Harris and Trump: Unprecedented Head-to-Head Matchup, Polls Say

Winning a debate in the U.S. presidential campaign matters, and the success of Kamala Harris in the Sept. 10 face-off with Donald Trump is no exception. The current vice president succeeded in rattling her opponent, who made increasingly exaggerated claims, reminding voters of the negative aspects of his character. Harris, on the other hand, was composed and reasonable, achieving her main goal in the debate: appearing presidential, that is, a credible alternative to the risk represented by Donald Trump.

It was not a knockout, because the former president still landed some effective blows, especially when he pointed out that Harris has already been in government for four years. He thus made it more difficult for the vice president to act as a bearer of new policies. But when the press and social network spend days ironizing with memes, such as the one about immigrants eating dogs and cats, the damage is obvious.

The change to the overall trajectory of the campaign, however, is limited. Harris has regained her lead of between 2 and 3 points in the national polls. This, after being just 1 point ahead in the days before the debate. There is no doubt that the vice president is winning in terms of the popular vote. There is considerable enthusiasm around her campaign, evident in the number of participants at rallies and the large amount of financial contributions. On the latter front, the Democrats now have a significant advantage, with more funds to be devoted to advertising and local get-out-vote operations.

However, the outcome of the election remains unpredictable. Trump still has a chance to win, not only because six weeks remain before the vote, in which missteps and external events can change the race at any time. It all comes down to the swing states, which this year are seven: in addition to the usual Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, they are joined by Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina.

Recent history forces us to consider two elements of uncertainty: the possibility for the Republicans to lose the popular vote but win in enough key states to take the White House, and the potential for significant polling error. These have been recurring phenomena in recent years, especially with regard to the first three states, those in the so-called Rust Belt. These are areas that have suffered

heavily from deindustrialization over a period of decades, generating a strong distrust in national political institutions. The Biden administration has launched a phase of new industrial investment, but it will take time to see the effects. In the meantime, families are feeling the burden of higher costs in key sectors such as food and housing.

Donald Trump has benefited from this sentiment by positioning himself as an outsider. The effect has been to bring people who otherwise stay out of politics to vote. Some avoid talking with the press, for example, creating a bias in the polls. Should the mistake be repeated in the surveys of the last two presidential elections – 2016 and 2020, when the Democratic advantage turned out to be less than expected – then Trump will return to the White House.

This may not necessarily happen, as pollsters continually work to refine their models. But the difficulty in solving the dilemma represented by Trump is evident in the effectiveness of the different methods used to calculate polling averages: those of FiveThirtyEight and its founder Nate Silver (who has now created a new channel, Silver Bulletin) carefully evaluate the quality of different polls and create a weighted average. RealClearPolitics, on the other hand, follows a simpler approach, avoiding establishing a hierarchy among different surveys. What works best?

In recent years the RealClearPolitics average, the one that is theoretically less advanced, has been more accurate, despite not applying weighted adjustments like the others. However, the margins are under 2 points in all the swing states, promising a razor-thin outcome.

Meanwhile, the first ballots have already been mailed out, and the early voting period began on September 20, either physically or by mail. At this point, both campaigns must work to mobilize their voters. Historically, Democrats are more focused on mail and early voting, while Republicans prefer to go to the polls on election day. Some conservative groups, however, are working to encourage their supporters to vote early, knowing that locking in preferences as early as September and October is a guarantee against any changes in the public mood.

At the same time, there are still some uncertainties about the voting method in certain states. Trump and his allies have criticized the rules adopted in 2020 and continue to work to change them, even with the vote just weeks away. In Georgia, for example, the Republican-majority State Election Board wants to make hand, rather than electronic counting, of votes mandatory. In Pennsylvania, a battle is expected over the closing time of polling places in case of high voter turnout. And in Nebraska, Republicans hope to change the way to allocate the state’s electoral vote, which now allows the more democratic city of Omaha to express itself separately from the rest of the state. Given the close race between Harris and Trump, in which the former has a national advantage but the latter may prevail in some key states, the campaigns are very active on a legal level. It is not difficult to conjure up scenarios that would prolong the certification of the vote for days or even weeks after November 5.

The U.S. Congress moved in 2022 to reduce the possibility of challenging the results. But in a democracy, procedures depend also on the integrity of officials at the local level. Strong political polarization has taken hold here as well, adding another element of uncertainty to that of the polls. The 2024 presidential election could turn into a long legal battle.