 1.4-point underestimation of Trump isn’t nothing, and the miss was larger in the crucial Midwest swing states that enabled his electoral college victory. What accounted for this miss?

The answer has to do with the fact that all polls “weight” their samples to ensure that their panels accurately reflect the true composition of the electorate. For instance, polls will apply weights to ensure the proper percentages of Black, Hispanic, and White respondents. This prevents high response rates by one group from dominating the numbers and skewing the poll. However, one trait that had not been weighted traditionally was college education. This was because it simply hadn’t been necessary: a college degree hadn’t been a major predictor of voting habits, so there was no reason to ensure proper percentages of respondents with and without degrees.

Trump’s populist campaign in 2016, though, changed that. Unlike prior Republican candidates (like Romney), much of his messaging appealed to less educated voters while repelling more educated voters. This caught pollsters flat-footed. Since they hadn’t weighted their samples for college education, their numbers were skewed toward college-educated voters, who are more likely to answer calls from pollsters. These highly educated voters disproportionately favored Clinton. Therefore, the polls’ results underestimated Trump, especially in states with large populations of non-college Whites who hadn’t been adequately represented in the data.

Pollsters realized their mistake and in 2020 duly corrected it by weighting all polls for college education. But here’s where things get strange. Because in 2020, the polling miss was actually larger than in 2016: averages generally reflected a national lead for Joe Biden of a healthy 8.5 points, but he ultimately won the popular vote by only 4.5 points, barely enough to win the electoral college.

What gives? The problem this time was more mysterious. As Nate Cohn of The New York Times wrote, the polls’ clear bias toward Biden even with proper weights indicated a much more fundamental problem with polling itself:

This is a deeper kind of error than ones from 2016. It suggests a fundamental mismeasurement of the attitudes of a large demographic group, not just an underestimate of its share of the electorate. Put differently, the underlying raw survey data got worse over the last four years, canceling out the changes that pollsters made to address what went wrong in 2016.

Essentially, although college education had now been weighted properly, a new problem had arisen: the types of voters who responded to polls were more likely to support Biden regardless of education or of any other demographic trait. So the polling practices were fine, but the data itself was flawed because the population was responding to polls in an asymmetric manner favoring Democrats.

There are several reasonable theories for why this would happen. Chief among them, once again, is Trump. He has fomented a blanketlike paranoia among his supporters, actively encouraging distrust of ostensibly neutral institutions like science, medicine, intelligence agencies, the judiciary, public schools, and even the post office. It’s hardly surprising, then, that his supporters would refuse to take calls from pollsters. Why volunteer personal information to a stranger who could potentially be a covert agent of the Deep State? That’s partly a joking hypothetical—but only partly.

Another potential reason for the 2020 polling misfire: the COVID-19 pandemic. As David Shor, a Democratic polling scientist, points out, in late 2019 Biden had a polling lead of 4-5 points, indicating a narrow electoral college advantage over Trump. But after lockdowns swept the nation in spring of 2020, Biden’s polling lead ballooned to 8-10 points, where it stayed until the election. Shor believes that, in retrospect, Biden hadn’t actually gained supporters over that timeframe. Instead, the pandemic had caused Democratic voters to be both more motivated and more available to take polls:

The basic story is that after lockdown, Democrats just started taking surveys, because they were locked at home and didn’t have anything else to do. Nearly all of the national polling error can be explained by the post-COVID jump in response rates among Dems.

Some may recall “The Resistance,” the groundswell of anti-Trump activism that reached a crescendo during Trump’s erratic handling of the pandemic. Shor is arguing, essentially, something unsurprising: that the resistors really liked being polled.

That brings us to 2024. The pandemic is no longer at hand, so the primary concern for pollsters carrying over from 2020 is the first dynamic I mentioned: the potential difficulty reaching Trump supporters who, almost by definition, don’t trust the outlets that aim to poll them. Pollsters have, to their credit, attempted to resolve this in various ways.

The first, applicable especially to state polling, is to weight by region. After all, it’s one thing to reach non-college White voters, it’s another to reach non-college Whites from rural regions of a given state. The latter will probably prove more fruitful in reaching Trump’s biggest fans.

Another is that some pollsters have begun counting respondents’ vote preference even if they fail to complete the entire poll. This change was made, apparently, because many Trump supporters would simply cut the pollster off early in the call, exclaim that they were voting for Trump, and hang up. Under previous guidelines, this wouldn’t have counted as a response. Now, pollsters, at least including the New York Times, have counted this as a Trump vote in the data. Theoretically, this could mitigate the problem of the “paranoid Trump voter,” proving more inclusive to respondents who may not be willing to volunteer information over the course of a multi-question poll.

The most influential change, though, may be the newfound predominance of weighting by recalled 2020 vote. This practice entails asking participants whom they voted for in 2020 and applying weights to ensure that these percentages match the actual 2020 electorate. It might seem logical to do this, but such methodology is actually notoriously unreliable. Cohn has written about this extensively, but the most relevant problem is that, for some reason, a small percentage of poll respondents inevitably report that they voted for the winner of the last election when they actually voted for the loser. This causes an oversampling of those who voted for the losing party because some of them have essentially disguised themselves in the poll as voters for the winning party. This in turn causes the false appearance of voters shifting their preference toward the previous loser, when in fact many of these voters actually voted for the loser the first time, too. They just don’t want to admit it.

Cohn writes that nearly two-thirds of pollsters now weight by recalled vote, as opposed to less than ten percent in 2020. This would theoretically create a systemic polling bias toward Trump, and indeed, as Cohn shows in the table below, pollsters who don’t use recalled vote weighting have generally found a slightly more comfortable edge for Harris in the crucial Midwest states:

Furthermore, he speculates that this pro-Trump bias is the very point of using this weighting strategy: pollsters who obtain very left-leaning data want to avoid underestimating Trump drastically, as they did in 2020, so they weight by recalled vote to counter what they perceive as an inevitable anti-Trump bias. This is why, in the chart above, some results, especially the national average, are actually better for Trump without the recalled vote weighting: it’s because the pollsters with the most left-leaning data (often online national polls) disproportionately use the strategy. Their numbers start out very heavily Democratic, so they intentionally skew them back toward Trump because they don’t trust their own results.

To me, this all means that we’re in very uncertain waters regarding the real status of this election. On one hand, optimists for Harris could point out that pollsters are essentially handing points to Trump by adopting a debunked weighting practice that favors the last election’s losing party. On the other hand, Trump supporters could, with reasonable evidence, argue that polling itself is now heavily biased against Trump due to his supporters’ aversion to being surveyed—a bias that the new weighting methods could never hope to erase. (Recall the very large 4-point national miss in 2020.)

The big question, then, may be how much the COVID-19 pandemic truly impacted the 2020 polling. If the 4-point miss in 2020 was indeed mostly attributable to polling distrust among Trump’s supporters, then Trump is probably in good shape, since nothing has occurred to alter that dynamic. But if, as Shor theorizes, the 2020 miss was largely because the unique environment of the pandemic caused Trump-hating voters to disproportionately pervade polling panels, then Harris may actually be in significantly better shape than the polling indicates. After all, if pollsters have now adopted pro-Trump weighting methods only because he outperformed their numbers in 2020—but if that overperformance was actually due to 2020-specific factors that no longer apply—then we may see Harris, not Trump, outperform the polls this time.

Remember that in the 2022 midterms, with the pandemic effectively over and several Trumpian candidates running for office in swing states, the polls slightly underestimated…Democrats.

 

–Jim Andersen

In the previous update, I analyzed Kamala Harris’s relatively poor polling among Black voters. I concluded that, while she’s indeed likely to lose support among that group in 2024 compared to Joe Biden’s performance in 2020, there are several reasons to expect that it won’t be as damaging to her electoral college prospects as current national polls indicate.

In this update, I’ll move on to discussing another demographic with which she’s polling poorly: Hispanic voters. And to preview the upcoming analysis, my outlook here isn’t as optimistic for her.

Returning to Adam Carlson’s 2024 crosstabs aggregator, we can see that with Hispanics, Harris is currently polling an average of 10 points below Biden’s 2020 showing:

To me, what’s most concerning about this finding is that, unlike with Black voters, it comes on the heels of Biden performing quite badly with this subgroup in 2020. As you can see below, Trump gained a whopping 8% share (16 point net gain) with Hispanic voters in 2020 compared to 2016:

Plus, also dissimilar to Black voters, Hispanic voters weren’t substantially under-polled for Democrats in 2020. As I wrote in the last piece, Biden’s support among Black voters was underestimated in 2020 by about 10 points. His support among Hispanic voters was also underestimated, but only by a negligible 4 points:

This all paints a dark picture for Harris for multiple reasons. Firstly, Hispanics are the fastest-growing voting block in the nation. Secondly, certain swing states contain large amounts of Hispanic voters: the Arizona electorate, for example, was 19% Hispanic in 2020, and Nevada’s was 17%. In 2024, the figures in both states promise to be even higher. Even in Pennsylvania, 7% of the 2020 electorate was Hispanic. A 10-point loss for Harris among those voters in 2024 would lead to a loss of 0.7 points across the state, an unhelpful handicap given the thin margins expected there.

Why have Democrats plummeted so spectacularly with Hispanic voters since Trump’s ascendancy? The answer appears to lie in a massive political miscalculation made in the early and mid-2010’s. At that time, it was thought that taking a strong stance against illegal immigration at the southern border would alienate Hispanic voters—an undesirable outcome given their increasing prominence in American politics. Even though Barack Obama had dealt with illegal immigration fairly harshly while in office—deporting more undocumented migrants than any president in history to that point—Democrats adopted a practice of largely avoiding the issue, and their proposals on the matter often focused on offering amnesty to those who had already crossed the border.

So widespread was the political wisdom against too-strong anti-immigration rhetoric that Republican Party elites, too, adhered to it. They believed that Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012 could partly be attributed to his having been forced to adopt an extreme (for that time) stance on immigration in the Republican Primary, thanks to pressure from upstart, populist-leaning candidates like Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann. In one primary debate, Cain memorably suggested building a giant electrical fence across the southern border, which Romney let pass without criticism. (What a bad look for the party!) Later, Romney infamously proposed changing domestic policies in such a way as to incentivize undocumented immigrants to “self-deport.” With moments like these—so the thinking went—Romney had offended a critical constituency.

We now know that these political assessments were massively off base. That’s because, with Republicans in 2016 aiming to dial back their anti-immigrant rhetoric (perhaps by coalescing around amiable Florida governor Jeb Bush), political newcomer Donald Trump took a different tack. He instead ran a campaign focused almost solely on curbing illegal immigration and demagoguing the immigrants themselves. For this, he not only amassed a cultish following among rural White voters that persists to this day, but he suffered no penalty whatsoever among Hispanic voters, an achievement both parties had assumed impossible. Four years later, as we’ve said, he gained an unbelievable net 16 points among the demographic.

Trump’s astonishing success with Hispanics proves that the parties greatly miscalculated how these voters felt about illegal immigration. Firstly, keep in mind that, despite what Elon Musk would have you believe, undocumented immigrants can’t vote, so there’s no direct political benefit to catering to them. Still, circa 2010-2015, both parties seemed to believe that Hispanic citizens would largely identify with the undocumented migrants, taking their denigration as a personal attack on their communities. Of course, for many or even most Hispanic voters, this may have been correct; after all, Democrats still poll ahead of Republicans with the group overall. But for a very large portion of Hispanic voters, it wasn’t. For these Hispanics, in fact, it seems that the opposite was true: they were uniquely averse to allowing illegal immigration to continue unfettered.

There’s ready logic available to explain this. If someone undertakes the arduous process of legally immigrating to the United States from Mexico or Central America, it stands to reason that they prefer, for whatever reason, the environment of United States to that of their original country. These voters, then, may react with particular alarm to Trump’s warnings that heavy migration threatens our national identity. For example, his wild and untrue statements about undocumented migrants murdering and raping people at high rates may concern immigrant families who associate their country of origin with higher rates of violent crime. In other words, for White people, Trump stirs up xenophobia, a powerful force. But for some Hispanic voters, he stirs up an even more powerful and more chaotic one: intergenerational trauma.

Of course, many “Hispanics” aren’t from Mexico or Central America. Many are Puerto Rican, so they aren’t immigrants at all. On what basis, then, would we expect them to feel particularly compelled to defend those who have immigrated illegally from the South? This is to say nothing of other Hispanic groups in the US such as Cuban-Americans, who broke strongly for Trump in 2020, helping him win Florida with ease. Cubans, of course, have little cultural or geographic connection to activities at the border, so it’s hardly surprising that they haven’t adhered to media expectations of Hispanic voters. All in all, the census designations of “Hispanic” and “Latino” have proven less politically meaningful than the parties seemed to anticipate in the early 2010’s. Trump has been able to exploit that error for tremendous political gain.

Let’s return to the troubling data for Democrats. If they were to lose 10 points among Hispanics nationwide, as Carlson’s aggregator reflects, they would incur a loss of about 2 whole points in Arizona (where Biden won by only 0.3 points in 2020) and Nevada (where Biden won by 2.3 points). Could Harris overcome those blows?

Nevada may seem friendlier, since Harris starts from a better 2020 benchmark. The 2-point loss among Hispanics, if every other demographic held steady, would still allow her to eke out a win in the state. But I’m still pessimistic about it. The problem in Nevada is that only 16% of the electorate is classified as “suburban,” far below the national average of 51%. Instead, most of its electorate falls under the designation of “urban” due to the overwhelming population of Las Vegas compared to that of the rest of the state. Thus, the White, college-educated suburban voters who’ve comprised so much of the Democratic gains over the past decade are, in Nevada, a rare breed. No wonder that in 2020, Nevada was one of only seven states to swing toward Trump compared to 2016. Biden still won there, but the trend looks dicey. A large rightward swing among Hispanics plus a small rightward swing among Blacks—without a compensatory leftward swing among suburban Whites—could spell doom for Harris in the state.

This is only one person’s forecast, though. Surprisingly (to me), Harris has actually polled relatively well in Nevada this cycle. She currently leads by 1.1 points there in the FiveThirtyEight average. Believe who you like. But Nevada is a notoriously difficult state to poll, and, polling aside, I don’t like the look of it.

Arizona poses a more complicated picture. That’s because despite the large and growing Hispanic population there—a likely source of Democratic losses in 2024—it also boasts a healthy and growing suburban population, thanks to the Phoenix metro area, a likely source of Democratic gains. Which shift will dominate the trend in 2024? Two data points may provide encouragement to Harris supporters:

1. In the 2022 midterms, Senator Mark Kelly won reelection in Arizona by a comfortable five points, demonstrating impressive strength in the Phoenix area—indicating that leaning on the suburbs may be a winning strategy in modern day Arizona politics, even amidst losses in other subgroups.
2. In 2020, Biden improved in Arizona by 3.8 points relative to Clinton in 2016 despite the aforementioned net loss of 16 points among Hispanics nationwide. So there’s already precedent for gains among White suburbans outweighing sharp Hispanic losses in the state.

While these points are compelling, I remain skeptical. Arizona, after all, is the only swing state that actually lies on the southern border, meaning that its voters of all ethnicities may be more captivated by Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. This may apply especially to this cycle, in which Trump has attempted to brand Harris as personally responsible for much of the problem on the border. Indeed, Arizona has been Harris’s worst swing state in the polling so far: she trails by 1.0 in the FiveThirtyEight average.

To her credit, Harris seems to recognize the obstacles facing her. Last week she visited the border for the first time and delivered a speech that, for a Democrat, was surprisingly forceful on illegal immigration. In particular, she emphatically tied Trump to the failure of a bipartisan immigration bill that he convinced Republicans to reject last year in an apparent attempt to keep the issue alive for his 2024 run. Will this message sway any skeptics? Or is it too little, too late?

Unfortunately, it looks to me like, all things considered, the more likely outcome is the latter.

 

–Jim Andersen

In my previous two posts, I concluded on positive notes for Kamala Harris. In the first, I pointed out that Democrats’ most recent electoral gains have come in whiter, more northern districts—exactly the types of communities that could help deliver her the Midwest swing states in November. In the second, I examined the Democrats’ increasing edge among White, college-educated voters, especially in the recently purple states of Georgia and Arizona, and also pertaining to a potential 2024 flip state: North Carolina.

Despite these encouraging trends, though, polls show a very close race in 2024. What’s holding Harris back?

Analyst Adam Carlson maintains a publicly available spreadsheet that compiles polling “crosstabs”: the responses of specific demographic subgroups in general polls. Crosstabs typically include too few respondents to function as statistically significant mini-polls by themselves. But by compiling the crosstabs across several major polls, as Carlson has done, a holistic view of the polling data across various demographics can be seen. Here’s what the data says as of late September:

The column to the far right is the important one: it shows Harris’s current polling status compared to Joe Biden’s performance with the designated group in 2020.

Taking into account the numbers in that column, the problem for Harris is clear: she’s polling well behind Biden’s 2020 voting shares of Black and Hispanic voters. With White voters, she’s actually outperforming Biden, which fits with the analysis in my first update. In particular, she appears to be outdoing him with college-educated White voters—fitting with the further analysis in my second update. Among Black and Hispanic voters, though, she appears to have lost an alarming amount of ground.

We’ll dedicate this piece to analyzing data pertaining to Black voters. Although Harris leads them by a substantial 66 points, this represents a marked decline over 2020 Biden, who won the demographic by 83 points. This apparent 17-point shift, if it were to actualize in November, would be devastating to Harris’s chances in several swing states: in Georgia, for example, where Black voters comprise 29% of the electorate, it would cost Harris about 5 whole percentage points. (In 2020, Biden won the state by only 0.2 points.) Even in a predominantly White state like Pennsylvania, where Black voters comprise only 11% of the electorate, such a shift would cost Harris 1.9 points, enough to erase Biden’s victorious margin of 1.2 points in 2020 (although this loss would be more than offset by Harris’s apparent gains with White voters).

Harris’s poor polling with Black voters has already been subject to much media speculation and hand-wringing. Right-wing pundits have largely hailed the phenomenon as a rejection of “woke” identity politics, especially among Black men. Progressive analysts, meanwhile, have characterized it as an inevitable consequence of Democrats’ broken economic promises to the Black community. Even Trump himself has weighed in, musing with typical denseness that his criminal trials have endeared him to Black people (who, according to this theory, are culturally familiar with being federally prosecuted for fraud, stealing classified military information, and attempting to overthrow American democracy).

I don’t believe either of the first two theories are correct, and I won’t even humor the third. Actually, I already hinted at my theory about Democrats’ dwindling Black support in my first update. To summarize what I implied in that post, it seems to me based on the available data that nonwhite voters, especially Black voters, have been repelled by the the Democratic Party over the past four years due to perceptions about its permissiveness toward violent crime—particularly in specific media markets such as the New York City area (which alone accounts for 5-10% of Black people nationwide). Secondarily, the emergence of religiously sensitive issues like abortion and transgender rights as important features of the Democratic platform may be turning off some evangelical Black voters.

If my analysis is correct, especially regarding the importance of regional crime coverage, Democrats may detect a silver lining. In particular, this would suggest that their losses among Black voters may be geographically concentrated in areas that are unlikely to impact the electoral college.

Indeed, the polling seems to support this. Consider that Harris is currently polling ahead of Trump in New York state by an average of about 13 points. That’s a comfortable lead, but Biden won there in 2020 by a much larger 23 points. This apparent 10-point gain for Trump in the state, which would be consistent with the drastic Democratic midterm losses there that I wrote about in the first update, would represent a gain of a staggering 850,000 votes—but these votes would be utterly useless to Trump, since he’s poised to lose the state regardless. In fact, a swing of this magnitude in New York would lessen his electoral college advantage by a full 0.5% alone. In other words, whereas Biden needed to win the popular vote by 4% to win the electoral college in 2020, Harris would only need to win by 3.5% in 2024 if this shift in New York held—and, again, this is only taking into account a change in one state.

Relatedly, the latest poll of California shows Harris ahead by 22 points. As with New York, she’s in no danger of losing the state. But in 2020, Biden carried California by a larger 29 points. If Harris were to win by only 22 points there, that would afford Trump an enormous 1.2 million votes in the total count compared to 2020; unfortunately, again as with New York, he would be essentially flushing these votes down the toilet. Their only effect would be to further reduce his electoral college advantage by about 0.8%. Combining New York and California, then, Trump is already looking at a potential 1-1.5% reduction in his electoral college margin from 2020.

So it seems to me that the Democratic losses among Black voters are real, but not as damaging as they might initially appear, thanks to the electoral college. Yes, Harris would lose a devastating 5 points in Georgia if she lost 17 points of Black voting share compared to Biden in 2020. But it seems to me that she’s more likely to suffer a disproportionate loss of Black voters elsewhere—specifically in NYC, LA, Houston, and Miami, where Democrats performed poorly in the midterms and have polled poorly this cycle. By contrast, in swing state metros like Atlanta, as I wrote about in the second update, Democrats in the midterms actually over-performed, suggesting that Black voters there haven’t been subject to the same discontentment with the Democratic Party as those in, for instance, New York City.

As I’ve previously speculated, this, to me, can only be explained by sensationalist coverage of violent crime in these specific media markets. And it also makes sense to me that Black people may be more alarmed by this coverage, since Black people are more likely to live in the neighborhoods that the news characterizes as dangerous. Thus, in contrast to Trump’s fatuous theory that Black people sympathize with and relate to criminality, the opposite is true: they perceive it as a more urgent political problem, since it poses a more immediate and concrete threat to their communities’ safety.

Another factor in Harris’s apparent underperformance with Black voters might be a general, systemic underestimation of Black support for Democrats. I’ve done some aggregating of my own, examining the final national polls in the 2020 cycle. These are the crosstabs for Black voters among those polls:

As you can see, Biden’s final polling average among Black voters put him ahead of Trump by a sizeable 73 points. But that was actually a significant underestimation, as he ultimately won the demographic by 83 points (despite the polls overestimating him elsewhere). So there’s reason to believe that the current polls may be underestimating Harris with Black voters, too. One possible reason for this could be flaws in the way polls identify “likely” voters. Consider that many polls gauge likelihood of voting by simply asking the respondents how likely they are to vote. The pollsters then use this information to weight their data to better reflect the likely electorate. That’s a reasonable strategy, but it doesn’t work with certain demographic subgroups: young black men, for example, have been statistically shown to vote at sub-50% rates even after telling pollsters that they will “definitely” vote. Older Black women, on the other hand, almost always vote if they tell pollsters they will. Trump’s best subgroup among Black voters? Young Black men. His worst? I think you know the answer.

None of this is to say that Harris will avoid any losses of Black voters in swing states in 2024. Data since 2012 shows that Trump has made gradual gains with Black voters in each cycle on the ballot. Specifically, he’s managed to gain about 6 points with Black voters every four years (by taking 3% more Black voters while the Democrat correspondingly loses 3%).

I predict that he’s likely to make a similar gain in 2024 in most areas. To be sure, this will help him in swing states, especially in Georgia and North Carolina. However, those gains may be offset by losses among White voters, especially those with college degrees. As a hypothetical exercise, imagine that Trump were to gain 6 points with Black voters in Georgia but lose 4.5 points there among college-educated Whites, as Carlson’s aggregator reflects. That would lead to a net gain for Trump of only 0.5 points in the state. That’s theoretically enough to reverse Biden’s 0.2 point margin of victory in 2020, but this is before factoring in additional growth of the Atlanta suburbs since that time.

So all in all, the trend for Democrats among Black voters is bad, but there are reasons to hope that the damage won’t be as bad as the national polls currently show. And even nationally, there are signs that Harris will close strong. Consider the trend in Black support for the Democratic ticket over time using Carlson’s polling aggregator:

• June (Biden at top of ticket): 30 points behind 2020 support
• July 21-Aug 18 (in aftermath of Harris replacing Biden): 25 points behind 2020 support
• Aug 19-Sept 10 (post-DNC): 21 points behind 2020 support
• Sept 11-Sept 30 (post-debate): 16 points behind 2020 support

Harris appears to be clawing away. Will it be enough?

If I’m correct that a large percentage of the stickiest losses are coming from a handful of metro areas that lie outside of swing states—and if the polls are underestimating her support with Black voters, as they did Biden’s in 2020—then it just might be.

 

–Jim Andersen

In my first update, I examined political shifts around the country from 2020 to 2022. I concluded based on the evidence that Democrats made surprising gains during that period in predominantly White, suburban areas in the northern US—with the exception of the media market of New York City, where Democratic performance fell sharply, a likely result of that media market’s sensationalist coverage of increased crime in the wake of the pandemic.

But the aforementioned areas of Democratic gains in 2022 were only the most extreme examples. In these districts, Democratic candidates impressively overcame a 7%+ nationwide turnout shift toward Republicans. In other pockets of the country, Democrats also outperformed the national average, except by smaller margins. For example, some districts saw a 2 or 3% shift toward Republicans, indicating that, taking into account the GOP turnout advantage, Democrats had actually succeeded, on balance, in persuading voters to their side. Many of these areas appear to lie in or around major cities—with the exceptions, as previously noted, of New York City and Los Angeles.

Potentially helpful in illuminating why Democrats performed fairly well in these sprawling metro areas is the table below from Catalyst, which compiles statistical post-election reports by verifying voter data with publicly available voting records.

The data here may be surprising given how the national media has covered national elections involving Donald Trump. As you can see, Trump has actually made steady gains—3% each cycle—among Black voters from 2012 to 2020. Among Hispanic voters, he held steady in 2016—a shock to many pundits who assumed his rhetoric would alienate or offend that group—then made drastic gains (8%) with them in 2020.

Yet overall, Joe Biden in 2020 still improved on Hillary Clinton’s 2.1% popular vote margin in 2016. He defeated Trump by 4.5% and won the electoral college. This table shows us precisely why: Biden made significant gains with college-educated White voters compared to Clinton. Although he only improved by 1% among non-college Whites, his large gain of 4% among college Whites enabled a rounded 3% gain in the overall White voting share compared to Clinton, which proved decisive. In fact, this was the best performance of a Democratic candidate among White voters since 2008. Although the media has tended to emphasize Trump’s supposed appeal to White voters, the results in 2020 didn’t match that narrative.

The reasons for Trump’s worsening performance with college-educated Whites hardly need enumeration. Suffice to say, though, that he has repeatedly doubled down on populist rhetoric ostensibly designed to appeal to rural and less educated voters. This strategy worked for him in 2016: he improved among non-college Whites by a sizable 4% relative to Mitt Romney in 2012 and won the presidency. However, he wasn’t able to continue these gains with non-college Whites in 2020. Furthermore, their share of the electorate is gradually declining nationwide, meaning that Trump’s advantage with this demographic becomes less valuable with each successive election.

The question for Kamala Harris is, then, where can college-educated White voters be found in large numbers? After all, it stands to reason that, with Trump on the ballot once again, college Whites may continue their abandonment of the GOP. Big pockets of these voters may represent areas for potential continued growth for Harris, even relative to Biden in 2020.

The answer, as you would expect, is that college-educated Whites are most heavily represented in large suburban communities. Thus, if we locate these communities throughout the country, we should obtain a sense of which states are most fertile for Harris to make electoral gains. Most fertile of all, though, will be the states with large and growing suburban areas, since these are subject both to the aforementioned positive trends for Democrats among college-educated White voters and also to an increasing raw number of those voters, compounding the effect.

Where are these areas? Well, here are the national metro areas that grew most in population in 2021 and 2022 combined:

1. Dallas-Forth Worth, TX
2. Houston, TX
3. Atlanta, GA
4. Phoenix, AZ
5. Orlando, FL
6. Austin, TX
7. Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
8. Charlotte, NC

Judging by our analysis so far, the states with these exploding suburban areas are likely to show recent heavy swings toward Democratic candidates. And indeed, Texas shifted 10 points leftward from 2012 to 2020, turning from deep red into…reddish purple. Georgia and Arizona, meanwhile, each shifted 9 points leftward during that window, both flipping blue in 2020—to Trump’s raging disbelief. (Florida hasn’t shifted leftward since 2012, but this is probably because its suburban growth is uniquely attributable to migrating retirees rather than, as in the other states, highly educated younger people relocating for job opportunities in sectors like tech.)

What about in the 2022 midterms? Did these areas, especially Atlanta and Phoenix, continue to swing left? Or did they revert somewhat rightward, potentially indicating that their dramatic blue shifts were related to election-specific issues like Trump’s handling of the pandemic in 2020 or his inflammatory immigration rhetoric in 2016?

Judging by the New York Times map of House district performance in 2022, we can see that it’s the former. As the screenshots above show, the Atlanta and Phoenix metro/suburban areas both shifted marginally rightward in 2022 but less so than the national shift of 7.2%, indicating that Democrats largely continued to succeed in persuading suburban voters (despite predictably losing ground overall due to a turnout disadvantage while their party held the Presidency). Accordingly, Democratic senate candidates in both states won reelection, a surprising result to some pundits who predicted a “red wave” given Biden’s unpopularity as President.

So it seems that, barring an unforeseen political shift from 2022 to 2024, Democrats can continue to expect gains in the still-growing suburbs of Atlanta and Phoenix. Whether these gains may be offset by other developments in Georgia and Arizona is a subject for another post.

For now, though, I’d like to return to something I deliberately skipped over before: the presence of Charlotte, NC on the list of rapidly burgeoning metro areas. It may be puzzling, given this ranking, that Democrats have not made major gains in North Carolina in the past decade. North Carolina, after all, has similar racial demographics to Georgia, with 60-65% of the electorate identifying as White and 20-30% identifying as Black. Yet Mitt Romney won the state by two points in 2012, and Trump still won by a point in 2020. Why this lack of improvement for Democrats?

Part of the answer is that much of the Charlotte metro area actually isn’t located in North Carolina. The city of Charlotte sits right on the border with South Carolina, meaning that several of its largest suburban communities, such as Fort Hill, are actually in South Carolina. Plus, Charlotte simply isn’t as massive as Atlanta or Phoenix and may therefore not be as ideal for exploding suburban growth. Consider that in the 2020 election, the percentage of Georgians who were classified as “suburban” voters was 61%. Whereas in North Carolina, it was only 40%. Unfortunately for Democrats, Charlotte has a smaller suburban sprawl than Atlanta or Phoenix—and its relatively small sprawl sits, to a large degree, in a neighboring state.

What democrats need in North Carolina, then, is for 1) a boom in population in the suburbs and 2) for those gains to take place in the suburbs actually located in North Carolina, not South Carolina. Since 2020, has this finally happened? Will North Carolina be this year’s Georgia/Arizona?

Let’s look at this map from the University of North Carolina, which demarcates population change by county from 2022 to 2023, the most recent data available. I’ve starred the state’s two biggest cities: Charlotte and Raleigh.

You’ll notice that the highest percentage increases in population don’t seem to be occurring in the two cities themselves. Instead, they’re occurring just outside the cities—in the suburban sprawl. In fact, some of the counties adjacent to Charlotte and Raleigh increased in population that year by a whopping 3%. Compounded over four years, that’s a ~13% increase in those suburban areas. For comparison, the average yearly population growth nationwide over the last decade has been about 0.5%, compounding to about a 2% gain over four years.

I won’t get too hasty with predictions. But if I were the GOP, those numbers—in a state with razor-thin margins over the past decade—would greatly concern me…

 

–Jim Andersen

 

This will be my first post covering the 2024 Presidential Election. To be upfront, I’m a supporter of Kamala Harris (as you might have inferred from my last post). I don’t, however, plan on using these updates to celebrate or promote her candidacy. Rather, I aim to provide neutral, data-driven analysis about the race, especially geared toward predicting the eventual winner.

I’m not a poll denier. I value political polls as a critical tool in gauging candidate support. However, I’m even more interested in voting results and how they reflect changing voting patterns among various regions and demographic groups. By following these trends, I hope to make better sense of the polls—and even speculate on what the polls may be missing.

To that end, I’ll start by citing the map below, taken from the New York Times 2022 House of Representatives election coverage. Essentially, this map provides a visual representation of where Democrats and Republicans overperformed and underperformed in the 2022 midterm election relative to their performance in the 2020 Presidential Election. Longer red arrows represent bigger GOP shifts; longer blue arrows represent bigger Democratic shifts. (Link to the NYT site here.)

In my opinion, this is among the most useful information possible for looking ahead to 2024, since several major political events occurred between 2020 and 2022. These include the January 6th insurrection, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a historic bump in inflation, and the initiation of prosecutions against Donald Trump. The best way to gauge how these events and others affected voters is to look at the political shifts during that period.

The first thing to highlight about the map is that, as usual for midterm elections, the nonincumbent party (the party not holding the office of the Presidency) got more votes—although in this case, by a weaker margin than many had predicted. Republicans candidates for the House of Representatives votes won more votes overall than Democratic candidates by 2.7%. That represents a 7.2% rightward shift from the 2020 Presidential Election, when Joe Biden won the popular vote over Donald Trump by 4.5%. The reason for most of this rightward shift—again, as usual for midterm elections—was that the nonincumbent party (Republicans) had higher turnout than the incumbent party (Democrats).

Given this 7.2% turnout-related advantage for Republicans compared to 2020, it makes sense that most of the lines on the map are red, indicating a rightward shift in those House districts. However, some red lines are abnormally long, indicating a more severe rightward shift. Meanwhile, some lines are small and difficult to see, indicating that only a small shift occurred from 2020 to 2022—and that, by extension, Democrats overperformed in these districts relative to other parts of the country, since the average change was 7.2% toward Republicans. Finally, some lines are blue, meaning that Democrats actually improved in those districts from 2020, a major overperformance given the national environment.

Using this data, then, we can get to the important questions: Since 2020, where are Republicans getting stronger, and where are Democrats holding their own?

The answer to the first question is made obvious by the map: the strongest Republican gains from 2020-2022 were concentrated in three states: New York, California, and Florida. In particular, they occurred in the large metro areas of New York City and Los Angeles. Some cities in other states also incurred a heavy shift toward Republicans, including Houston, Minneapolis, and Portland, Oregon, although the suburban districts surrounding those cities didn’t also shift strongly rightward, as did those near NYC and LA.

How to make sense of these mysterious findings? To me, the pattern can be explained with the following summary: GOP gains occurred in large, racially diverse media markets that disproportionately emphasized urban crime and violence.

With this framework, the pieces fall into place. New York City and Los Angeles are the two most enormous media markets in the country, if not the world, and during the period of 2020-2022, in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic and the Black Lives matter protests of 2020, coverage of heightened crime dominated news coverage in those markets. This doesn’t mean that crime was truly worse in those areas compared to others. In fact, other cities that experienced more serious problems with post-pandemic crime, such as Detroit, Baltimore, and Milwaukee, didn’t shift strongly toward the GOP during that period. Rather, it means that the media coverage was responsible for the political shifts. How else to explain that the two cities with the most powerful media machines saw such large shifts in voting patterns, while other cities with similar demographics and similar crime statistics saw none?

(This doesn’t necessarily explain the strong rightward shift across Florida, but I think most readers can accept that Florida is a unique case given its unusual demographics, highly self-selecting population, and, in 2022, popular Republican governor up for reelection. Still, I wonder whether the close ties of many Florida residents to the NYC area played a role.)

Another giveaway is that, as I mentioned, the districts surrounding New York City and Los Angeles—including, for instance, suburban districts in New Jersey and Connecticut—swung rightward as much as, or more than, the cities themselves. This indicates that the experience of crime was not as influential as the coverage of crime during that period. It makes sense that stories from huge NYC- and LA-based news sources influenced voting patterns over a large radius, even into very low-crime areas, while suburban areas near less powerful media markets didn’t shift strongly toward the GOP. In fact, even cities geographically nearby to NYC and LA, such as Philadelphia and San Francisco, didn’t see major rightward voting shifts, even though their post-pandemic increases in crime were equal to or worse than their larger counterparts. The only possible explanation is that voters from those smaller cities formed different perceptions due to their engagement with less sensational media coverage.

To be fair, some cities probably did shift rightward in the context of particularly extreme experiences with violent crime. This can be seen with the long red arrows over Minneapolis and Portland, which notoriously experienced heightened violence and turmoil during the Black Lives Matter protests. These events, although occurring before the 2020 election, surely left a lasting impression on the electorate that likely impacted 2022 voting behavior more than in 2020, since the polarizing Trump was off the ballot. But the GOP-favorable shifts in these cities only prove that crime is the driving factor: why did Portland shift rightward, but not Seattle or Tacoma? Why did Minneapolis veer sharply Republican, but not St. Paul? I can think of only one salient issue that would separate these otherwise highly similar areas: crime.

Few pundits are highlighting crime as a dominant issue in recent voting shifts, as I’ve just done. This may be because it contrasts with polling data, in which voters consistently cite inflation and the economy as their top political issues, with crime typically cited as a much lower concern. I don’t necessary think these poll respondents are lying (although some of them may well be): perhaps inflation is their primary concern, hurting Democrats across the map. But I do posit that, judging by the House results in 2022 (when inflation was far worse than now), inflation is not driving changes in regional political alignment. This makes sense: inflation has occurred everywhere, yet only residents of Long Island watch the New York nightly news. Thus, only the latter could be expected to cause a geographically focused political change that might influence the distribution of votes across the electoral college.

We now arrive at the flip side of the coin: where did Democrats over-perform in 2022 relative to 2020? The easiest way to answer this is to search for the small pockets of blue arrows on the NYT map. These districts, after all, shifted leftward from 2020 to 2022 despite a 7.2% Republican turnout advantage. That’s quite an accomplishment for Democrats in those races.

From the map, we can see that these pockets are concentrated in the northern US, especially in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and, sneakily, Alaska. Identifying the common thread between these regions is a bit more difficult than for those of the GOP-shifting areas, but it can be done: these are overwhelmingly White districts that are economically and culturally northern. By “economically northern,” I mean that, unlike White-dominated areas in other regions of the country, these areas are unlikely to rely on agriculture as their primary industry. And by “culturally northern,” I’m highlighting the various social differences of White voters from these regions compared to those from other regions. Not to put too fine a point on it, but, for one, White voters from these northern states tend not to be descended from members of the Confederacy.

But why would voters from these northern districts be specifically likely to change political preferences toward the Democratic Party? Well, it may suffice to summarize that the factors that have spurred GOP gains elsewhere don’t apply to them. For instance, being so far from the southern border, these voters aren’t likely to be motivated by Trumpian rhetoric on immigration. (In fact, being “culturally northern,” as I designated them, they may be repelled by Trump’s racial dog whistles, which have found welcoming White audiences elsewhere.) And they don’t live near the NYC or LA media markets, so the influence of news coverage regarding crime in those areas doesn’t reach them. The absence of these factors in turn might leave them more receptive to recent Democratic attack lines against Republicans—including regarding abortion rights and the events of January 6th, 2021.

It may still seem suspicious, though, that Democrats’ biggest gains from 2020 to 2022 came in overwhelmingly White areas. Why is Trump’s racial rhetoric only costing his party votes from White people, while the GOP appears to gain votes from the ethnicities of the people their leader most commonly denigrates?

For starters, Democrats already enjoy a huge advantage among Black voters—typically winning 85-90% of that demographic. So relatively few opportunities exist for Democrats to gain support there. But besides this, I can think of a few reasons why the GOP may be making incremental gains among Black voters, even outside of the New York City and Los Angeles areas:

1. Black people are disproportionately clustered in New York City and Los Angeles. So even Black voters who don’t live in those metro areas may be getting much of their news, via social media, from Black-run outlets or programs in those areas. This means that the effect of dramatic crime coverage in NYC and LA may influence Black people more broadly across the country (although not to the extent of local Black people), while influencing White people only if they actually live in those regions. (This theory finds potential support in polls finding that GOP gains have come from younger Black voters, since this age group is more likely to rely on social media for news.)
2. Democrats’ aggressive rhetoric on polarizing issues like abortion and transgender rights may be costing them Black votes. To be sure, Black people support Democrats’ positions on those issues at higher rates than White people. But even a small percentage of Black people who find these stances intolerable could lead to GOP gains. For instance, 75% of Black people may support re-instituting Roe v. Wade, more than White people, but that’s a smaller percentage than Democrats’ usual support with Black voters—so it could actually lead to defections. Meanwhile, Democrats could make gains with White people simply because this demographic began as less likely to support them.

I’ll cover Hispanic voters in a different post, since few Hispanics reside in the northern districts highlighted here and therefore don’t significantly impact the politics there.

Overall, we’ve arrived at a coherent (albeit oversimplified) look at where party shifts occurred from 2020 to 2022. GOP gains came from major media market areas that covered post-pandemic crime as a dramatic storyline, while Democratic gains came from whiter, less diverse communities that, due to cultural and geographic factors, were relatively uninfluenced by media- and GOP-driven narratives about crime and immigration—potentially leaving them more likely to focus on unpopular GOP positions on abortion and voting rights.

Where does that leave the 2024 Presidential Election? Who’s going to win?

That’s for another post, but consider that three states that can deliver Kamala Harris a victory in the electoral college are Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

 

–Jim Andersen