Now that the dust has settled after the first and possibly only presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, the polls look clear: Harris has a slight edge in a race that remains extremely close.
Harris leads national polls by an average of 2 or 3 percentage points. More importantly, he leads by an average of 1 to 2 points in recent polls in the key Electoral College states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And if he wins all three, that would be enough to give him the presidency (as long as he holds the other blue states and Nebraska’s second district).
But it is important to remember that a lead of 1 or 2 points is not a safe or reliable lead in polling averages. A polling error underestimating Trump in these states — that happened 2016 or 2020 – Can send Harris to lose.
As for other swing states: There have been a few high-quality polls in Nevada since the debate, but the average currently shows a very close race, with Harris leading by a point or less. But North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia average Trump’s lead by a slight margin — 2 points or less.
The big picture, though, is that all seven swing states are close enough in the polls that they could easily go to either candidate.
The New York Times/Sienna poll showed some unusual results
While the news was generally good for Harris in post-debate polling, some of the results of the New York Times/Siena College poll tell a more complicated story.
This polling found Harris is up 4 points in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania, which is great for him. But it also showed a tied race nationally — and larger than average Trump is leading at North Carolina (3 points), Georgia (4 points), and Arizona (5 points).
Generally, the best practice when looking at campaign polls is to throw them into an average, since any one pollster’s result can be an outlier. But Times polls are highly respected in political circles, so it’s worth considering what it would mean for the race if their recent polls prove accurate.
One takeaway is that while those polls are generally bad for Harris, Pennsylvania’s results are actually pretty good — better than average. Overall, Keystone State polling did not look great for Harris when he entered the race, resulting in a lot takes about In his so-called Pennsylvania “problem,” Second guess Whether he should have chosen state governor Josh Shapiro as his running mate and whether he believes the math of the Electoral College gives Trump an advantage.
The Times poll, however, points to a parallel world in which Electoral College partisanship does not help Trump and could significantly help Harris. The Times did not poll Wisconsin or Michigan this month, but last month’s poll of those states showed Harris in those states and in Pennsylvania — by 4 point
Why would this be the case? Nate Cohn, the Times’ chief political analyst, actually Written from last year That Trump’s Electoral College edge may be fading. That could be because Republicans have gained ground in heavily blue states like New York, but they’re still nowhere close to flipping those states — while Democrats hold on in battleground states. The mid-2022 results seem consistent with such a theory.
For Biden in 2020, the decisive Electoral College state was Wisconsin, but his margin there was nearly 4 points worse than his national margin, a serious margin. For Harris this time around, polling averages tend to show a small disadvantage — but they generally show him doing slightly worse in Pennsylvania, a state that’s more important than he is nationally.
The Times polling is unusual, however, suggesting that the bias may go the other way this time; That the Electoral College could actually be help Harris. For now, this is an outlier, but it’s certainly an interesting scenario.
A less encouraging move for Harris, if the Times poll is correct, is that Trump has gains in Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina. Other pollsters have also generally shown Trump with a narrow edge in those states, but the Times poll may have been ominous, showing him a 3-5 point advantage in those states after Harris’ well-received debate performance.
If those states prove out of Harris’ reach, he’ll be stuck relying on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan as his only path to victory — the same “blue wall” Hillary Clinton vainly hoped would save her in 2016. Winning them, but not the other swing states, would give Harris a potential 270 to 268 Electoral College victory. What could go wrong?
