This morning markets will react, and signs over the weekend are bad. But what about the impact on the public? Will popular support for Trumpism - and warmth for the Republican Party ahead of crucial midterms next year - survive on impact?

Whether it does so depends on which path we now take.

Before I examine those paths, why does this even matter? Because those 2026 midterms determine the power President Trump has in his final two years. Early moments in a presidency can have a crushing effect: Biden’s approval rating, for example, never recovered after the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Path 1: Stand-off

This is the scenario in which no one budges. Tariffs stay on, and even escalate further (Trump did promise counter-tariffs to the counter-tariffs). An economist friend says that a stand-off lasting beyond two to three months would make a stand-off’s impact on the economy truly felt. We would almost certainly see price rises in grocery stores and at the pump, and job losses too.

That is going to hurt with the public, especially Independents who backed Trump in 2024. Arguments about the need for re-shoring are not going to make up for headlines about American brands shedding jobs. You can’t re-shore Tennessee Whiskey. If there is a lesson from the Biden years, it is that voters do not listen to long-winded arguments about why prices are going up. They just blame the incumbent. Even those voters who stay loyal to Trump may still punish the Republicans for it in the polls next year.

Americans do support tariffs as it stands, by 52-33 for China, 41-30 for Mexico, and 37-33 for Canada. But that is a narrow margin for the latter two, and consent for tariffs on Canada is flimsy; by two to one, Americans think Canada has traded *fairly* with the US, with Republicans more likely to say that than not too. That basically means voters are going into this without feeling Canadian tariffs are necessary.

If Democrats were able to get their act together and make very clear this is Trump’s tax, then I think the damage to the GOP would be significant and potentially seismic.

Path 2: Compromise

But there is a softer path and this seems to be the one that most Trump whisperers are currently landing on. It is in no one’s interests for this to last a long time: everyone loses. Under this logic, the Trump team will exact concessions from Mexico and Canada on immigration, drug trafficking, or even wider protectionism, and declare a win. That requires both sides to play the game, but exports to America dominate Mexico and Canada’s economies: for all of Trudeau’s bravado about ‘buying Canadian’, the economic damage would be huge and both governments know it.

China is likely a separate question. There is both less political pressure to relent and less chance of an adverse public reaction: those imports are more likely to be high-end products and technology which, though important, is not the gas and grocery hit that we might see from Mexico and Canada.

Not everything would need to be reversed in this scenario, but enough to stem the worst damage.

Such a result might mean it is too late to recover a blighted reputation of the U.S. abroad (there was lots of booing of US teams at Canadian football games this weekend). But such a result would mean domestic public opinion would shrug - and even, for Trump voters, applaud. There might be some market damage, there might even be a tangible impact on the economy, but the clouds would move on fast.

Would voters not punish Trump for the chaos of the original act? No. Voters know the Donald Trump they voted for - they knew he was pro-tariff, they knew he was unpredictable, they knew he was brash. Anyone I interviewed about Trump during the campaign would not have been surprised whatsoever at his comments about DEI after the plane crash in DC. They know what they chose, and they are happy to live with it if he can deliver for them.

-

One final point - and one of my favorite poll questions we ran last year. Voters do not know what tariffs are. Look at these numbers, from a poll we ran in September of 1,000 likely voters:

I wonder how many readers would have answered correctly: I wouldn’t have until I read about it last year. That essential misconception means that if Scenario 1 takes place, the damage could be greater still.

But for now, voters know the Trump they voted for. And they are quietly backing their man as he enters the arena.

But it paid off. As verified by POLITICO, the firm I co-founded - J.L. Partners - was the most accurate pollster and modeling firm in the race, with its final model projecting a 287-251 win, the highest projected margin for Trump of all models and only one of two to forecast a Trump victory.

We called a Trump win since September 24^th, and for the last 25 of 30 days of the campaign had a forecast of 312-226, where Trump ended up.

There were other successes for the firm: 

• Our final national poll also called Trump winning the popular vote, with a lead of 3 points. A Trump popular vote win was seen as an outlier and the final national polling average had a Harris lead of 1.2 points.

• J.L. Partners also had the most accurate poll of Ohio, the main state we polled in due to our client base. NYT predicts this race will be a Trump win by 11 points and that Bernie Moreno wins the Senate with a margin of 6 points. Our final poll had Trump leading by 9 points and Moreno leading by 6 points, while the polling average showed a win for Sherrod Brown. This is the second cycle in a row that J.L. Partners is the most accurate pollster in Ohio, with our 2022 poll calling the Senate race to within 0.2 percentage points. 

• Finally, we called that the Senate would be more Red than anyone expected in the Wall Street Journal because of our model predicting the behavior of undecided voters. 

How did we do it? We believe there are four key reasons.

1. A mixed method approach, essential in today’s information ecosystem. 

Our view is that single-mode polls, whether online or live call, are liable to higher levels of bias and missing that key under-represented Trump voter in polls for three

cycles now. This does not apply universally, but tends to be the rule rather than the exception. 

Phone polls are liable to over-sampling those willing to give pollsters the time of day on the phone: our statistics show that person is more likely to be an older, white, liberal woman (read: Selzer’s sample). Online polls over-sample people who are educated, more engaged, younger, and more likely to be working from home. Those groups are all more Democrat.

Instead what we did is blend methods, depending on the audience we are trying to reach using an in-house algorithm. We use live call to cell, live call to landline, SMS-to-web, online panel, and in-app game polling. Each method reached a different type of voter. The latter, for example, incentivizing poll responses by in-game points as people play games on their phone, is more likely to pick up young, nonwhite men. That is something that meant that 30% of our nonwhite sample backed Trump, in line with the exit polls we are seeing. 

We pick up that elusive Trump voter who is less likely to trust polls or to have the time to fill them out.

2. Our sample design on non-voters, following the data, not herding. 

Throughout the cycle, our methods kept giving us a significant number of 2016 and 2020 non-voters. In our final poll, that number was 17%; it was predominantly rural, and heavily Trump-voting.

Other pollsters, we know for a fact, scaled or weighted these numbers down. Surely they couldn’t be real, they assumed. But we did not herd or hedge and went with the data even where it challenged our assumptions. We combined this with 2020 recall voting, which acted as an anchor for the data, while also allowing flex to the quotas to match the reality of new developments. We were right to do so and a turnout surge helped Donald Trump with his most favorable demographics.

3. The decisions that went into our model, particularly no incumbency bonus for Kamala Harris.

When Harris joined the race, we made a decision: we would not award Harris a typical incumbency bonus that almost every other model did. We received flak for this, but it was the right call. Including one would have swung national win probabilities by around five points in Harris’ favor. In a race that polling suggested was going to be very close, this assumption made a big difference.

But this should not have been a surprise for modelers – Harris was not the incumbent. In fact, just as incumbents since 2020 around the world have been toppled one after another, at multiple points in the race our polling was showing the incumbent hurt her race.

We also made other decisions in our modeling. Early on, we decided to drastically upweight polls that asked full-ballot questions, including third parties. This is key. Voters are faced with all of these choices when they go into the voting booth, not just Harris v Trump, which a shocking number of state polls used right to their final poll. Using our research, we were able to model vote flows in states where third party candidates were on the ballot. Those third party candidates cut Harris off at the knees, especially amongst the Arab American vote in Michigan.

We also drastically down-weighted online-only panels, and up-weighted our mixed method polls. Without down weighting, these polls totally swamp the model as sample size matters in our modeling procedure. By hampering their contribution, we prevented potential systematic bias entering our model.

Finally - and a key part of our Senate model - we re-allocated undecided voters using a predictive model that was highly accurate in the UK election earlier this year. Trained from demographics and other answers that respondents gave in the survey, it gave Republican Senate candidates bigger leads in public polling that simply reassigned undecideds on self-reported lean, or removed them from the samples altogether. 

4. Long, structured interviews with voters face-to-face. 

We have always felt that qualitative research is essential alongside all the modeling and polling. Polling is a science, but also requires big call decisions on weighting and more - such as those above. These were not assumptions, but were based on hundreds of 90-minute face-to-face interviews with voters over the last two years. 

They helped confirm to us that an incumbency bias in the model would be foolish, that we should not downweight our non-voters, that there was no late split to Harris amongst undecideds. To the financial people receiving this email, this might seem anecdotal, or about a gut reaction. But it was a data-led decision, simply based in qualitative interviews rather than quant analysis.

It was also key to understanding non-white voter switchers to Trump: a ten minute conversation would not capture their voting intention. They would start the interview leaning Harris, but end it leaning Trump – a better indication of where they would end up landing after their world view on the economy, border, and family values became clear.

There is always room to improve. No poll can ever be perfect. But those are the ingredients that made J.L. Partners the most accurate pollster and modeling firm in the U.S., adding to its 2024 success in being the third-most accurate pollster in the UK General Election. 

The election is over but this substack lives on, as I continue to run interviews, speak to voters, and conduct polling on not just the Trump administration - but what the Next America after it looks like too.

In every one of those weeks we have asked the following question: What is the biggest news story you noticed this week?

Here is how people answered, in GIF form (you may need to click through to the website to see it if you’re reading in email).

My main impressions:

• The debate got noticed, big time. It was a huge ticket event, and Harris won by 49% to 43% in our snap poll. For many voters who made up their mind that week, that performance was crucial and we may look back on it as so if Harris wins the White House tomorrow night.

• For four weeks in a row, hurricanes dominated. That is fully half of the campaign period. First Helene, then Milton, blocked out the news. The first was more consequential than the second, and there was opprobrium directed toward the Biden/Harris administration by swing voters for what was seen as a lacklustre response. But it only marginally helped Trump: most voters’ reactions were just of shock at the devastation, particularly in western parts of North Carolina that are still reeling today.

• Prominent most weeks was “Iran” or “Israel”. I have really noticed that in the focus groups too. Foreign affairs has loomed large for undecided voters in recent focus groups I have ran in Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Detroit, and that has tended to be to the benefit of Trump. Almost every swing voter I speak to repeats back Trump’s line to me: “There were no wars under Trump”. And invariably those undecided voters would prefer Trump to handle America’s enemies rather than Harris.

• Biden’s comments calling Trump supporters “garbage” were the last thing voters noticed in this campaign. The comments edged out recall of the Madison Square Garden rally. We saw the same in the focus groups - any damage for the Trump campaign from the latter was cancelled out by the former, with voters especially concerned by what they saw as a lacklustre response by Harris.

But most of all I am left with the impression that this campaign was one big nothing burger. That’s the word that comes up often, and towards the end of the campaign it almost dominates the word clouds itself. For what was promised to be a rollercoaster of a campaign, nothing much has happened. There was no October Surprise. The hurricanes were bad but were not a Katrina moment for the sitting president or his vice. War trembled, but it felt far away and never exploded into the fury that some experts expected. There was never a brand-busting moment for either candidate.

The debate aside - a clear win for Kamala Harris - this was a nothing campaign.

That sums up our view of Selzer, which showed a 3 point lead for Harris on the weekend: it goes into the model alongside all the other polls and is treated as such.

We do not believe any one poll should transform a view of the race. Selzer is not doing anything magically different from anyone else: there is no reason to believe she is picking up something no one else in the country is, and that is why the model treats her poll in the way it does.

Selzer, and other polls, have had one impact: moving Michigan very narrowly back into Harris’ camp in our model. That means that our central estimate is now a narrow Trump win in the Electoral College with Harris on 241 Electoral Votes and Trump on 297.

There are also some reasons to be hesitant on Selzer and why we are – overall – in the sceptical bucket on the poll:

• It is not weighted to party registration, a problem in a state which has got much higher Republican affiliation figures and especially so since 2020

• It still carries with it a large margin of error at the 95% confidence interval of +/- 6.6 points

• Non-response bias might currently favor older liberal women; from our experience this is (statistically) the group most likely to give pollsters their time on the phone

• Iowa might be an outlier state in this election in any case, with special circumstances related to its 6-week abortion ban enacted this summer

Where Selzer is helpful is as a warning sign. Not for what it says about Iowa or other states, but for the fact that it is perfectly plausible – if unlikely - that Selzer is picking up a pattern that could have a large bearing: a stellar performance – in vote and in turnout - of Harris amongst women.

Our final national poll pointed to dangers for Trump. He still has a lower favorability rating than Harris. And while Trump dominates in rural areas with 70% of the vote, Harris has retained an edge in the suburbs. She leads Trump with suburban voters by 2 points, 48% to 46%. The suburbs often – but not always – lead to election victory, and Trump has not been able to regain the advantage he had over Biden earlier in the race with suburban voters. We also found Harris leading Donald Trump by 14 points with women.

It is this ‘hidden Harris voter’ that Selzer gives emphasis to in her poll. The Harris lead in the Hawkeye State is powered by women, where Harris leads 56 to 36 percent, and by a huge 63 to 28 points amongst women over 65.

We know that women have become more likely to back Democrats since the Dobbs ruling in 2022, and our Daily Mail poll of Pennsylvania found the biggest hesitation about voting Trump amongst undecided voters was ‘Project 2025’ and what this would mean for women’s rights.

But there are other voter groups in this election too, and Trump has a powerbase in rural, white men. Trump has excited his base in the closing days. Whereas in our last poll his voters lagged Harris’ in terms of enthusiasm, 74% of Trump voters now say they are very enthusiastic to vote for Trump, compared to 67% of Harris voters who say the same of voting for her.

While Harris leads with women, that is much less than the amount Trump leads with men: a huge 22 points. Men have swung to Trump more since 2020 than women have moved to Harris.

There are signs in the early vote that Trump is romping home in rural counties – particularly in Georgia. Of the state’s 159 counties, the top 23 for early voter and absentee returns were all won by Trump four years ago. On the flipside, turnout in the Detroit metro area in Michigan, and suburban counties in North Carolina also looks exceptional.

This race could come down to a battle for turnout, between rural white men and suburban white women. If Trump gets out more of the former, he wins. If Harris mobilizes the latter, she takes the crown.

Harris’ job is complicated by what has happened with nonwhite voters since 2020. Though Harris still leads decisively, Trump has made inroads with Hispanics and Black voters, set to win 45% and 15% of them respectively.

I am constantly stunned by how many Trump-backing non-white voters I meet when conducting focus groups. In a focus group in Detroit this week, the Black and Asian voters were backing Trump, the white women backing Harris. In crucial states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, that could complicate things for Harris even if she manages to mobilize the gender gap to her advantage.

So all things considered, we do not think this risk majorly shakes things up, as per our model. But it does present a race of turnout on the day. If Harris can outpace Trump’s turnout amongst men, Harris could outperform her polls and win the Midwest – and with it, the presidency.

In the conversation I centred on a key dynamic in this race: the fact that many Americans still have concerns about a woman being the president.

These concerns focus on Harris’ perceived strength, whether she could hold her own globally, and touch on more gender-traditional views. I hear them mainly from men in my focus groups and interviews, but also from women too. On Friday, a 23-year-old woman who is voting for Trump said her biggest hesitation was Harris’ gender. Her reason? “We just haven’t had that as a country before… she’s not strong enough”.

Below is Latika’s interview with me for The Nightly, where I talk more about these themes - and how Trump has his own gender problem too.

Interview with James Johnson, by Latika M Bourke 

As a pollster for Number 10, James Johnson was used to hearing male views about a female leader, in this case, his old boss, former UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

“You would often get quite bizarre comments about what she was wearing that I don't think you'd have probably got about a British politician,” he said. 

“But generally, I actually think Theresa’s gender worked in her favour because towards the end of Theresa May’s premiership the positive comments about Theresa focused on her being a woman.

“And as they saw - being ganged up on by all these backstabbing men in suits.

“That gave her a sense of resilience that she perhaps wouldn't have so easily been able to harness if she were a man.”

Britain is comfortable with women in charge, three Conservative female leaders have all occupied Downing Street.

With Australia now a decade on from its first and only woman leader, Labor’s Julia Gillard, the United States remains the outlier of the AUKUS trio, something Democrat Kamala Harris is hoping to end next Tuesday in becoming America's first female - and black - President. 

But despite claims that re-electing Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump will open a “gender gulf” over abortion and contraceptive rights, the Vice-President faces a tough battle with male voters, and in particular black male voters. 

Mr Johnson, founder of research firm JL Partners, has conducted more than 40 focus groups in the seven swing states that will decide the outcome of next week’s poll, which some analysts say is the most consequential in America’s history. 

The deciding factors in the Presidential race are less policy and more personality.

And this is Kamala Harris’ problem, or as two male African-American voters in Georgia specifically put it to Johnson a couple of weeks ago, “women problem.”

“One chap put it pretty clearly by saying, and this is a quote, ‘I just feel like sometimes you need a dick to run America,’” Johnson said.

“There is the sense of very traditional gendered views in parts of the States, which is that there’s a macho quality needed that is related to strength. 

“And that is certainly holding Harris back on some of these metrics.

“We might not like that but that is the reality on the ground that is holding back some of her support.”

He described the views reflected as “pretty striking” and a “sit-up-and-listen-moment” that was unprecedented in his career. 

“It really does test your focus group poker face to the max when you’re getting these comments,” he said. 

“But you’ve got to let them speak, I’m not here to judge the voters, I’m here to hear them and work out what that means for the election.”

Mr Johnson said Harris was most struggling with Hispanic and Black men as well as white Christian males. 

“I almost feel uncomfortable sharing this one with you because it's so brutally honest,” he said. 

“But one voter said to me, mixed-race man in Georgia about 25, he sat me down and he said: ‘look, if you think white men have a problem with black women, wait till you hear what black men think.’

“There are certainly elements of gender and race here that I’m not sure we would see in the UK or Australia.”

Harris’ difficulty in reaching black males has been something her campaign has been trying to redress with some political and pop star-power. 

Former US President Barack Obama recently chastised male voters for “coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses" not to vote for Harris, something he said seemed more pronounced with “the brothers.”

"I’ve got a problem with that,” he told voters in the key state of Pennslyvania.

“Because part of it makes me think - and I’m speaking to men directly - part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”

This weekend Harris rolled out the former first lady Michelle Obama and pop star Beyonce who urged women to vote. 

Donald Trump, by contrast, received the endorsement of Muslim leaders at a rally in Michigan, a swing state with a high Arab population and where the war in Gaza has threatened to suppress Democratic turnout. 

But Mr Johnson said the overwhelming hesitation voters had about Harris was: “Is she strong enough?”

“There are some serious concerns that voters have one is strength and this is the number one hesitation in the focus groups,” he said.

Trump has homed in on this and told a rally at Madison Square Garden in the red state of New York on Sunday that “no one respects her” and “no one takes her seriously.”

Mr Trump claimed to be experiencing unprecedented levels of support from blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and Muslims. 

But Mr Johnson said there were difficulties for Mr Trump as well, with voters who were undecided concerned that returning him to power would revisit the psychodrama of the first Trump Administration upon the United States and the “mental health burden” of waking up to his tweets. 

He said they were also concerned about the prospect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda being adopted, even though Mr Trump has tried to distance himself from the manifesto set out by the Republican think tank. 

Project 2025 is a controversial agenda that contains many ideas embraced by MAGA Republicans although not all. One of its more contentious ideas is to ban the abortion pill and enforce little-used laws to stop it being sent in the post. 

“We asked in a Pennsylvania poll what’s your biggest hesitation and the biggest answers from undecided voters was ‘plan and ‘2025,’ he said.

“There are lots of suburban women who are very concerned about abortion rights and will be voting on that basis. 

“It’s possible too that it’s going to have an impact in some of those ethnic groups, that there are some shy Harris voters out there. 

“With my interviews with Hispanic men in Arizona, somebody said to me: ‘All the Hispanic men might have their yard signs for Trump outside but in every single one of those houses, there’s a woman who’s voting for Harris because of concerns about abortion.

“It remains to be seen how big an effect that will have but there could be enough of those people switching from the Republicans or indeed from not voting to voting for Harris because of that,” he said. 

US elections are determined not by the popular vote but by the Electoral College meaning the result boils down to seven swing states with Pennsylvania being the most critical. 

Mr Johnson said the polling, which is neck and neck with a slight strength for Donald Trump, was mismatched with the research from focus groups and that it was the most difficult election race he’d ever tried to read. 

“By a country mile, to the point where a lot of pollsters aren’t actually trying,” he said. 

“The numbers are there but when you do these interviews with voters there are still serious hesitations about Trump and it just makes me wonder whether America is ready to vote him in again.

“Our model currently has this race as lean Trump,” he said. 

“But that still means that there’s a 40 per cent chance of Harris winning. 

“Anyone trying to call this is bullshitting you.”

This piece was first published in The Nightly by @latika Bourke of Latika Takes.

That means that, based on public polls of the race, we are saying that Donald Trump currently has a 62.4% chance of victory in the Electoral College, compared to a 37.5% chance for Kamala Harris. The graph below shows the current state of play.

The model, designed by data supremo and ex-physicist Callum Hunter - Senior Data Scientist at J.L. Partners - and hosted by the Daily Mail, uses public polls to extrapolate the most likely results in each state.

Generally, the polling has pushed things more in Trump's favour. Over the weekend, the NYT released polls for Arizona and Pennsylvania - the former had Trump on a 5-6 point lead and the latter had Harris on a 3-4 point lead. Redfield & Wilton also released a Pennsylvania poll with Trump on a 2 point lead. Our own PA poll found a dead-heat tie.

We are now saying:

• In Arizona, Trump's win probability has increased by a further 2.6 points keeping it firmly in the LIKELY TRUMP camp

• Georgia has seen a 1.6 point movement in Trump's favour, putting it on a 72.3% chance of a Trump victor. It remains a LIKELY TRUMP state

• Michigan has seen Trump's chances increase by 2.1 points to 52.9%, thus it remains a TOSSUP TRUMP state

• Nevada has shifted back towards Trump by 3.1 points and he is now predicted to win 60.5% of the time. The state has shifted from TOSSUP TRUMP to LEAN TRUMP.

• North Carolina has moved back to Trump by 2.1 points and he now has a 72.8% chance of winning the state. The state remains a LIKELY TRUMP state.

• Pennsylvania has seen a 2 point swing to Trump reaching a new high of 64%. The state remains a LEAN TRUMP state.

• Wisconsin has also moved to Trump by 3.3 points and he now stands to win the state 54.4% of the time. The state remains a TOSSUP TRUMP state.

It is important to remember that this model uses correlations as well as national vote shares to obtain each state's average. This means that every state poll affects every other state - so a single poll that is good for Harris is not necessarily going to push things in that state in her favor. The model looks at the WHOLE picture of the country, not single spot polls only.

All together, that means Harris is currently not favored in any of the main swing states, and our central estimate is a Trump Electoral College win by 312 to 226.

You may be looking at this and thinking that we look like an outlier. We are, compared to other models - but we are confident in our projections. There are four things we are utilizing that others are not:

1. We significantly upweight full-ballot polls and downweight just head-to-head ones. This is because the third party candidates - the most that are standing since 2016 - are important to the dynamic in each states and head-to-head polls simply negate their impact. They are generally working to the detriment of Harris.

2. We restrict online-only polls "effective" size in the overall model so we are less dependent on them. The reason being they are notoriously more inaccurate and their samples are more biased to the Democrats.

3. Our prior model does not give Harris an incumbency bonus. 

4. We use voter flows informed by our private polling to direct the full ballots to the main candidates which makes the outcomes more realistic than false head-to-heads.

Nonetheless, other models are now trending towards Trump, even if they are not as decisive as ours.

A 37.5% chance of victory for Harris is still significant. Polling error is of course possible. But this is now a race that is moving to Trump, quickly. The 2024 Election is now a Lean Trump race.

For more on the methodology on our model, please visit: https://jlpartners.com/presidential-race

Things that changed people’s minds this week

The ads are biting. That is what is clear in our weekly poll of voters in swing states, in which we ask whether they have changed their minds and why. There was open reference to commercials, but also responses that - based on what we know about what is on the air - are clearly informed by them.

Project 2025, which the Harris team have masterfully turned into a problem stalking Donald Trump, gets mentions, as does a fear that a Trump campaign would brutally curtail women’s rights. I met a voter in Phoenix yesterday who was totally convinced the “2025 plan” was a genuine policy platform of Trump’s campaign, despite Trump having tried to distance himself from it. Positive messaging from Harris is getting an airing too, with mentions that Harris plans to lower taxes.

But the Trump campaign is doing a good job of reminding voters of problems at the border and with inflation too. One 57-year-old woman from Michigan said she was changed her mind toward Trump because “our economy has gone down the drain”. A landscaper in North Carolina who didn’t vote in 2020 plans to vote Trump because of “our bad economy”. Never mind the positive economic news - more on this later - perceptions of the economy are still extremely poor and Trump’s ads are reminding them of the fact.

But also in the mix is something that we have heard again and again: people changing their minds because of resurfaced anxieties about Donald Trump’s temperament. Look at these quotes, just from the state of Michigan:

• "Donald Trump doesn't care about the people he's out for power and money" (Female, 33, 'I am a housekeeper', Michigan, Independent, Donald Trump 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Just out of control,  was better before list last election" (Male, 69, 'Retired', Michigan, Republican, Donald Trump 2020, Someone else now)

• "trumps ego and with money fed his head full of idiotic crap" (Female, 39, 'Real estate', Michigan, Democrat, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Because he only looks out for himself" (Female, 33, 'I am a housekeeper', Michigan, Independent, Donald Trump 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "He is for himself and the rich" (Male, 82, 'Retired', Michigan, Republican, Donald Trump 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "corruption and criminal charges" (Male, 48, 'Procurement', Michigan, Independent, Someone else 2020, Don't know now)

The more I read these every week I do start to wonder, do the American people really want to elect Donald Trump again?

Graph of the week

Obesity could be falling in the U.S. I’ve become faintly obsessed with this after visiting friends on a ranch in Georgia over the weekend. The ranchowner and his best friend’s wife have lost vast amounts of weight in the last year, due to Ozempic and other weight loss shots. They say they have never looked - or felt - better. A nation saddled by obesity might just have a doorway out. Is the march of Ozempic an example of technology saving an ailing empire? Is Ozempic our Lepanto?

Nevada facts of the week

Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal’s profile of where Nevada’s crucial six Electoral Votes could end up.

• The proportion of nonpartisan voters in the state registered to neither party has increased from 24% to 33%.

• The joblessness rate in NV is 5.5%, the highest of any state.

• The state also has the highest grocery costs of any state bar California.

• Only six states have a fewer proportion of voters who are college-educated and all those states are deep Republican states.

It’s a place that has stayed Democrat despite looking Republican because of its high Hispanic vote. I wrote in Conservative Home this week on why that might change.

Story of the week

Hurricane Milton is coming, but it is Hurricane Helene that is still making news. I am hearing more complaints about the Federal Government’s response in the interviews I conduct with voters. And for the first time, it is a news story that has dominated voters’ recall in our weekly poll for the second week in a row.

Economic news of the week

A jobs report that the WSJ calls “shockingly robust” is worth paying attention to. This month’s jobs report found the US added 254,000 jobs in September, way above expectations of a 150,000 increase by economists. Real incomes also continued to rise. There are some cracks - manufacturing jobs faltered.

I’m not convinced it matters too much though. As above, voters are still not feeling it, after having stomached years of inflation. Harris is not out of the woods on economic risk too either: a report last week found food inflation is on the rise globally, due to strains on sugar production in Brazil.

The next jobs report is out four days before the election, on November 1st.

Non-event of the campaign

The dockworkers strike was called off, with a mighty pay agreement reached. The agreement holds until at least Jan 15th. This one - which could have wreaked havoc on the US just in time for Thanksgiving purchases - can now be taken off of the radar.

Most important moment of the week

As tensions continue to rocket in the Middle East, the prospect of the oil price surging should not be ruled out - especially if Israel decides to strike back at Iran’s oil refineries. When Biden indicated this week the US could be comfortable with such a move, oil prices surged by 5.1%. One energy advisory firm said that there could be a 30 cent increase on the gallon to fuel prices if Israel were to hit Iran in such a fashion.

Watch this space: for all the macro statistics, higher prices at the gas station would really hurt the Harris campaign.

Look ahead

The campaigns rumble on across the swing states. But there is only one story in town this week: Hurricane Milton, which is about to hit Florida. Biden has canceled a Europe and Africa trip, and signs are that the Sunshine State could be in for a serious walloping. The political ramifications of that - in a context where voters are already sceptical of how the Biden administration responded to Helene - will really matter in the days ahead.

Things that changed people’s minds this week

Every week we ask a panel of likely voters in swing states what changed their mind. The vast majority are locked in to their vote, and it is turnout that will determine who wins. But there are still a small number in the middle - 10% or so - who are still fluctuating in their choice. Here’s what they said this week.

On the side of the ledger moving votes to Harris, people are still quoting Donald Trump’s debate performance and his general divisiveness. Harris’ ads are biting too: concerns about abortion, social security and Project 2025 featured too. Concerns about Trump’s conduct on January 6^th have not gone away either. Expect more negative headlines to be generated on that: Jack Smith’s indictment evidence packet was unsealed today. Among the points included are that when told Vice President Mike Pence had to be rushed to safety, Trump replied “so what?”.

Republicans around the country will be praying Trump takes on the advice of this Independent voter who filled out our survey:

• "He just needs to act more professional,  stay off Twitter,  don't cut other people down in public" (Female, 58, 'Real estate', Wisconsin, Independent, Donald Trump 2020, Donald Trump now)

But the biggest thing changing minds this week has been in the direction of Donald Trump; namely concerns that Harris does not answer questions and therefore has a lack of policy positions. When Harris first announced her candidacy, she was able to ride off positive vibes. Voters gave her the benefit of the doubt: give her time, and she would reveal her positions. Now, two months in, voters want the detail – and they are finding it lacking.

The irony is that Harris does have plenty of detailed plans, especially on the economy. She was also out with a new border policy this week, tightening up the criteria for border restrictions under which restrictions be lifted. But because of the way she handles interviews, and a lack of scrutiny overall, voters do not feel that way. In her MSNBC interview last week she dodged questions on tariffs and the State and Local Tax Deduction. Separately, in a week when five people were executed by capital punishment states, she dodged whether she backed the death penalty. I don’t think Harris can sustain this over the next few weeks, and she will need to change tack.

Here are some quotes.

• "I haven't made a decision.  Am concerned about Harris not being able to articulate any policy" (Female, 70, 'Tax preparer', Wisconsin, Independent, Joe Biden 2020, Dont know now)

• “He can handle himself in difficult situations where Harris waits for someone to tell her how to answer." (Female, 63, 'Office Manager', Pennsylvania, Democrat, Donald Trump 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "Her rhetoric is good but short on specific" (Male, 62, 'Retired', Georgia, Independent, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "not willing to state policies, do interviews and changing what she says she believes" (Female, 70, 'Tax preparer', Wisconsin, Independent, Joe Biden 2020, Dont know now)

Theme of the week

Chaos. That’s the line Republicans are going for anyway, trying to paint “the Harris administration” (Vance used this line multiple times at the debate) as being in disarray on three key issues: the dockworkers strike that is now underway, the fallout from Hurricane Helene, and Iran’s strikes on Israel.

We will see if this attack lands, but it certainly is not a feel-good week for the Federal Government. It is foreign policy that is biting the most: in every one of my swing voter interviews in Nevada this week, concerns about Biden/Harris presiding over “World War Three” dominated. For all the faults they see in him, swing voters view Trump as stronger on foreign policy and the refrain that no wars happened on his watch continues to feature. With October 7 looming, the issue is not going away, and could also fracture the younger coalition Harris has rebuilt who had abandoned Biden over Gaza.

Map of the week

On the topic of the hurricane, this map shows the counties – and the swathes of rural areas that lean Republican – that were in the hurricane’s path. The worst affected area was in North Carolina. In those areas, 92% of the counties were won by the Republicans versus 8% by the Democrats, and Republicans have a 34-point margin over Democrats in total votes.

Overstated moment of the week

The vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz. It was a good night for Trump’s running mate: our J.L. Partners post-debate poll with the Daily Mail found Vance leading by 50% to 43%. But in the same survey, we also found that the event did not budge voting intention.

Favorability of both candidates went up, and I would expect a boost to Vance’s personal ratings, but I don’t see this having a wider impact. Not even an undecided Pennsylvanian I know, who was waiting for the debate to make up her mind, was swayed.

Statistic of the week

Investors expect an average 7.9% return on their investments over the next ten years. That’s the highest ever.

Pennsylvanian facts of the week

Some Pennsylvania facts for you courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

• One-fifth of the state’s population are in the Democratic strongholds of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

• Party registration is at 44% for Republicans and 42% for Democrats, suggest the state has turned more red since 2020. In 2011 it was 38%-48%.

• Just over 23% of the state’s population is in rural areas. That is higher than any state with as many Electoral Votes as PA has.

Insane idea of the week

Joe Biden is still talking about a potential October ‘farewell tour’ to tout his achievements. Karl Rove points about the absurdity of the idea here, which would involve pro-administration messaging that Harris is trying to distance herself from, and be tin-eared to voters feeling economic pain. It won’t really happen… right?

Look ahead

The anniversary of October 7th will dominate the news this coming weekend, and expect both candidates to attend commemorative events. The dockworkers’ strike won’t start to have an impact yet but let’s see if negotiations succeed in calling it off. Our candidates will be campaigning in the swing states, including Georgia. I’ll be going there myself. To attend a Charli XCX concert.

Vote-changers of the week

The pets are eating Trump’s vote. The ongoing Haitian pet story, brought up by Trump nearly two weeks ago in the presidential debate, is still hurting his chances. That’s according to our weekly poll that asks people in swing states what has changed voters’ minds.

Take some of these quotes when people were asked what made them more negative about Trump in the past week:

• "He's talking about people eating cats and dogs" (Female, 41, 'Receptionist', Arizona, Independent, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Because he is talking crazy now with his accusations" (Female, 40, 'Ticket taker Usher', Pennsylvania, Democrat, Donald Trump 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Every time he talks he seems crazy and unhinged" (Female, 34, 'Homemaker', Georgia, Independent, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Because he just sounds like a lunatic" (Male, 54, 'Unemployed', Michigan, Independent, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

Harris, meanwhile, continues to have more people saying they feel more positive about her than negative. Persistent concerns about Project 2025 and her attack ads are doing a lot of work, but people also spoke of her appearing “strong” and “positive”.

I wonder, though, if Harris’ lack of clear answers - and a reputation for changing her mind - is now causing her problems. Take these quotes:

• "Harris changes values on too many things without explanation" (Female, 61, 'Vice president', Nevada, Independent, Joe Biden 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "The lack of details provided in plans by Harris." (Male, 74, 'Retired', North Carolina, Independent, Joe Biden 2020, Dont know now)

• "Harris has not articulated how she plans to help the nation on the border, economically and abroad" (Male, 54, 'Software development', Georgia, Republican, Did not vote 2020, Donald Trump now)

After interviews with Harris this week, “I was a middle class kid” started trending on social media. She has used the line when asked about specifics on her plans and it is now getting pretty heavily mocked.

Economic moment of the week

Not mentioned by the voters unprompted, but the Federal Reserve cut the interest rate by 50 points on Wednesday afternoon. After a day of uncertainty, stocks boomed - and maintained their growth on Friday.

The effects will not be instant, but the timing is good for Harris. In six weeks from now, voters might feel marginally better off. They are unlikely to change their views on the economy - which they think was better under Trump - but a feel-good factor, even if marginal, has never hurt a candidate.

We asked voters in swing states to sum up their reaction to the cut, and it is safe to say they are very content - and nor are Trump’s complaints cutting through.

Non-endorsement of the week

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters decided not to endorse a candidate for the first time since 1996. An internal poll released by the union found 59.6% of its members want Trump to be the next president, compared to just 34% for Harris.

Not to state the blindingly obvious, but this is a win for Trump — and shows he remains appealing to blue-collar workers, of particular use in the heavily unionized Rust Belt.

Story of the week

This week we asked voters what the biggest story is they heard this week. It might seem like an epoch ago now, but the answer was clear: the second botched assassination attempt on Trump at his Palm Beach golf course last Sunday.

What is striking though, is just how little political oxygen the attempt has received since. It’s partly because it was not on camera, but there is also a sense the country is becoming inured to the violence that stalks the former president.

Also striking: how many people said they noticed “nothing” in the last week. It might feel like a fast-moving election season, but not that many things are making a difference on the regular.

Policy of the week

Trump stated he would reverse his 2017 decision, as part of his tax cuts package, to cap the State and Local Tax deduction (SALT). The measure is deeply unpopular with affluent voters in parts of New York and California. I spent the weekend on Long Island and it is fair to say it is a galvanizing issue, and Trump’s position has cut through.

That might not mean a lot for the Electoral College in these safe Blue states, but it could shore up Republicans in the House in those critical seats in NY and CA they gained in 2022.

Bunkum comparison of the week

Early voting opened in Virginia, South Dakota and Minnesota this weekend. Do not listen to some of the takes comparing 2024 early voting statistics to 2020 ones - usually to suggest one side is outperforming its vote totals from the previous election. The comparison is moot: early voting in 2020 was a damp squib because so many decided to vote by mail instead due to the pandemic.

Statistic of the week

There have been 180,000 migrant encounters in the year to date on the northern border. Yes, that’s right, the border with Canada. The numbers are up from just 27,000 in 2021 and already exceeding 2023 numbers. Could the issue become a political one? This WSJ op-ed, where I found the numbers, seems to think so.

Looking ahead: three things to watch

1. What happens in Nebraska. Lawmakers are pushing again to change Nebraska’s Electoral College Vote allocation, so it becomes a winner-takes-all state rather than awarded proportionally. That currently gives Democrats a chance at an extra Vote: this would take that away, in a significant boost to Donald Trump. Let’s see if it happens. The Governor has said he will call a special session if there are the 33 votes needed to pass it on the record. So far that doesn’t look like the case but the pressure from Team Trump is growing. We should know this week.

2. Last call for the dockworkers. Avid readers of the blog will know I’ve taken this up as a small obsession, but this week is the last week to avert a major dockworkers strike which could significantly hinder the economy if it goes forward. Biden hinted this week he would not force workers back to the docks if they go ahead. That feel-good factor I spoke about earlier could feel wiped out if packages start to not arrive on time.

3. September 30 deadline looms. A deal to fund the federal government is needed this week - and we are probably looking at yet another bipartisan deal to kick the can down the road in this divided Congress. Chances of a shutdown - which never looked likely - are now very slim as the GOP leadership moves beyond a Trump-championed law against non-citizens being able to vote. Instead it looks like we will see a resolution to fund the Government until December.

Moment of the week

Last week I asked which Trump will we get at the debate. Donald Trump answered clearly, with a roaming, shouty and riled performance which showed voters his worst side. Harris, though still lacking in detail, proved herself a competent and skilful debater.

One week on, that debate is now having an impact on the polls.

Our latest J.L. Partners / DailyMail.com tracker has Kamala Harris moving to a 1-point lead over Donald Trump, the first time Trump has been behind since we began tracking the election a year. Other polls are trending to Harris, and Nate Silver’s election model has the race moving back to 50-50.

The driving force is a decline for Trump amongst Hispanic voters, Independents (where Harris also leads for the first time), and 50-65 year olds. Those are key voting blocs you do not want to lose.

Our weekly voter panel, tracking what changed people’s minds, gives some insights as to why:

• "Trump is a baby", said a 45-year-old woman who backed Trump in 2020 but is now voting Harris

• "I have a mind change about Donald Trump because he doesn't take America serious", said a 39-year-old Independent man who went Trump in 2020 but is now voting Harris

• "Same old Trump who does not change to adapt", says another defector from Trump to Harris

• "The debate sealed up my vote, Trump lost his cool and was very easily baited into a tizzy.", said a 67-year-old woman from North Carolina who is now sure to vote Harris

• "Watching the debate, opened my eyes to a lot of issues. Karmela sounds like she is more for the people”, said a 61-year-old woman who now does not know how she would vote after previously backing Trump

There were other reasons people changed their mind: some went to Trump over Harris’ record on the border, some because of the state of the economy and inflation, some because they felt she is a radical or a liar. A handful liked Trump’s debate performance. But the big mover was clearly the debate and Trump’s conduct throughout.

Yet again there were also multiple mentions of Project 2025 (“The 2025 act - I’m gay so any act against being gay isn’t ok”) and abortion rights, suggesting the Harris ad campaign is having an impact too.

I’m not saying the race is transformed. The margins are small: this is still a race on a knife-edge. A Harris 1-point lead would mean a Trump Electoral College win. And there are still 49 days to go. But right now the momentum is with Harris.

Statistic of the week

67 million people watched the ABC debate. Yes, these things matter.

Economic news of the week

Real incomes rose for the first time since the pandemic, a 4% rise since 2022. That only puts real incomes back to 2019 levels, so there is not too much to get excited about, but the news will come as welcome to the Harris campaign who are angling for a ‘feel-good’ factor on the economy as the election nears.

Inflation also checked in at its lowest in three years at 2.5%. There will be more good news to come from the Federal Reserve this week - more on that later.

Quote of the week

There is only one contender - so much so that every swing voter I have spoken to in the last week mentioned it.

In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.

Endorsement of the week

Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Does it matter? Perhaps not now (it was barely mentioned in our polling on why people had changed their mind in the last week), but if Swift is vocal in the run-up to Election Day then it could certainly help her young fanbase get to the polls.

Photo of the week

Retreat of the week

The Biden administration delayed their decision on Nippon Steel’s takeover of US Steel. There were murmurs last week Biden could block it, but US Steel’s threats of closing plants in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania may have persuaded Biden to hold off until after the election. That removes what could have been a potential flashpoint issue.

There is still one uncomfortable industry development set to take place though: the dockworkers strike. It is still scheduled for October 1st and could unleash havoc.

Anything else?

The small matter of a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump’s life at his Palm Beach golf course on Sunday. It was another of those heart-stopping moments in this campaign when the news first filtered through via unclear push notifications and texts from friends - what had happened? Was he alive? He was thankfully safe and the suspect has been apprehended.

Without having footage on camera like we did in Butler, I think the political effect of this is already fading. What is more alarming is the creeping sense that this might become the norm.

Looking ahead

The big one this week is the Federal Reserve’s decision on interest rates. A cut is happening, though the size of it is up for debate. Watch Trump’s response, which will no doubt be furious - he thinks a cut will give Harris some economic headwind going into the election (he might be right).

There is another development this week too: Speaker Mike Johnson bringing a vote on a funding plan ahead of the September 30 shutdown deadline. It is early days in the process, as his plan is likely to be defeated tomorrow. That is partly because of the SAVE Act that he has attached to the bill to stop non-citizens from voting, partly because conservatives do not want an extension all the way to March (they want to cut spending sooner than that).

After this opening gambit, we will need to see where Johnson ends up. I suspect House Republicans are not going to be able to stomach a pre-election shutdown, and an eventual compromise with Democrats will go through before September 30.

Debate week

There is only one story in town in the coming week: the first and possibly only presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Don’t believe anyone trying to talk it down. The event is hugely important, and will shift votes. Tens of million will watch. It is striking in my interviews with undecided voters: they know the date of the debate and are intending to watch. The NY Times/Siena poll that dominated headlines today (it showed a 2-point lead for Trump) also found a surprising amount of elasticity in voter attitudes towards the two main candidates.

The significance should be clear enough from the last debate in June which felled Biden’s candidacy, but the first debate in 2020 was key too, reminding voters’ of the worst parts of Trump’s nature.

Trump faces the same problem on Tuesday night in Philadelphia. If he stays structured and on message, feisty but polite, then he wins by default. If he snaps, heckles or demeans Harris, then he will turn voters off. He is helped by the microphone muting rule that will be in place.

This fact comes through in J.L. Partners’ weekly data on what changed voters’ minds in the last week. Of people who take a more positive view of Trump, the most reason given is that they feel he has mellowed and they like it. Three quotes:

• "He has cut out some of his offensive tone" (Female, 68, 'Nursing professor', Pennsylvania, Republican, Donald Trump 2020)

• "Trump isn't really all out at this turn in the election." (Male, 43, 'Skilled laborer', Nevada, Independent, Did not vote 2020)

• "He seems to be becoming a kinder person who owns his mistakes" (Female, 30, 'Freelance Writer', Pennsylvania, Independent, Joe Biden 2020)

If Trump keeps the act up, he will do well out of Tuesday even if snap polls after show it to be a draw.

Other things clear from the data are that Harris is still benefiting from a positive reception and a sense she is “for the people”. Voters do not think she is extreme, but do worry about her flip-flopping and lack of media appearances. Harris will need to differentiate herself clearly in the debate and get people believing she has the spine to lead and beliefs she will follow.

Here is the full breakdown of the data: interestingly, not one person mentioned the endorsement of Kamala Harris by Liz and Dick Cheney as a reason for changing their minds.

Graph of the week

This graph from the WSJ on net immigration over the last 25 years. Nine million people came to the country since 2020, larger than the total amount in the decade prior. Only 30% of those people were authorised immigrants. Could this be a chart we all pay a lot more attention to after November 5th?

Developments of the week

A lot happened this week. A brief précis:

• Financial stocks fell sharply, and Nvidia lost the most value in a week of any company ever. The slide was prompted by poor factory data first and then a mixed bag of uncertain jobs data on Friday. It still remains to be seen if we will get a 0.25 or a 0.5 per cent cut in interest rates on September 18th, though analysts see the former as more likely.

• Putin *said* he backed Kamala Harris, while the Justice Department said Russia was trying to elect Trump (they also said Iran wants Harris)

• The sentencing of Donald Trump for his hush money crime was delayed to late November. That is a major win for the former president and takes a big uncertain event out of the calendar

• But the timeline for the federal election interference case was outlined: though there will not be a trial before the election, there will be publication of information underpinning the prosecution’s case. The deadline is September 26th.

• One legal development that doesn't matter so much anymore: Hunter Biden pled guilty on tax charges and now moves to sentencing.

Policies of the week

Who said this race was light on policy?

Harris moderated further, revising her capital gains tax rise to 33% rather than Biden’s 44.6% plan. She also reversed course on a previous pledge to ban plastic straws.

Trump meanwhile unveiled a set of policies at the Economic Club of New York. He said he would appoint Elon Musk to an efficiency commission, set a 15% corporate tax rate for companies that produce only in America, introduce a sovereign wealth fund, would rescind unspent funds under the Inflation Reduction Act, and ban mortgages for illegal immigrants.

None of these shift the dial in their own right, but there is no doubt there are two clear visions on offer at this election.

Piece of the week

A masterclass on the debate from WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan: Trump and Harris Get Set to Debate.

More and more I am getting the impression this will be a path election, not a person election.

Once you chose John F. Kennedy—young, bright, vigorous—and he led you down a path. You chose Ronald Reagan, and he led you down a path. You picked the person and that person said, “This way” and cut the path through the forest.

I’m feeling that a lot of people this year will be choosing the path, not the person. They’ll put up with the person, but it’s the path they want. And I’m not sure people want to go down the Blue Path any deeper than they already have.

Website of the week

VoteHub is an unrivalled map of the entire country, shaded by the results in the 2020 and 2016 elections with breakdowns for every precinct. It’s an incredible resource.

Statistic of the week (1)

1 in 8 Americans have worked at McDonald’s. It’s true, and they even have an alumni page.

Statistic of the week (2)

Kamala Harris had $404m in the bank at the end of August compared to $295m for Donald Trump. Trump might have the momentum this week, but Harris still has the money advantage - by quite some margin.

In case you missed it

We released our presidential forecast model this week with the Daily Mail. It is currently showing a 50.5% chance of a Trump win, with the central outcome being a Trump victory of 287-251 in the Electoral College by his carrying of Nevada and Pennsylvania. The model will be updated regularly, and the first place it will be is here.

Looking ahead

Last week I told you all that voting would start in the election this week. That was true, until North Carolina’s mail-in ballots were cancelled due to a successful challenge by RFK Jr to take himself off. It looks like they won’t now land until the week after next. So hold off on the election for a bit.

Two other things to watch. It doesn’t get much coverage, but talks on a major dockworkers strike are ongoing. If it goes ahead on October 1st, then we could be in for huge economic disruption, affecting shipping and all sorts, a month before the election.

And a decision on Nippon Steel’s proposed takeover of US Steel is imminent. Biden hinted heavily this week he would block it. It will capture the news if he does, and though both Trump and Harris oppose the deal, it could unleash chaos: US Steel has threatened to close sites and its Pittsburgh HQ in Pennsylvania if the deal doesn’t go ahead. With Pittsburgh being in the heart of the most important swing state in the country, the discourse around that could well impact the election.

See you next week: I’m off to Georgia to talk to swing voters in the aftermath of the debate, and we will have a debate snap poll running this week too with the Daily Mail.

Unlike 2020, an election in which few third party candidates stood, numerous are standing this time. And unlike both 2016 and 2020, their placement on various state ballots is scattered. The main players are:

• Jill Stein: some places standing as a Green, in other states as an independent, the left-leaning candidate stood in 2016 and was seen to be instrumental in costing Hillary Clinton a number of states

• Cornel West: a self-declared socialist, Cornel West is a left-wing activist, theologian and public intellectual

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr: initially a Democrat, then an independent candidate, he has now endorsed Trump. But because of his late exit from the race, he is still set to appear on numerous ballots, and the Kennedy name itself will still have something of a draw

• Chase Oliver: the official candidate of the Libertarian Party

Despite none of them being expected to bring in any more than 1-3% of the vote, where they stand matters because each third party candidate takes support from one of Trump or Harris.

Before getting into the ramifications, where are they currently set to stand?

Wisconsin:

• ON: RFK Jr, Stein, West, Oliver

Georgia:

• ON: Stein, West, Oliver

• OFF: RFK Jr

North Carolina:

• ON: Stein, West, Oliver

• OFF: RFK Jr

Nevada:

• ON: Oliver

• OFF: Stein, West, RFK Jr

Michigan:

• ON: West, Stein, Oliver, RFK Jr

Pennsylvania:

• ON: Stein, Oliver

• OFF: RFK Jr, West

Arizona:

• ON: Stein, Oliver

• OFF: RFK Jr, West

It is worth saying some of these are still up in the air (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin in particular) due to legal challenges. This page will be edited to keep up to date with any changes.

EDIT 09/09: RFK Jr is back ON the Michigan ballot (updated above)

So what does this mean? By asking in our polling how people would vote in a head-to-head against Harris and Trump, after asking the full ballot, we have worked out who takes votes from who.

That analysis by J.L. Partners has found that West, Oliver, and Stein all take more votes from Harris than they do from Trump. RFK Jr is the only candidate who takes away more from the former president. Here are the charts.

What, then, are the net effects in each of the swing states?

• Wisconsin: Slightly worse for Harris

• Georgia: Significantly worse for Harris

• North Carolina: Significantly worse for Harris

• Nevada: No impact in either direction

• Michigan: Slightly worse for Harris

• Pennsylvania: Slightly worse for Harris

• Arizona: Slightly worse for Harris

In no swing state does the line-up on the ballot hurt Trump more than it hurts Harris.

These numbers are why our model, released in the The Daily Mail this week, favors Trump: it accounts for these voter flows and who is on each ballot in each state.

It is Trump who benefits from third party candidates in 2024, not his Democratic opponent.

Poll of the week

In the maelstrom of the news cycle, it can be hard to work out what is actually shifting minds week to week. From now until the election, we will be asking voters direct to tell us what has changed their minds.

Here’s how it looks for the last week.

Trump got the most positive momentum due to RFK Jr’s endorsement the week before, continued concerns about migration, and his new IVF policy. There is also a growing perception that Harris is not visible enough on the campaign trail; that view has now gone beyond just the media and into the wider electorate.

On the Harris side of the ledger, running mate pick Tim Walz pushed some people to her, as well as concerns about Project 2025 (Trump has distanced himself from it, but voters still bring it up all the time). Doing the bulk of the work, though, is frustration with negative tactics and attacks from Donald Trump, including continued fallout from his comments doubting Harris’ racial identity in front of the National Association of Black Journalists a few weeks ago.

The answers give a flavor of what is driving people where. It differs from what simply creates a negative view of a candidate. Elsewhere in the poll, for example, we saw voters express their anger about the Trump campaign’s altercation at Arlington Cemetery. But not one person said it changed how they would vote come November.

The most important development this week

Donald Trump appears to have won the battle of the mics, resisting the Harris campaign’s attempts to turn them on when the other isn’t speaking at the debate on September 10th. That’s a huge win for Trump: having the microphones on all the time would have meant Trump would be unrestrained, reminding voters of the aspects about him they dislike the most. I wrote about that before the June debate, when the Biden team asked for the mics-off rule in the first place.

On top of asking for the debate that ended their boss’ career, this ask was an incredible act of stupidity from the Biden team. Harris will be competitive in the debate, but she is disadvantaged by that legacy error.

Story of the week

Both candidates tried to moderate this week. Trump suggested on TruthSocial he would back a Florida ballot measure pushing for the legalization of cannabis in the state. He also announced that the government or insurance companies would have to fund IVF. One announcement went too far: on Thursday he suggested his support for a Florida amendment protecting the right to abortion, but on Friday he reversed it under pressure.

At her televised CNN interview on Thursday Harris tacked right. She stuck by her reversal on fracking, now opposing a ban. And she said she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet. She also refused to be drawn on Trump’s comments about her race. She did well in the interview considering she made it through with no errors. But how long can she survive the low level of scrutiny she is inviting? I suspect not for much longer: as above, it is already cutting through with voters.

Statistic of the week

Only 1 in 10 think the presidential candidate they are backing will lose in their home state. Considering that 43 of the 50 states are assumed to go firmly in one direction, that is quite something.

I think it comes from an awareness problem (many voters think the election is one national vote rather than through an Electoral College) and an enthusiasm issue (loyal backers of their party really want them to win).

Underplayed story of the week

Who will appear on each ballot was almost finalised this week. Green Party candidate (and in some states Independent) Jill Stein got onto Georgia and the Wisconsin ballots, Independent Cornel West made it onto Michigan and Georgia, and RFK Jr found himself still on the Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin ballots despite his withdrawal from the race. The balance of who will be on which ballot will make a lot of difference come November, as West and Stein take votes from Harris more than they do Trump. I’ll have a full piece on what each swing state’s ballot means up soon.

Overplayed story of the week

Donald Trump was re-indicted in the federal election interference case this week, re-issued after the Supreme Court ruling last month which stipulated that Trump was immune for duties undertaken in his office of President. The re-indictment is bullish and Special Counsel Jack Smith clearly thinks he still has a case. But it doesn’t sound strong: the Enron ruling which annulled multiple convictions for Jan 6 rioters still looms over the case, and the indictment still includes pressuring Mike Pence which the Court said Trump had “presumptive immunity” on. Whatever happens, it won’t go to trial this side of the election.

Piece of the week

Ryan Girdusky has written a brilliant piece on The American Conservative on how many polls are sampling the wrong kinds of over-65s, resulting in better results for Kamala Harris.

In his words: “Older white liberals’ response bias created the illusion that there was a silent Trump voter in the last two presidential elections, and they’re doing it again.”

Fact of the week

In between travelling the swing states (and finally watching Game of Thrones) I’ve been working my way through Ken Burns’ documentary on the Roosevelts. This is a fact I did not know: in 1919, Theodore Roosevelt (president 1901-1909) was the hot favorite for the Republican presidential nominee in 1920. It would have been the most incredible comeback. Unfortunately, he died that year. If he had survived, only 8 years would have separated his presidency and that of his cousin’s, Franklin.

Looking ahead

The race is entering its final two months: now things really heat up. It is a frenetic week of campaigning for our two main candidates.

And voting actually starts this week. On Friday, the first mail-in ballots start getting sent out in North Carolina. That’s right: the election is underway.

Here’s the ballots timeline after that, courtesy of @umichvoter on X.

On Thursday Trump suggested he would vote for the abortion amendment on the ballot in his home state of Florida. The measure, one of ten across the country, would seek to enshrine a protection against abortion in the state constitution. In Florida that means annulling the six-week abortion ban signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis last year.

Trump told NBC News: “I think the six weeks is too short. It has to be more time. I told them that I want more weeks… I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks”.

On Friday, after an outpouring of criticism from conservative and pro-life voices, Trump said he would be voting against the amendment.

New data, exclusive to The Next America, reveals why.

On Friday morning, a point in time between Trump’s two positions, J.L. Partners asked a representative likely voters panel how they felt about Trump’s initial comments on Thursday. Here’s how the responses break out:

Though it did elicit positive responses from one in five Independents and one in ten Democrats, that is outweighed by the 28% of Republicans who viewed the issue negatively. Because of the smaller population size of Independents, that means more damage was done by taking the position.

Clearly Democrats, 83% of whom took a negative view, are going to be hard for Trump to prise away. Many of these, and the 63% of Independents who had a negative sentiment, think there should be no involvement from the state in women’s decisions on abortion, or simply don’t trust Trump on abortion after his Supreme Court appointments. In short: they’re not winnable.

And, on a separate question about what has changed people’s minds in the last few weeks, abortion was cited only as a reason not to vote against Trump, rather than as a reason to come towards him.

Here is a sample of some of those negative comments from Republicans:

• "He doesn't get a vote in Florida's lawmaking. He has never been in favor of top-down abortion bans, and it's one of the things I disagree with him on." (Female, 30, 'Homemaker', Louisiana, Republican, Donald Trump 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "They need to vote against all abortions" (Female, 33, 'Student', Indiana, Republican, Did not vote 2020, Someone else now)

• "I am against abortion." (Female, 62, 'Retired', South Carolina, Republican, Donald Trump 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "He shouldn't vote against it, it's more than enough time" (Male, 21, 'I am in school currently.', Oregon, Republican, Donald Trump 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "He should ban it completely" (Female, 36, 'Disability', Alabama, Unsure, Did not vote 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "As a real Catholic, unlike some politicians, I support right to life." (Male, 75, 'Retired', Alabama, Independent, Donald Trump 2020, Donald Trump now)

And here is a sample of a mix of the comments from Independents and Democrats:

• "Nothing, he got rid Roe" (Male, 41, 'Retired Electrician', California, Democrat, Joe Biden 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "I think that's actually good because most people don't know they're pregnant at six weeks." (Female, 38, 'Physician assistant', Minnesota, Democrat, Joe Biden 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "I dont agree with any abortion ban what so ever" (Female, 34, 'Freelancer gig', Oregon, Independent, Did not vote 2020, Donald Trump now)

• "He knows nothing about women's rights and how to protect them." (Female, 31, 'Security guard', Virginia, Independent, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Looks like he is flip flopping to pander for more votes" (Male, 34, 'Human Resources', Nebraska, Independent, Donald Trump 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "Trump is pandering, he said he was glad that the Supreme Court overturned Roe VS. Wade and now he is trying to back pedal" (Female, 60, 'Caregiver', Michigan, Independent, Joe Biden 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "I don't think abortion is right, but I also don't like the government telling people what they can and cannot do." (Male, 28, 'Accountant', Ohio, Independent, Donald Trump 2020, Dont know now)

• "Pandering to crowd" (Female, 46, 'Cashier', Florida, Democrat, Did not vote 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "I think he has no business putting rights on a woman's body" (Female, 40, 'Manufacturing operator', New York, Democrat, Joe Biden 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "He's grasping at straws. He's a rapist and pedophile who has forced many women to get abortions" (Female, 61, 'Business services', Ohio, Democrat, Joe Biden 2020, Kamala Harris now)

• "He's doing it to try to appease voters. I don't believe him" (Female, 34, 'Research administration', New York, Democrat, Joe Biden 2020, Kamala Harris now)

The political calculation is not straightforward. Trump does face a challenge on abortion, with many voters ranking it highly as an issue at the forthcoming election. There is an argument that Trump should have stuck by his guns on Thursday, that he can anger his base as they have nowhere else to go. There is no other prominent pro-life candidate on the ballot.

But people can decide not to vote at all. This is a serious situation for many, and a matter of religious conscience. It’s not as easy for them as just voting for Trump regardless of his position. An example is Air Force veteran, Francis. I met him in Erie County, Pennsylvania, in a basement apartment bare of decoration bar the Cross. Despite disliking Trump’s personality, he was leaning Trump purely because of what he felt was his pro-life position on abortion. He was the kind of voter who would not have voted at all if he felt Trump was not protecting life. In a razor-edge state like PA, that matters.

Trump does need to moderate on abortion, and his policy to release more funding for IVF announced Thursday or his commitment to not bring in a federal abortion ban are good examples of this. But suggesting he would vote for the Florida amendment was a step too far, and Trump was probably set to lose more votes than gain them from the comments.

The whole saga shows how tricky the issue is for Trump. If under fire on it by Harris in the debate on September 10th, he could buckle.

The debate aside, perhaps the best course on abortion for Trump is to not say anything at all. One thing is clear: the more Trump talks about the issue in this contest, the worse it is for him.

Moment of the week

Kamala Harris gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The speech was light on detail and lacking in empathy. Instead it looks like the Harris team made the judgement that communicating strength was most important.

They were right to do so: whether a candidate is strong is the biggest driver of people’s decision-making in this election, second only to how they voted in the past. The most fiery part of the speech on foreign policy made Harris look confident, strident, and assured. For the first time, she looked like she could take the fight to a Putin or a Xi. Here’s the relevant segment courtesy of DW: if the Harris team have any sense, they will clip it into their TV ads.

Her ‘forward not back’ messaging also worked, in an attempt to frame herself as the change candidate and Trump as the candidate for continuity.

That moment was then followed by another - Robert F. Kennedy Jr dropping out of the race, leaving the ballot in ten key swing states, and endorsing Donald Trump. I wrote yesterday on why that could end up being more significant than anything at the DNC.

Two moments that didn’t happen

1. The Israel-Gaza protests that threatened to overshadow the Democrats’ convention ended not with a bang but a whimper. It already looked like Harris has taken the steam out of the Gaza issue, and recovered critical ground with younger voters, especially younger women. That balance could have been threatened this week but it did not.

2. With jokes about Trump’s penis size from Barack Obama, the latter’s wife calling Trump a “racist”, and a cacophony of insults from the DNC directed at the former president, something odd happened: Trump did not rise to the bait and instead decried the Democrats for being personal. Though he told a rally he will carry on with personal attacks himself, his response this week has been muted (“Adversarial relationships are not good in politics!”). It is the right choice for a public wary of the division and drama he might bring back with him. But can he really keep up the restraint all the way to the first debate on September 10th?

Poll of the week

Obama might have gone for the jugular, but he still has an appeal to voters. An old poll resurfacing, but instructive nonetheless: in June 2023, Gallup found that Barack Obama had the highest retrospective job approval of any living president (63%), with only George H.W. Bush (66%), Ronald Reagan (69%) and John F. Kennedy (90%) performing better. Trump is down on 46%, with Nixon bringing up the rear on 32%.

Eyebrow-raiser of the week

This story in The Atlantic quoting Dr Don Levy of Siena College (the New York Times’ pollster) is notable:

Levy told me that, in 2020, the people working the phones for Siena frequently reported incidents of being yelled at by mistrustful Trump supporters. “In plain English, it was not uncommon for someone to say, ‘I’m voting for Trump—fuck you,’” and then hang up before completing the rest of the survey, he said. (So much for the “shy Trump voter” hypothesis.) In 2020, those responses weren’t counted. This time around, they are. Levy told me that including these “partials” in 2020 would have erased nearly half of Siena’s error rate.

Graphic of the week

This comparison of the presidential campaigns’ ad spending in the swing states by the Wall Street Journal. Trump and Harris are effectively tied in spend in the crucial state of Pennsylvania; Trump is spending more in Georgia and Arizona, while Harris has the spending edge in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Statistic of the week (1)

Data from the Federal Reserve has found that people between the age of 45 and 54 today have 7% less wealth than baby boomers did at the same point in their lives. It is also the only age group that has experienced a drop in median wealth between 2007 and 2022.

Statistic of the week (2)

Harris got more donations in the 10 days after she entered the race than Biden did in the last 15 months.

Pivot of the week

The Trump Vance campaign has had two interventions this week in an attempt to soften their position on abortion. First, Trump posted on Truth Social that his administration would be “great for women and their reproductive rights”. Second, today Vance said Trump would not bring forward a federal abortion ban and (this is the new bit) he would veto one if it were passed by Congress.

With abortion on the ballot in many states, the campaign is trying to disassociate itself from the most conservative voices of the pro-life movement: my sense is that’s going to be a hard ask, and it’s best for the Trump campaign to just keep quiet about the issue and hope voters are thinking about something else come the day. That’s not to say talking about it does damage to Trump: some pro-lifers are angry, but with Trump’s record on Supreme Court appointments, it is hard to see those activists voting for anyone else.

Look ahead

The upcoming week runs into the Labor Day weekend - and it’s a week in which many in politics try and take a break before the madness of the final sprint. Not for our candidates though: Kamala Harris will be doing a run through Georgia, and Trump will be running numerous events in swing states throughout the week. They have no time to lose: in just under two weeks (Friday September 6th) the first ballots in North Carolina get sent out to voters.

Terry was clear: “If Harris becomes president I would more than likely move out of the US”. For her, Kamala Harris is a “serial politician” and “ditsy”. She is a “double thumbs up” for Donald Trump and will now be voting for him.

Shannon was equally direct, in the other direction. “I hate Trump”. She is “certain” to vote for Kamala Harris to beat Donald Trump.

But despite the polarization of my RFK Jr penpals, the polling numbers tell a different story. They tell us that RFK Jr dropping out is going to be a huge boon for the Trump campaign.

Take this chart, from our most recent J.L. Partners/Daily Mail polling. It shows where RFK Jr voters tell us they would lean if he is not in the ballot in their state.

By a margin of two to one, RFK Jr voters back Donald Trump (51%) over Kamala Harris (26%). One in four don’t know (realistically a large portion of these won’t vote). That is half of the 5% of likely voters who backed RFK Jr saying they lean Trump.

That kind of margin - even if it only partly comes to pass - is a big win for Trump, especially in tight states like Pennsylvania and Georgia where every vote makes a difference.

What gets even more interesting is when we break it down further. Some have pointed out that there are a big chunk of Biden 2020 voters that RFK Jr was winning, and that will help Harris. They are half right: RFK Jr voters are made up of a relatively even numbers of Biden 2020 and Trump 2020 supporters (34% and 36% apiece). The problem for Democrats is that a number of those Biden 2020 voters are not moving to Harris.

This chart shows Biden 2020 voters who moved to RFK Jr (making up around a third of RFK’s support). Of those, only half are saying they will now move to Harris. One in four (26%) say they are going to Trump.

For a polarized nation, that is a very high number of switchers.

A similar effect is happening amongst those who did not vote in 2020, but have been excited by RFK Jr’s campaign. Making up around a quarter of his support, these non-voters now also break for Trump (43%) instead of Harris (26%).

RFK Jr’s candidacy has acted as a gateway drug for non-voters and Biden 2020 voters to back Donald Trump. Prised away from apathy or Biden by RFK’s campaign, they are now moving to a Republican candidate - a move they were not likely to make beforehand.

That is before even RFK Jr’s highly visible endorsement of Trump yesterday. The Harris campaign does not seem eager to win those voters over either. The DNC put out a statement yesterday saying RFK Jr was a “failed fringe candidate” and his departure was “good riddance”.

We will now see how the polls change. But on this data I think we can be confident that RFK Jr’s decision is going to be more impactful than anything we saw in Chicago this week, even Kamala Harris’ successful and strident speech.

RFK Jr just made this race - already bizarre and erratic - even more unpredictable.

But the disturbances so far look smaller than anyone anticipated. Expected numbers today were as much as 40,000, but attendance so far looks closer to 3,000.

It’s a harder ask to get university students to Chicago than it is to set up on their local campus. And in today’s era of short attention spans, the issue of Gaza may have lost its social justice allure as it reaches its ninth month.

But something else is going on: Kamala Harris’ ascendancy to the Democratic ticket appears to have won back some of those younger, traditionally Democrat voters.

Take a look at these figures, hot off the press from the J.L. Partners / Daily Mail poll.

Last summer, Biden had a 12-point lead over Trump with 18-29 year olds, winning 51% of their support. But after October 7th, he never exceeded 50%, and came as close to being just 2 points ahead of Trump in December. Immediately after Hamas’ attacks on Israel and the Biden administration’s response, the proportion of 18-29 year olds saying they didn’t know how they would vote jumped to 13% as Biden’s support fell.

I spoke to students at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Pennsylvania earlier in the year. The verdict on Biden - and what students saw as his complicity in genocide - was damning. Many said they would vote third party or not vote at all. That had a serious risk of damaging Biden come November when every vote counts.

But with Harris in the race, support for the Democratic candidate amongst 18-29 year olds has jumped to its highest in a year. She is pulling in 55% of younger voters, higher than anything Biden managed in the last twelve months. That is an 18-point lead over Donald Trump.

Things get more interesting when we split the results by gender. Some caution is needed here: sample sizes are small and can produce outlier results (the dip in the below chart in Trump’s support to 15% in one month is a good example of one of those).

But the trend overall in instructive. Amongst 18-29 year old women (who tend to be more liberal than their male counterparts), we see the story of the last year. After October 7th, Biden’s support fell from 59% to just 42% amongst female Zoomers. It never went above 50%. Now Harris has completely recovered Biden’s losses with younger women, shoring up the Democrat position to 60%.

Can this last? Trump is doing Harris favors with this group by calling her anti-Israel. Harris does seem to take a genuinely different approach than Biden: she had a backstage conversation with a pro-Palestinian activist last week, and had a similarly sympathetic conversation with a student in 2021 long before the issue reached fever pitch.

But the issue is still one fraught with danger for her. She will be hoping she can talk about it publicly as little as possible. If she has to take a firm position - and everything about America’s global role points to that having to be on the side of Israel - then the image these pro-Palestinian voters have of her may crumble.

For now, though, the Harris camp will be very happy with diminished crowds at the Chicago protests. And they will be even happier looking at their own polling, knowing that they are clawing back support amongst a crucial group of voters.

Story of the week

This is the week the race found some policies. In the span of seven days, we got:

• Kamala Harris adopting Trump’s ‘no taxes on tips’ policy as her own

• Trump doubling down on his proposed tax cut on social security

• Housebuilding proposals from Harris, including tax incentives to get more new housing starts

• Trump boosting his potential flat tariffs on trade (formerly 10%) to “10-20%”

• Child tax credit proposals from the Harris campaign

• And the one that has got the most attention: federal laws to control price gouging by grocery companies

What impact will all this have? Does policy even matter in U.S. elections any more? The tips policy was important more for what it stops. By copying it, Harris has stymied a stratospherically popular unique selling point for Trump.

The price-gouging announcement had cut-through too, but not for the reasons Harris would have wanted. The New York Post screamed ‘Kamunism’, and Trump went on the attack, describing Harris’ vision as one for a “communist country”.

With voters’ biggest hesitation about Harris being that she is too liberal, this is a powerful attack line. And it isn’t just the usual right-wing suspects. The Washington Post, CNN, and Newsweek all cast doubt on the policy. That buttresses the potency of the Trump attack.

The Harris campaign made a statement earlier in the week writing off Trump and his backers as “self-obsessed rich guys”. But this is a country where getting rich and getting ahead is the epitome of success for most Americans.

I think the most significant moment was a clip that went viral after the speech, where Harris listed the price increases that have taken place since the pandemic (under the Biden-Harris administration). It was rookie politics, will be used by opponents over and over again, and does make me wonder whether the campaign might steer clear of economics for a time.

One thing is for sure: both sides are splashing the cash. An analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found this week that Trump’s promises would add up to $1.6 trillion, Harris’ $1.7 trillion.

Poll of the week

Yes, I’m naming my own poll this week. A J.L. Partners/Daily Mail poll found today that the argument that hurts Harris the most is her support of a bail fund that led to a criminal being released, who ended up committing murder. The Trump campaign might have already figured this out: a separate criminal case linked to Harris’ record was the feature of a new ad by Trump super-PAC MAGA Inc. Expect these attacks to increase.

Stat of the week

In September 1985, 72% said it was a good time to buy a home. That was in the context of mortgage rates higher than today. But look at the number now: in June 2024, just 12% said it was a good time to buy a home.

The WSJ puts it down to a lack of supply: the number of new home starts fell by more than expected this month.

Observation of the week

This tweet from one of the best pollsters in the business, Patrick Ruffini, pointing out that Biden’s heritage and religious background may have buttressed him in the north east and Pennsylvania. It’s easy to forget that Biden was contesting his state of birth in 2020: that advantage won’t be there this time round.

Oped of the week

I thought this by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal was excellent: ‘Have Trump’s Rallies Become a Political Loser?’.

To win this election, Donald Trump needs to chill. He needs to find a campaign venue whose structure will keep him relatively calm. That’s not a rally, an acceptance speech, a one-on-one with a journalist or a press conference. All are Trump time bombs.

At the risk of sounding delusional, there is an alternative: Mr. Trump should hold town halls with uncommitted voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

Thinking about the interviews with swing voters I have been conducting, Henninger’s points massively ring true.

Historical fact of the week

As Abraham Lincoln’s funeral procession moved through New York in April 1865, a six-year-old Theodore Roosevelt watched on. Remarkably, it was pictured, and someone dug it out decades later.

Two bits of economic news

1. Inflation went down again to 2.9% this week, further nailing on an already nailed-on interest rate cut in September. The question still remains whether it will be half a point, or a quarter of a point.

2. Little noticed, but the Biden administration had a major win this week. Using a process they created in the Inflation Reduction Act, they have negotiated down the prices for drugs acquired on Medicare, securing an overall 22% saving. How much that cascades to patients is an open question, but there’s no doubt it is a political win that Harris would do well to make more of.

Two bits of political news

1. A constitutional amendment to protect abortion was confirmed to be going on the ballot for voters in Arizona this week. It will galvanize Democrat turnout and makes Arizona that little bit trickier for Trump and the Republicans.

2. RFK Jr has had a tough week. It leaked that he asked Kamala Harris for a Cabinet job, and he got blocked from the New York ballot. Questions are swirling around whether her will make it to November. Our polling still shows the former Democrat hurting Harris more than Trump.

Look ahead

The Democratic National Convention (the DNC) starts in Chicago tomorrow and it will dominate the week. It culminates in an acceptance speech by the new nominee, Kamala Harris.

Trump will be counter-programming, with a five-day tour on the economy across the States. The biggest risk for Harris, though, isn’t Trump, it’s the protestors at the gates. Large-scale disruption is expected as students march for Palestine: if the images are bad, then all eyes will be on Harris’ response.

Developments on a potential ceasefire deal in the Middle East drags on. Biden said the deal was “the closest we’ve ever been” on Friday, but there are few signs of white smoke yet.

The poll shows Trump with a 2-point lead over Kamala Harris, leading her by 43% to 41%. That is within the margin of error of a tie - but even accounting for that, Trump would likely win the Electoral College on these numbers.

There has certainly been a shift in the Democrats’ favor; before Biden dropped out, Trump led by 43% to 37%.

And the poll picks up on positive demographic shifts for Kamala Harris that other outfits have spotted. Harris has made significant inroads with key voter groups:

• She has narrowed Trump’s lead by 7 points with Independents

• She has built on Biden’s support with Democrats by 6 points

• She is doing better with women than Biden ever did, now leading Trump by 6 points amongst female voters

• She is up double-digits with Black voters

• She has gone up by 11 points with 18-29 year olds compared to Biden

So why is the poll not better news for Harris? How is Trump still ahead after a torrid two weeks of press coverage?

There are four reasons.

1. Kamala Harris’ support is strong, but limited to traditional Democratic strongholds

As above, Harris storms it with black voters and younger people. But with white voters the picture has barely changed since Biden dropped out of the race. In July, Trump led by 47% to Biden’s 33% with whites. He now leads Harris by 48% to 35%. The same is evident with Hispanics. Biden led with Hispanics back in March; Trump retains a 3 point lead over Harris with this group.

Age is a tell too. It is only amongst the 18-29 year old age group that Harris has seen a statistically significant increase since Biden dropped out of the race. The picture is frozen amongst 30-49 year olds (tied), 50-64 year olds (Trump +16), and over-65s (tied).

Harris’ favorability numbers give an indication why: though she has a +14 net favorability rating with 18-29 year olds, she has a net -5 rating with those over the age of 50.

She is doing a good job of rallying the Democratic base - and the voters you might be most likely to see on TikTok or Instagram. But she is not improving on Biden’s position in other fundamental groups in the American electorate.

2. The Trump army is still hugely energized

Harris’s supporters have definitely become more energized than Biden’s were. But Trump’s base is still highly motivated. The proportion of Republicans who have a “very favorable” view of Donald Trump is 68%. The proportion of Democrats who say the same of Kamala Harris is 61%. Not a huge gap, and a damn sight smaller than it was under Joe Biden, but still an advantage in the enthusiasm stakes.

3. Trump holds the attributes trifecta

Trump has the holy trinity of key attributes. He leads on “strong” (by a margin of 7 points), “gets things done” (by 8 points) and the most important issues in American politics: the economy (ahead by 10 points), and border security (ahead by 21 points).

Again, he isn’t invincible - Harris leads on the third-most important issue, abortion, by a margin of 18 points, as well as on ‘shares my values’, ‘competent’ and ‘has a good track record’. But being behind on all three of those attributes puts a lid on a politician’s vote in the 2020s. Harris will need to wrestle one or two back to be more competitive.

4. Isn’t she just a bit too liberal?

Not my words, but the concern of independents. Trump currently leads amongst independents by 2 points. That is a lot better for the Democrats than after the debate, when Trump led by 9 points. But it is a voter group that candidates often need to win to forge a path to the White House (though not always - Romney won them in 2012).

We asked independents what is holding them back from voting Harris. Their biggest hesitation: “liberal”. Harris will need to either address this hesitation or make it matter less to these voters in the middle. Choosing Tim Walz as VP might not have been the best means to do that.

Other pollsters are available: not everyone is showing a Trump lead. But we are confident in our figures (our methodology got the midterms spot on), and we are not alone. Three other outfits had Trump vote leads over the last few days.

• CNBC, Trump 48% Harris 46%

• Rasmussen, Trump 49%, Harris 44%

• Fox News, Trump 50%, Harris 49%

Ignore the Harrismania and the most excited social media takes. This is going to be a very close election and every vote will matter.

Poll of the week

Harris Leads Trump in Three Key States, Times/Siena Polls Find, exclaimed the New York Times on Saturday. The polls find Harris leading by 50% to 46% in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But there’s a dispute afoot.

Trump’s pollster Tony Fabrizio weighed in with a campaign-funded memo saying that the poll was understating Trump due to the make-up of its sample. His argument comes down to 2020 voters, basically the spread of voters based on their 2020 preferences that end up in the sample of a poll.

It’s a tricky one: there is no doubt that is good news for Harris and shows a change in the race — Trump was leading in the three states in the series before Biden dropped out. But Fabrizio is right to cast a critical eye too. The recalled Biden 2020 lead in the Michigan poll is +7 (actual result in 2020 +3), Pennsylvania +5 (actual result +1), Wisconsin +9 (actual result +1). That is quite a gap and clearly skews the polls to Harris.

The best counter-argument on quota-ing strictly on 2020 vote (so sampling until you get the ‘correct’ proportion) is that the composition of the 2024 electorate has no guarantees to be the same as then. If Democrats are more enthused then it could change. But indications are that enthusiasm between the two candidates is similar. And if your assumption is that your sample should go where your poll naturally points to, then you need to include many more non-voters than are included here. Let’s also not forget how poor (and pro-Democrat) state-level poll results were in 2016 and 2020.

None of that is to say the New York Times is wrong. Another poll that just landed, by YouGov, puts North Carolina as a toss-up. But we should not pretend this is a election in which Harris is the clear favorite. In my view we have gone from a Trump-favorite race to one with no favorite at all.

Our own national J.L. Partners/DailyMail.com poll lands this week. Keep an eye on Rob Crilly to be the first to it.

Graphs of the week

The markets have bounced back from their sudden fall. The episode does of course to point to something real, shining a light on the volatility and a lack of economic confidence overall. But chances of a recession are significantly less likely than they looked. There were also better joblessness claims figures last week, and - most important to voters - mortgage rates dropped to their lowest level in a year.

Underrated political moment of the week

Two this week.

1. The Georgia State Board in charge of elections have made a potentially far-reaching decision, allowing county board officials to hold “reasonable inquiry” into ballots before they are certified. The move has been pushed by three pro-Trump officials recently appointed to the body. Though it does not stop media outlets calling the outcomes, it ramps up the chances - in the event of a close and contested Electoral College outcome - of a delay to certification and a potential constitutional crisis. There’s a good explainer here.

2. The head of the ‘uncommitted’ movement that tried to primary-challenge Joe Biden over his support for Israel met Harris backstage at a rally this week. They came away saying they felt “openness and sympathy” from the VP. That is really notable: how the Israel issue falls for Harris could make all the difference with young people’s support and turnout. Even more significant is the fact Harris arranged to meet them, even if it was brief. We all saw Kamala Harris pick Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, as her running mate. His appointment has opened the ticket up to accusations of being too liberal, but it may have shut down attacks that Josh Shapiro may have invited over support for Israel. If Harris can keep the delicate position she has right now, she will address a blinding problem Biden had with his candidacy.

Overrated political moment of the week

There has been a lot of crowd size discourse this week as Twitter types have spread conspiracy theories and traded insults on the turnout at Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s rallies. A lot of this is plainly Trump’s personal obsession with the issue. Is it a genuine measure of enthusiasm? It is notable that Harris has got more people excited than Biden was able to, but that’s not saying much. Comparisons with Hillary Clinton in 2016 do not seem that different, and in 2020 there was a global pandemic. Move along.

Date for your diary

September 10th, Harris and Trump will debate on ABC News. There may be more (Trump wants September 4th on FOX and September 25th on NBC) but so far that is the only one Harris has agreed to.

Stat of the week

There were 57,000 border crossings in June, down from 250,000 in December 2023. Border crossings have reduced significantly, both due to Biden’s executive order and better Mexican enforcement. That is a huge boon for Kamala Harris, who wants the issue to be as little talked about as possible ahead of November 5th.

Look ahead

Next week sees the build-up to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and we will see both candidates on the road again. Keep an eye on the Middle East too - not just for potential Hezbollah/Iran action, but on August 15th there might be what the Biden administration is pushing hard as a make or break summit on a potential ceasefire deal. Hamas initially turned it down, then said on Saturday they were “studying” it. But national security experts say both sides remain far apart.