Tag Archive for: Ann Selzer

Posts

How America’s First Woman Vice President Stepped Up

/105 Comments/in /by

Win or lose, I think by the time exit polls come in this week, there will be real cause to question the poll-driven narrative we’ve been fed since February. Indeed, that’s already happening as Black and Hispanic and young voters are moving to Kamala Harris in recent polls, which is precisely what people skeptical of early polls said would happen months ago.

That technically means that Joe Biden might have been in far better position in the polls than reported — not in terms of favorability, but in a head-to-head with Trump. Still, the debate debacle (which Bob Woodward subsequently disclosed was significantly a reflection of Biden’s stress about Hunter, something I noted in real time) provided the opportunity to switch candidates. And Biden put his ego aside for the good of the country.

He entrusted to his Vice President the fate of the nation.

On June 29, I suggested that if Biden dropped out, whoever replaced him might break through the Double Haters logjam.

There is no chance that Trump will become anymore likeable, honest, or coherent. If someone besides Biden had four months to capitalize on his negatives, it might flip the table. It would eliminate the double haters election. If someone [not] named Biden found a way to make Trump’s malice matter more than his stammer, it might well matter.

Joe Biden has a choice to make about whether he remains the best shot to beat Donald Trump. And one way or another, Republicans will be stuck with a candidate who vigorously acts unpresidential.

On July 21, almost immediately after Biden endorsed Harris (remember this time stamp reflects Irish time), I repeated my Double Haters comment and noted that Harris speaks about choice better than anyone but Gretchen Whitmer (in retrospect I realize I underestimated the Vice President).

On September 1, I described how Harris’ focus on choice was forcing accountability on Trump for one of his most disastrous actions as President.

Kamala’s team has succeeded in making abortion something more: the most obvious item on a laundry list of the ways the far right has tried to take rights (and books) away, a fight for Freedom, one that has enthused millions of younger voters, especially women of child-bearing age.

And so, as I thought it might, Kamala’s focus on choice is one of the things that has remade the race.

[snip]

Thus far in this campaign, a focus on abortion has also provided a way to make visible the patriarchy presumed in most threads of the right wing coalition backing Trump, especially but by no means exclusively Christian nationalism. Lest voters ever forget, Kamala’s campaign keeps rolling out one after another video in which JD Vance demands women get back to the role his Church dictates for them: breeding children.

A number of things — the successful convention, a surge in registration among those women of child-bearing age, polls showing that abortion is the most important issue for a larger number of voters — have led horserace journalists to finally cop on.

[snip]

This is more than agitation.

It is flailing.

Panic.

A recognition that he is losing because of actions he took as President, he is losing because of what the payoff he owed to social conservatives who put him in the White House, a far right SCOTUS, did to women. What NYT journalists with another book contract describe as “head-spinning” is not about branding, it’s about panic because Kamala threatens to hold him accountable for his actions.

No matter how many contradictory statements Trump makes about what a second Trump term would do, there’s no escaping what his first term did do. There are no backsies on Dobbs. There are no backsies on Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. There aren’t even any backsies on that platform granting fetuses protection under the 14th Amendment, even if NYT’s Trump whisperers continue to pretend that didn’t happen.

[snip]

[E]ven as Kamala has already made Trump an equivocating wreck, nine-tenths of the way through his campaign and just in time for low-information voters to witness it, she has only just laid a foundation to build on.

Both before and after the debate, I described how Kamala Harris’ very deliberate and perfectly executed plan to get under his skin made her the protagonist of the campaign.

Journalists missed the Vice President’s clear intent because they treated Donald Trump as the protagonist of this story.

I don’t know how much the debate will affect the direction of the race. Though she struck blow after blow, it was still the 60/40-40/60 result I also predicted. The debate itself is most likely to have an effect for the way it gives Brian Fallon another opportunity to suggest Trump is too weak to take Harris on in a second debate. It might even lead some Trump cultists to wonder — to merely begin the process — of asking whether he really is the loser that Kamala Harris said he is.

But it may do something more important, indirectly.

In August, the press treated Kamala as the story largely because Trump was huddled in his mansions. But they still treated him as the protagonist. Every time he gave the order, they scurried to attend things billed as press conferences which were little different from his rambling rally speeches. He made them props in a fantasy that he had shared more about what he plans to do as President than Kamala Harris, and they were happy to play the role he demanded.

Yesterday, the press got their first chance — likely their only chance — to see the two candidates side-by-side.

And they left with the certainty that Vice President Kamala Harris was the protagonist of that story. Of this story.

Since that moment — since Vice President Harris made her hulking opponent look small on the stage — Trump has utterly failed, day after day, to regain control his emotion. He has lashed out at everyone. Harris, Jews, reporters, everyone who has ever crossed him.

In an attempt to sow distrust and division, he unleashed a flood of disinformation that exacerbated the floods Helene and Milton built.

By mid-October, as record numbers of voters started casting early in-person votes, Harris waltzed into Fox News and caught them cooking the books. That same week, Trump swayed on stage for almost 40 minutes, got embarrassed in a Bloomberg interview, and chose to defend January 6 rather than win Ramiro González’ vote. Charlamagne tha God nudged Harris to use the word fascism.

Sure, there were moments in October where Trump’s increasing fascism fed despair.

Vice President Harris’ response taught a lot of white people the lessons of leadership she learned as a child of the Civil Rights movement.

And she carried on, executing the plan. She and Liz Cheney kept methodically reaching out to women — to the kind of white women who voted against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

As Trump wallowed in his toxic emotions, in the insecurities  being made to look small by a Black women elicited, his handlers allowed him one after another indulgence, all leading up to the potentially fatal one: the Madison Square Garden fascist rally that seemingly confirmed the concerns raised by Trump’s generals. Just as the low-information voters he had been banking on all year started to tune in, Trump’s fascist rally mocked them, recalling back his refusal as President to treat them with respect.

And it wasn’t just Hispanics that could lose him Pennsylvania. Trump provided an opportunity for key validators like Lebron James to explain, succinctly, that America is still fighting for equal rights.

All this time, pollsters kept contorting their polls for fear of missing Trump voters.

Until Ann Selzer came along and told us what pollsters should have recognized from the start: Women vote. And this year, women will vote for a woman to be the first woman President.

Symbolically, Kamala Harris went to East Lansing last night and refused to even speak of Donald Trump.

Turn the page.

This thing is not over. Harris’ thousands of volunteers have to get out every vote tomorrow.  A flood of bros might come to the polls tomorrow and make that effort meaningless. Harris lawyers have to fight to count every vote — and keep fighting all the way to January if Trump attempts to cheat again.

This thing is not over.

But holy hell, Kamala Harris and her entire team stepped up.

Male Pollsters Shocked — Shocked!! — When a Woman Pollster Discovers Women Voters

/168 Comments/in /by

On Friday, Nate Silver tweeted and substacked a piece declaring that there must be herding going on in the casino.

His substack analysis didn’t acknowledge, however, that this herding was going on in his casino.

Now granted, our forecast is close too. But it’s based on polling averages: dozens of polls have been released in each of these states over the past month. That greatly increases the sample size. Collectively, they’ve surveyed about 230,000 voters.

By contrast, the median sample size in individual polls in these states is 800 voters. In a 49-49 race in a poll of 800 people — assuming 2 percent goes to third parties — the theoretical margin of error for the difference between Trump and Harris is ±6 points. If that sounds higher than you’re expecting, that’s because the margin of error that’s usually reported in polls is only for one candidate’s vote share. For instance, in a poll of 800 people, Trump’s margin of error is about ±3 points, as is Harris’s. However, basically every vote that isn’t a vote for Trump is a vote for Harris. If Trump gets 52 percent of the vote instead of 49, that implies Harris will receive 46 percent.1 So the margin of error on the difference separating Trump and Harris is ±6.

What this means is that if pollsters are doing honest work, we should see a lot more “outliers” than we do — even if people love to complain about them on Twitter.

In our database as of this afternoon’s model run, there were 249 polls in the seven battleground states that met Silver Bulletin standards and did at least some of their fieldwork in October.2 How many of them showed the race in either direction within 2.5 percentage points3, close enough that you could basically call it a tie?

Well, 193 of them did, or 78 percent. That’s way more than you should get in theory — even if the candidates are actually exactly tied in all seven states, which they almost certainly aren’t.

The reason we’re seeing this herding is because Nate Silver has spent 16 years training pollsters to herd. It probably makes things worse that polling has become far more difficult, far more expensive, and far more important in shitty campaign coverage (not least because of Nate Silver). The herding is happening because, thanks to the early but not more recent success of Nate, political operatives know they can create a reality in poll averages.

Well, ask and you shall receive, Nate, because Ann Selzer doesn’t herd. Last night, the Iowa pollster surprised everyone with a poll showing Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa.

A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows Vice President Harris leading former President Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters just days before a high-stakes election that appears deadlocked in key battleground states.

The results follow a September Iowa Poll that showed Trump with a 4-point lead over Harris and a June Iowa Poll showing him with an 18-point lead over Democratic President Joe Biden, who was the presumed Democratic nominee at the time.

“It’s hard for anybody to say they saw this coming,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co. “She has clearly leaped into a leading position.”

As Selzer describes, this effect is driven by older women voters.

The poll shows that women — particularly those who are older or who are politically independent — are driving the late shift toward Harris.

“Age and gender are the two most dynamic factors that are explaining these numbers,” Selzer said.

Independent voters, who had consistently supported Trump in the leadup to this election, now break for Harris. That’s driven by the strength of independent women, who back Harris by a 28-point margin, while independent men support Trump, but by a smaller margin.

Similarly, senior voters who are 65 and older favor Harris. But senior women support her by a more than 2-to-1 margin, 63% to 28%, while senior men favor her by just 2 percentage points, 47% to 45%.

Nate promptly set to work describing how brave it was for Selzer to release this because a gambling market Nate has helped to create says she’s wrong.

Releasing this poll took an incredible amount of guts because — let me state this as carefully as I can — if you had to play the odds, this time Selzer will probably be wrong. Harris’s chances of winning Iowa nearly doubled in our model from 9 percent to 17 percent tonight, which isn’t nothing. Polymarket shows a similar trend, moving from 6 percent to 18 percent after the survey. But that still places Harris’s odds at around 5:1 against.

While I don’t pay for Nate Silver’s gambling market, he appears to have gone on to argue that what Selzer is measuring is inflation, not just — as Selzer explained — big movement from women.

Meanwhile, that Other Nate, Nate Cohn, released this column, in what former pollster Adam Carlson described as “rough timing.”

 

Other Nate then went on to point to things that followed the pandemic but which are either now in the past or which polls always reflected a misunderstanding on the part of voters.

[T]he events that followed the pandemic took a serious toll on the case for liberalism, whatever the precise merits of the arguments. Inflation and high interest rates could be blamed on high government spending stimulating excessive demand. High gas prices could be blamed on suspending drilling permits and the termination of the Keystone pipeline project. A surge of migrants could be blamed on the administration’s looser border policy, which became politically untenable; homelessness, crime and disorder made the case for “law and order.”

From there, Other Nate made some false claims, such as that Harris — whose plan to include home health care in Medicare has been ignored by the press, and who mentions plans to increase the child tax credit and mortgage assistance in every stump speech — had moved away from populism.

The traditional Democratic program to expand the social safety net has played a diminished role in the campaign. In her speech at the Democratic convention, Ms. Harris didn’t mention the unfinished business of Obama-Biden era liberalism: paid family leave, an expanded child tax credit, student loan forgiveness, universal pre-K or free community college.

And Other Nate claimed that polls have shown that Trump does better on the issue that is most important to voters votes.

If there’s any poll question that captures the swing toward a more conservative environment, it’s the question of which party (or candidate) would do the best on the issue that’s most important to your vote. All cycle, polls have shown Republicans and Mr. Trump with an advantage on this measure.

Other Nate didn’t mention that on the one that matters to most people, the economy, Harris has caught up to Trump.

Crazier still, Other Nate didn’t mention that for those who say abortion is the most important, Harris always wins. He simply disappeared abortion in his claim that voters think Trump would do better on all issues that are most important to them.

The other day, I hoped that someone with interns would review the Other Nate’s statements about this race — but hell, do it for First Nate, too — to see whether his mentions of polling adjustments adjust for the Dobbs effect, the recent trend in which, with one exception, polls have always underestimated and often wildly underestimated pro-abortion outcomes.

Other Nate has spent a great deal of time talking about how polls missed Trump in 2016 and 2020.  On October 6, Other Nate described how whether pollsters are using voters’ recalled votes in 2020 explains a split in the polls (in none of Other Nate’s discussions of recalled vote have I seen any discussion of whether pollsters are accommodating for the documented greater mortality rates among Trump supporters since 2020 arising from vaccine skepticism). On October 22, Other Nate described the theories for why pollsters missed Trump in 2020. The next day, Other Nate described all the adjustments polls have made to remedy their 2020 Trump miss.

This trend in ignoring the Dobbs effect has continued more recently. Other Nate didn’t mention abortion or Dobbs in this column asking whether we can trust polls.

Other Nate didn’t field any questions that addressed abortion in this column about early voting (he did suggest that pollsters expect the normal amount of women in the electorate, 53%).

This column is particularly remarkable. In a column conceding that Harris may win because her coalition draws on more reliable voters than Trump’s, Other Nate didn’t mention that women are more reliable voters. Other Nate focuses on education, but only speaks of gender when describing that Trump’s bros are less likely to turn out.

But this election seems different. As we’ve reported all cycle, Democrats excel among high-turnout voters, while Donald J. Trump is strong among relatively low-turnout voters. He’s made his biggest gains among low-turnout demographic groups like young men and nonwhite voters.

Other Nate linked to an Anna Greenberg tweet noting that Trump was relying on less reliable voters. He didn’t mention the Greenberg tweet posted five minutes later in the very same thread decrying the focus on young men while ignoring how pissed women are.

Greenberg is among the thousands of people who have RTed this tweet from me.

You get my point.

This entire election has been disproportionately viewed through the lens of polling, polling that even the Two Nates confess exhibit obvious problems.

And best as we can tell, pollsters have contorted their polls to ensure they don’t miss Trump voters (again, with no discussion of how you account for higher COVID-associated death rates among Trump supporters since 2020). But they have (apparently) done absolutely nothing to ensure they don’t miss pissed off women.

And then Ann Selzer came along.

Permission Structures and Polling Puzzles

/167 Comments/in , /by

As of today, Trump has less than 7% of his campaign left (47 of 721 days).

As of today, Harris has almost 44% of her campaign left (47 of 107 days).

Keep that in mind as you read this column from NYT’s Nate Cohn, in which he tries to puzzle out why Kamala Harris is doing less well in what he deems high quality national polls than she’s doing in Pennsylvania.

Never mind that his pick of polls has some few suspect polls in there. Effectively what Cohn convinces himself he’s seeing is that the Electoral College, which normally favors Democrats, may this year favor Trump.

Now let’s consider our puzzle: a clear lead for Ms. Harris in Pennsylvania, but a tie nationwide? This is unexpected. Four years ago, President Biden won the national vote by 4.5 percentage points, but won Pennsylvania by just 1.2 points. Similarly, our poll averages have shown Ms. Harris doing better nationwide than in Pennsylvania. This poll is nearly the opposite.

Usually, I’d say that this is probably just statistical noise — the inevitable variation in poll results inherent to random sampling. And it might well be, as we shall see. But I think it’s hard to assume that this is simply noise, for two reasons:

  • It’s what we’ve shown before. It’s easy enough to dismiss any single poll result as a statistical fluke. But we’ve now found similar results in our last two polls of the nation and Pennsylvania.
  • This is becoming a trend among high-quality pollsters. Yes, our poll average shows Ms. Harris doing better nationally than in Pennsylvania, but if you focus only on higher-quality polls (which we call “select pollsters” in our table), the story is a bit different. Over the last month, a lot of these polls show Ms. Harris doing relatively poorly nationwide, but doing well in the Northern battleground states.

Note that Nate says NYT’s own polls aren’t moving much (while admitting the first days after the debate, responses in PA were more favorable to Harris). But Harris’ lead in MI and PA, across all polls, is inching ever so slowly higher, with some polls beginning to show leads outside the margin of error.

My suspicion is we’re still seeing two effects: that of RFK endorsing Trump, which may have helped Trump by a point (indeed, some polls aren’t including him in states, like WI and MI, where he remains on the ballot) and the debate and Taylor Swift endorsement, which may have helped Harris by up to three.

So far.

But this is why I keep coming back to the 7% versus 44% that each candidate has left in their campaign. Harris is doing in an incredibly compressed timeline, at least by US standards, what campaigns spend years doing. As a result, some baseline actions, such as recruiting volunteers, happened later than they otherwise might have. So there could be — though by no means is guaranteed — a late-election effect from them, as those efforts bear fruit.

Still, as Harris tries to build on that foundation, Trump’s unconventional choices — such as to fire the RNC personnel doing field work and instead to let an Elon Musk PAC do that work — has risks, as evidenced by the decision to fire and replace the canvasing contractor in NV and AZ with 50 days left to go.

That leaves open the possibility that we’ll see gradual movement in the weeks ahead, even ignoring a big blunder by one of the campaigns, or a Black Swan event of the type that would be unsurprising this year.

Brittany Mahomes

To understand what kind of delayed effect recent events might bring about, start with Brittany Mahomes, the spouse of KC Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes, who has become close to Taylor Swift as both root for their partners at football games. According to the Daily Mail, Trump’s attack on Swift led Ms. Mahomes to rethink her prior support of Trump.

Brittany Mahomes is ‘deeply bothered’ by Donald Trump’s very public attack on her close friend Taylor Swift, according to sources who claim the Kansas City Chiefs WAG is questioning her support for the former president.

Brittany, who has been married to Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes since 2022, sparked a liberal meltdown last month when she liked a post about Trump, 78, on social media.

Weeks later, Taylor, 34, publicly endorsed Kamala Harris’ bid for president – an action that drove a reported 338,000 visits to the federal voter registration website after she shared a link on Instagram.

Trump hit back in predictably blistering style on his Truth Social platform, claiming ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT’ – prompting Brittany, 29, to ‘question’ if she will continue to endorse his campaign.

‘She is questioning her support for Donald Trump after he lashed out at Taylor, saying he hates her,’ a source exclusively revealed to DailyMail.com.

Swift is perhaps the most trusted American, in any sphere. Because of that, polarization will work in her favor, and through her, Harris’, in the same way it tends to work in Trump’s favor when he spins prosecution of him as an attack on him. If people do things to Swift, her supporters will side with her all the more strongly, and in this matter, that may produce movement to Harris.

Mahomes’ vote — presumably cast in MO, where the couple lives — is not going to swing any races. But what is publicly reported to be going on with her may go on with millions of the diehard Swifties who would normally be soft Trump supporters. But that process takes time. First they reconsider their prior beliefs, then they learn why Swift supports Harris, then they get used to the idea of voting for a Democrat.

It’s a process, one that has as many as 47 days left to work.

Springfield’s Republicans and Reagan’s Dead-Enders

Something similar may be happening among more traditional Republicans.

Politico reported on how Republicans stuck with the chaos Trump has created in heavily Republican Springfield are rethinking their Republican support.

“Any political leader that takes the national stage and has the national spotlight needs to understand the gravity of the words that they have for cities like ours, and what they say impacts our city,” Rue, who said he was tired and angry, told POLITICO. “And we’ve had bomb threats the last two days. We’ve had personal threats the last two days, and it’s increasing, because the national stage is swirling this up. Springfield, Ohio, is caught in a political vortex, and it is a bit out of control. We are a wonderful city — a beautiful town. And for what it’s worth, your pets are safe in Springfield, Ohio.”

Asked whether he is going to vote for Trump, the 54-year-old mayor said, “I’m just probably not going to answer that question.” He said he is deeply “frustrated” with Trump’s remarks and how Springfield has become collateral damage.

[snip]

Republican Clark County Commission President Melanie Flax-Wilt, who said she backed Trump in 2016 and 2020 but is now undecided, largely refused to talk about national politics. But she said she was frustrated.

“I’m of the belief that it’s our local community that is going to be here dealing with this after all of the national news is gone and everybody’s done using Springfield, Ohio, as a poster child for immigration reform. We’re the ones who are going to be stuck figuring out what to do with these challenges that are facing us,” said Flax-Wilt.

Sasha Rittenhouse, another Republican member of the county commission, said, “We’ve seen a lot of, I don’t want to say crazy, but unfounded things. It’s a matter of trying to go back and see if there’s any validity to any of it.”

She added, “And thus far, we have not been able to track anything down that definitively shows that any of these things are happening.”

Of her plans to vote this November, Rittenhouse said: “I have not decided what I’m doing. I’ve been a Republican my entire life, and I will leave it at that.”

Any such reconsideration would happen amidst a larger permission structure created by the number of Republicans who’ve publicly supported Harris, including a new batch of national security professionals (some with ties to Dick Cheney, who of course endorsed Harris a week ago — rolled out yesterday, and a group of former Reagan aides rolled out days earlier.

I don’t know whether that will or is working; clearly, Harris finds the support valuable, so the campaign may be seeing positive effects from the GOP support.

But the point is to simply create a permission structure for those wavering in their support for Trump to consider Harris, to rebrand it as patriotism.

Again, if it works, it’ll take time. It’ll be a process.

Iowa draws closer

One of the most interesting polling developments in recent weeks is not in a swing state; it’s in Iowa. The state’s best pollster, Ann Selzer — whom some argue is the best state pollster in the country — released a poll showing Harris within 4 of Trump in the state.

Ann Selzer’s gold standard poll is out, and suggests a remade presidential race in Iowa.

The top line numbers from Selzer & Co’s latest poll for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom indicate former President Donald Trump has 47 percent support and Vice President Kamala Harris 43 percent among likely Iowa voters. This poll started contacting respondents on September 8 (before the debate) and concluded on September 11, the day after the debate. At the end of this piece is a summary of post-debate national polling, which has found a gain for Harris of about 1 percent.

When you compare the new survey to Selzer’s numbers from June (Trump 50 percent, President Joe Biden 32 percent in Iowa), you will find a 14 point shift in margin. But purely focusing on the margin may be a mistake.

Trump’s level of support has varied little since February, when Selzer found him ahead of Biden by 48 percent to 33 percent in Iowa. The change is in the Democratic number. Harris has consolidated the Democratic base, and the 43 percent she receives in this survey is close to the 44.9 percent vote share for Biden in the 2020 election.

As Selzer describes it, this poll reflects new participation among groups energized since Harris got in the race.

Now, 81% of all Iowans say they will definitely vote in the general election, up from 76% in June. However, some of the demographic groups more likely to favor Harris are showing increased participation.

Women show an 8-percentage-point uptick in likely voting since June, Iowans younger than 45 show a 10-point increase, city dwellers show a 6-point bounce, and those with a college degree are up 9 points.

Iowa is not going to go for Harris; if it does, this would not be a close race. But because of Selzer’s credibility, this suggests a trend in the Midwest that likely confirms positive polling for Harris in neighboring WI (and Nebraska’s Omaha district).

But by drawing close in Iowa, Harris puts two of Iowa’s congressional districts in play.

To understand the importance of this new poll, and what it means if it is on target, let’s look at Iowa’s U.S. House seats. As noted above, this poll find Harris trailing Trump by 4 percent statewide. The table below applies that shift to both the 2020 numbers and the results of the 2022 Congressional races.

If Selzer is accurate, Harris is ahead in two of Iowa’s four Congressional districts (the first and the third), and would only narrowly lose the second district. Based on those numbers the Democrats would likely pick up at least one House seat in Iowa, and three races would be competitive.

Even before this poll, Democrats had started dumping (more) money in the two Iowa CDs, so their internals must be showing similar movement.

Pennsylvania bellwethers

There have been a slew of polls from PA overnight. But the result I find most interesting is this one, from earlier in the week: a Suffolk poll of PA (showing a 49-46 Harris lead) and two bellwether counties, Northampton (Bethleham) and Erie (around the city), showing 4-5 point leads for Harris in both.

The survey results showed that the vice president also led the former president in Northampton and Erie counties – two counties that have picked the winner of the last two presidential elections.

Harris had a five-point edge (50-45%) over Trump in Northampton County, located in eastern Pennsylvania and is the home of the cities of Bethlehem and Easton. President Joe Biden carried the county, 50-49%, in 2020 after Trump topped Hillary Clinton, 50-46%, in 2016.

In the northwest corner of the Commonwealth, Harris carries a four-point advantage over Trump, 48-44% – a larger margin than either winner produced in the last two elections. Biden squeezed out a 1-point edge (50-49%) in winning in 2020, while Trump had a two-point triumph in Erie, 49-47%, four years earlier.

Experienced politicos tend to focus on bellwether precincts or counties to read a state and Suffolk just started doing this in the 2022 race (their results predicted John Fetterman’s victory, but weren’t accurate for the county). I’m interested in this approach, though, because it’s one attempt to address all the difficulties with polling.

I’m also interested because of how NYT, among other outlets, has covered the race in Erie.

In July, when Trump led Joe Biden’s native state by 3, NYT did a story on how little credit Biden has gotten for economic investment in Rust Belt areas, focusing on Erie.

On a blighted industrial corridor in a struggling section of Erie, Pa., a long-abandoned iron factory has been humming with activity for the first time in decades. Construction crews have been removing barrels of toxic waste, knocking down crumbling walls and salvaging rusted tin roofing as they prepare to convert the cavernous space into an events venue, advanced manufacturing hub and brewery.

The estimated $25 million project is the most ambitious undertaking the Erie County Redevelopment Authority has ever attempted. It was both kick-started and remains heavily funded by various pots of money coming from Biden administration programs.

Yet there is no obvious sign of President Biden’s influence on the project. Instead, the politician who has taken credit for the Ironworks Square development effort most clearly is Representative Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law that is helping to fund the renovation.

It is one example of a larger problem Mr. Biden faces in Pennsylvania, a swing state that could decide the winner of the 2024 election. In places like Erie, a long-struggling manufacturing hub bordering the Great Lake that is often an election bellwether, Mr. Biden is struggling to capitalize on his own economic policies even when they are providing real and visible benefits.

In August, after Harris had remade the race, WaPo did a story about Erie’s longterm economic plight, noting that its plight would affect the vote there. When it described a new factory funded by the Inflation Reduction Act as a green shoot that might change things, it didn’t describe that Kamala Harris cast the deciding vote for the law that funded it.

The irony — or the puzzle — is that this evident stress coexists with hints of green shoots in the local economy.

A long-planned plastics recycling facility is moving forward, thanks to a new federal loan guarantee. The Japanese corporation Kyocera broke ground this spring on a new manufacturing facility. And popular amenities, including an indoor golf simulator and a rock climbing gym, have opened downtown.

A pre-debate September story in NYT focused on Tim Walz’ appearance in Erie to highlight the campaign’s efforts — more apparent in Harris’ stop in Wilkes-Barre, a story about which NYT focused on skeptics about Harris —  to shave Trump’s margins in rural areas.

“Look, it would be easier if we didn’t have to do this. It would be easier if these guys wouldn’t undermine our system, if they wouldn’t lie about elections, if they wouldn’t put women’s health at risk. But they are, so it’s a privilege for us to do the fight,” he said in Erie, Pa., where he stumped from a stage at the edge of Presque Isle Bay before hundreds of cheering supporters waving “Coach” and “Kamala” signs.

The appearance was one of several events that Mr. Walz used to blitz the local media airwaves and fire up Democratic volunteers with the Midwestern dad charm that his party is banking on to help draw white working-class voters. Mr. Walz, and his daughter, Hope, hit several cities in counties that went for Mr. Trump in 2016 — stung by fading American manufacturing and a difficult economy.

[snip]

His trip also underscored the challenges for his ticket as Democrats aim to improve their margins in rural and red-leaning areas in November. The specter of the former president loomed at nearly every stop, and though Mr. Walz arrived ready to engage with undecided voters, some places yielded few opportunities to do so. Mr. Walz also frustrated a handful of reporters as he refused to answer shouted questions.

It complained, twice, that Walz didn’t take reporters’ bait to answer questions only interesting to a pack of beltway journalists.

That outcome by Suffolk, if accurate, reflects a lot of work that Harris and Walz have put in, work that mainstream outlets seem ready to dismiss (while griping that candidates aren’t focusing on coastal journalists while visiting those areas).

There’s a story in Erie. It is a recognizable bellwether area. But rather than look there to see if that’s what explains a possible split between the national polls and PA, NYT’s pollster ignores the possibility that Harris is doing better in swing states than nationally because efforts she has made in those swing states, efforts that don’t feed the media’s narrative have made a difference.

What the Iowa poll may show is a national reconsideration that has happened as Kamala took over the ticket, particularly as women and young voters became more enthused. What the Suffolk PA poll may show is that more focused efforts in swing states are, very gradually, having some results.

That’s why I keep coming back to timing. Trump has 7% of his campaign left, and he’s spending much of his time outside of swing states, attempting to create stunts to shift the media narrative. Harris has 44% of her campaign left, and she’s spending it, partly, out of the limelight, working relentlessly to win over small groups of voters in the swing states that will decide the election.

We should expect a well-run campaign that has focused on swing states to show some results in those swing states, particularly in a race against a guy, Trump, who seems to have a ceiling for his support. Maybe that’s what we’re seeing.

If the election were held today, Harris would have a very good shot to win, but only narrowly. A narrow win might not be enough to stave off whatever fuckery Trump has planned.

But the election won’t be held today. She’s still got 44% of her campaign left to get this hard work to pay off.

Update: Fixed spelling of bellwether.