A new Cook Political Report Swing State Project Survey conducted by BSG and GS Strategy Group (September 19-25; 2,941 voters), shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading or tied with former President Donald Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. Overall, she holds a narrow lead of 49% to 48% in a two-way matchup.
A new Cook Political Report Swing State Project Survey conducted by BSG and GS Strategy Group (September 19-25; 2,941 voters), shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading or tied with former President Donald Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. Overall, she holds a narrow lead of 49% to 48% in a two-way matchup.
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
Democrats have 13-point leads in both Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego is leading former gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake 54%-41%, and Nevada, where Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen leads former Army Captain Sam Brown 53%-40%.
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey leads his Republican opponent David McCormick by seven points, 52%-45%, in Pennsylvania.
Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin leads her GOP opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by four points — 50%-46%
In Wisconsin, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin leads Republican businessman Eric Hovde by only two points, 49%-47%, down from a seven point lead in our last survey.
All of the Democratic Senate candidates have greater leads that Kamala Harris does.
The high degree of political polarization means fewer voters split their tickets. Does this not mean we will see a meaningful degree of convergence between the Senate and Presidential races in most states? If so, the question is whether Harris is more likely to overperform her polls, or the Dem Denate candidates underperform.
Wisconsin is just one exception. Of course there will be divergence; the question is whether there will be a convergence relative to the polls – and, if so, whether it is mostly our Presidential or Senate candidates that move.
There has been a pretty consistent 4-5 point difference in Baldwin’s favor in previous WI polls. This is one of the only polls from any state showing alignment between the Presidential and Senate numbers that I can recall seeing recently.
The difference was even more prominent when Biden was the candidate where the thought it was specific dislike of him. Harris has lessened the gap, but it’s still notable. The CW seems to be that the gap will narrow as we approach the election, but as ArcticStones mentions, the question is how that will occur.
Or maybe it won’t. Maybe the demise of ticket splitting has been over-stated. Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check.
It will certainly be an interesting academic research topic after the election results come in(I think the old 'power of incumbency' thing will be the main factor for divergence)
The risk there is that if the election nears and those people don't think Trump is likely to win, they may amend their decision for vote for Democratic Senate candidates downballot. I suspect that may have happened in 2016, particularly in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Yeah, the 2016 idea that Dems did worse in the Senate because Clinton was expected to win is what brought the thought to mind. Not sure if I buy it or not but it’s a reasonable theory. However, the last poll I remember seeing showed that most people predict Harris will win (and electoral-vote had an interesting theory that the polls about who people think is going to win are actually more reliable than asking who they will vote for) so if that were the case I’m not sure we’d still see the discrepancies in the polls.
In the back of my mind I’m wondering if it’s somehow the Trump fanatics causing the effect but I can’t figure out how that would work. I don’t see them stating in a poll they would vote for a Dem in the downballot races and there isn’t enough of a difference in the undecided voters to account for it.
But maybe it’s more the undecided voters, who don’t really like Trump and what he stands for, but also long for the good old pre-COVID, pre-inflation days and think he’ll magically bring prices down but they don’t want him to be able to do anything else.
Kind of an overreach of a hypothesis imo. Yes there are voters who hedge like that, but they’re so rare. Voters aren’t that complicated, they vote for who they like and/or the policies they want.
"Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check." Those people don't realize the Supreme Court gave Trump unlimited power if he wins.
Yes, but there is still the matter of carrying out that power. He has his sycophants, but the rest of the government is not powerless and he will still have to overcome bureaucracy.
Absolutely. Don’t get me wrong, another Trump presidency would absolutely cause a great deal of harm to American democracy. At the same time I think there is a lot of fatalism that may or may not come to pass. There will still be some roadblocks to an Imperial Presidency despite the SC.
I honestly don’t know. It’s a theory to explain the divergence between polling numbers. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it’s the one that makes the most sense to me. But yes, if that is what is happening then stupid is certainly an appropriate, and probably kind, description.
The economy? That’s really my only guess. People remember how relatively cheap it was to fill up their grocery cart in 2019 and want to go back to those days. At the same time they don’t want their neighbor to die from a complicated pregnancy, or for the fags down the street to have their marriage cancelled. I don’t think anyone who posts here can really get in the mind of a Trump voter, but that makes some sense to me.
Also Trump Voters: "We need Democrats to keep Trump in check so he doesn't do stupid crap! We love him but we also think he can be nuts when he governs!"
Michael, I think there are more conservatives who want Harris to be President, but want a Republican Senate to keep her in check. Certainly that is the priority of the Koch Network and other dark money PACs that are now investing huge amounts of money in various Senate races.
Imho, Democratic PACs need to match those expenditures – plus invest heavily in the Senate races in Florida, Texas and Nebraska.
Haha, no worries. To clarify, if the theory is that folks want a Dem Presidency but a Republican Senate we’d be seeing opposite results in the polling where Harris would be overperforming. Instead, the polling shows that there is a reasonable chance for a Republican president but Dem Congress. This doesn’t reconcile with polls showing that Harris is the predicted winner (and I’m sorry I don’t have a link to that but will try to find).
In short, it’s just one more way in which the discrepancies in the polls don’t make any sense.
Yup; we were talking about different topics; I was only pointing out that polling increasingly shows that Florida and Texas Senate are now truly competitive and that (gulp!) Nebraska Senate is now possibly being led by the independent challenger(this one I truly am doubtful at this time)
Not to me; imo only Tester and Brown are(imo Brown pulls it out; Tester, I am just going to hope for a terrific ground operation in the liberal bastions of the big city's and huge turnout on the res)
Something that's less mentioned here that should benefit Tester: the Montana redistricting commission recently sided with Democrats drawing state maps that will essentially result in more competitive seats, many that Democrats have better odds of winning. More competitive seats, including those that favor Democrats, will lead to increased turnout, and that in turn should boost Tester as well.
A new Cook Political Report Swing State Project Survey conducted by BSG and GS Strategy Group (September 19-25; 2,941 voters), shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading or tied with former President Donald Trump in all but one of the seven battleground states. Overall, she holds a narrow lead of 49% to 48% in a two-way matchup.
Harris has a lead within the margin of error in Arizona (+2), Michigan (+3), Nevada (+1), Pennsylvania (+1), and Wisconsin (+2). Trump is ahead 49% to 47% in Georgia, and the two candidates are tied at 49% in North Carolina.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/survey-research/2024-swing-state-project/swing-state-polling-finds-deadlocked-presidential
Senate races:
Democrats have 13-point leads in both Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego is leading former gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake 54%-41%, and Nevada, where Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen leads former Army Captain Sam Brown 53%-40%.
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey leads his Republican opponent David McCormick by seven points, 52%-45%, in Pennsylvania.
Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin leads her GOP opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by four points — 50%-46%
In Wisconsin, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin leads Republican businessman Eric Hovde by only two points, 49%-47%, down from a seven point lead in our last survey.
All of the Democratic Senate candidates have greater leads that Kamala Harris does.
The high degree of political polarization means fewer voters split their tickets. Does this not mean we will see a meaningful degree of convergence between the Senate and Presidential races in most states? If so, the question is whether Harris is more likely to overperform her polls, or the Dem Denate candidates underperform.
Thoughts?
There’s no difference in Wisconsin.
There are voters who split their tickets. There will be divergence in most of these states.
Wisconsin is just one exception. Of course there will be divergence; the question is whether there will be a convergence relative to the polls – and, if so, whether it is mostly our Presidential or Senate candidates that move.
There has been a pretty consistent 4-5 point difference in Baldwin’s favor in previous WI polls. This is one of the only polls from any state showing alignment between the Presidential and Senate numbers that I can recall seeing recently.
The difference was even more prominent when Biden was the candidate where the thought it was specific dislike of him. Harris has lessened the gap, but it’s still notable. The CW seems to be that the gap will narrow as we approach the election, but as ArcticStones mentions, the question is how that will occur.
Or maybe it won’t. Maybe the demise of ticket splitting has been over-stated. Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check.
It will certainly be an interesting academic research topic after the election results come in(I think the old 'power of incumbency' thing will be the main factor for divergence)
The risk there is that if the election nears and those people don't think Trump is likely to win, they may amend their decision for vote for Democratic Senate candidates downballot. I suspect that may have happened in 2016, particularly in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I don’t think this will ever be the case with Trump now — Dems are shell-shocked after 2016, and Republicans are arrogant poll-deniers.
Yeah, the 2016 idea that Dems did worse in the Senate because Clinton was expected to win is what brought the thought to mind. Not sure if I buy it or not but it’s a reasonable theory. However, the last poll I remember seeing showed that most people predict Harris will win (and electoral-vote had an interesting theory that the polls about who people think is going to win are actually more reliable than asking who they will vote for) so if that were the case I’m not sure we’d still see the discrepancies in the polls.
In the back of my mind I’m wondering if it’s somehow the Trump fanatics causing the effect but I can’t figure out how that would work. I don’t see them stating in a poll they would vote for a Dem in the downballot races and there isn’t enough of a difference in the undecided voters to account for it.
But maybe it’s more the undecided voters, who don’t really like Trump and what he stands for, but also long for the good old pre-COVID, pre-inflation days and think he’ll magically bring prices down but they don’t want him to be able to do anything else.
Kind of an overreach of a hypothesis imo. Yes there are voters who hedge like that, but they’re so rare. Voters aren’t that complicated, they vote for who they like and/or the policies they want.
"Maybe there are a significant number of folks who want Trump to be president again, but also want a Democratic Senate to keep him in check." Those people don't realize the Supreme Court gave Trump unlimited power if he wins.
Yes, but there is still the matter of carrying out that power. He has his sycophants, but the rest of the government is not powerless and he will still have to overcome bureaucracy.
With this current SC; I'd prefer to not chance it
Absolutely. Don’t get me wrong, another Trump presidency would absolutely cause a great deal of harm to American democracy. At the same time I think there is a lot of fatalism that may or may not come to pass. There will still be some roadblocks to an Imperial Presidency despite the SC.
I think those people are also stupid.
Who are these “significant” number of Trump voters?
I honestly don’t know. It’s a theory to explain the divergence between polling numbers. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it’s the one that makes the most sense to me. But yes, if that is what is happening then stupid is certainly an appropriate, and probably kind, description.
which is why it's so vexing - every theory that my old man brain comes up with, I immediately swat away as irrational.
In hindsight, in knowing Trump supporters, they aren’t by default going to vote for the GOP.
But if they didn’t vote for the GOP and want Democrats to keep Trump in check, then why do they support him in the first place?
The economy? That’s really my only guess. People remember how relatively cheap it was to fill up their grocery cart in 2019 and want to go back to those days. At the same time they don’t want their neighbor to die from a complicated pregnancy, or for the fags down the street to have their marriage cancelled. I don’t think anyone who posts here can really get in the mind of a Trump voter, but that makes some sense to me.
Trump Voters: "Go Trump!"
Also Trump Voters: "We need Democrats to keep Trump in check so he doesn't do stupid crap! We love him but we also think he can be nuts when he governs!"
Michael, I think there are more conservatives who want Harris to be President, but want a Republican Senate to keep her in check. Certainly that is the priority of the Koch Network and other dark money PACs that are now investing huge amounts of money in various Senate races.
Imho, Democratic PACs need to match those expenditures – plus invest heavily in the Senate races in Florida, Texas and Nebraska.
That absolutely makes sense but is not supported by any polling that I’ve seen.
Actually the Texas and Florida currently polling numbers lead to that; the NE-Senate is questionable to me but others here disagree
We might be discussing2 different things here; my apologies
Haha, no worries. To clarify, if the theory is that folks want a Dem Presidency but a Republican Senate we’d be seeing opposite results in the polling where Harris would be overperforming. Instead, the polling shows that there is a reasonable chance for a Republican president but Dem Congress. This doesn’t reconcile with polls showing that Harris is the predicted winner (and I’m sorry I don’t have a link to that but will try to find).
In short, it’s just one more way in which the discrepancies in the polls don’t make any sense.
Yup; we were talking about different topics; I was only pointing out that polling increasingly shows that Florida and Texas Senate are now truly competitive and that (gulp!) Nebraska Senate is now possibly being led by the independent challenger(this one I truly am doubtful at this time)
That would make sense from their point of view.
I doubt Democratic Senate candidates/incumbent Senators will underperform if it means Kamala Harris will overperforms.
The more likely scenarios are as follows:
1) Harris overperforms and Senate candidates/incumbents get a boost from this.
2) Harris underperforms and Senate candidates/incumbents underperform.
It’s hard for me to understand how Senate candidates/incumbents polling wider than Harris will underperform in this likely high turnout election.
Is Baldwin really endangered?
Not to me; imo only Tester and Brown are(imo Brown pulls it out; Tester, I am just going to hope for a terrific ground operation in the liberal bastions of the big city's and huge turnout on the res)
Something that's less mentioned here that should benefit Tester: the Montana redistricting commission recently sided with Democrats drawing state maps that will essentially result in more competitive seats, many that Democrats have better odds of winning. More competitive seats, including those that favor Democrats, will lead to increased turnout, and that in turn should boost Tester as well.