Shocking news from Iowa, more sobering numbers from the Times, and a map that favors Harris

The map if the Times’ poll is right*

A huge and encouraging outlier for Kamala Harris on Saturday night. Some more sobering numbers today.

First, the encouraging news. As you may already know, the new Iowa Poll from Ann Selzer, which gets high marks from FiveThirtyEight, shows Harris with a three-point lead over Donald Trump. It’s hard to know what to make of this. But Iowa has gone deep red in recent elections, and virtually every other survey has put Trump well in the lead — including earlier samples taken by the same poll.

The margin, 47% for Harris and 44% for Trump, is being driven by voters over 65, especially women, who say they are supporting Harris by 63% to 28%. But Harris also has a slight edge among older men, 47% to 45%.

What does this mean? I’m not a polling expert. I can tell you that the latest Emerson Poll, which also gets very high marks, continues to show Trump with a nine-point lead in Iowa. On the other hand, a new Miami University poll shows Trump with just a three-point lead in deep-red Ohio, and Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown with a two-point lead over his Republican opponent, Bernie Moreno. I should add that FiveThirtyEight does not rate this poll.

If the Iowa and Ohio results are picking up something real, then Harris may be headed not just for a victory, but for one larger than anyone expects. My own totally unscientific, vibe-based sense of the race is that there are three possible outcomes: (1) a narrow Trump win; (2) a narrow Harris win; (3) a surprisingly substantial Harris win. I’m going for somewhere between (2) and (3). Needless to say, Harris will win the popular vote with ease.

Finally, The New York Times this morning came out with its last poll before Election Day, and it is simultaneously worrying for Harris yet showing some unexpected opportunities. The Times-Siena poll sits atop the FiveThirtyEight rankings, so we can’t ignore it — although, as Josh Marshall has observed, it also relies on a different understanding of the electorate from what most other pollsters are using, and that understanding may be right or wrong.

*Based on the barest of margins in the Times poll (something you really can’t do given that all these numbers are well within the margin of error), Harris would lose the Blue Wall state of Michigan and win Pennsylvania. Wisconsin seems a little safer. But she also has small leads in North Carolina and Georgia.

One other possible good sign for Harris: the Times-Siena poll goes all the way back to Oct. 24 (through Nov. 2), and Harris seems to have built momentum in recent days. In any case, I played around with the map, above, and awarded Harris every state in which the Times poll has her ahead, even by less than 1% (again: don’t try this at home) It shows Harris with 293 electoral votes, 21 more than the 270 needed. I also flipped Pennsylvania to Trump, and Harris would still win, with 274 electoral votes.

Corrections: My map is an accurate reflection of the Times-Siena poll, but an earlier version of this post said that Harris was ahead in Arizona. She’s not. I’ve also corrected the number of Electoral College votes needed to win.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

8 thoughts on “Shocking news from Iowa, more sobering numbers from the Times, and a map that favors Harris”

  2. I can’t help wondering what that Iowa poll says, not about Iowa, but about the other states. Ann Selzer is highly respected and has an excellent track record. With a 12-point gap between her Harris +3 and Emerson’s Trump +9, someone is FAR off what the result will be on Tuesday. Selzer’s worst miss was the 2018 Iowa Governor’s race, where she overestimated the Democrat’s vote by five points. If she’s off by five again, then Harris falls two points short in a state she doesn’t need. But that would mean Emerson is off by seven points in Iowa. If that’s the case, how far are they off in swing states?

  3. FiveThirtyEight showed Hillary with a 70% chance of winning on election day eight years ago, so I stick to the maxim that polls FOLLOW reality, they don’t predict it. We’ll see what we see.

        1. I will check this “Frontline” out. I found much of the U.S. media disappointing on this topic throughout the year, which was a real let down.

    2. Nate Silver is not much of a mathematician and he did not know how to interpret his own data properly. The data showed something like a 53% chance for Hillary to win, but Nate followed unscientific practices to come up with his estimate.

Comments are closed.