After a vigorous campaign period featuring an assassination attempt and an incumbent president’s withdrawal, it all comes down to this. On November 5th, Americans will decide whether to hand the torch to a new generation of Democrats in the White House or whether to return to another Trump presidency. This presidential election is expected to be closer than any other recent election, with both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump neck-in-neck in recent polls.
I promised in my last article that I would predict every single federal election. This, alongside my predictions for the Senate and House elections, represents the culmination of four weeks’ worth of work. I, alongside my team, have taken into account polling, voting trends, early voting data, and every other possible factor.
We can now predict that Kamala Harris is favored to become the next President of the United States. We give her a 60% chance of winning, while Donald Trump gets 40%. We predict Kamala Harris will win the popular vote and win 292 electoral votes in the Electoral College while Donald Trump will carry 246 electoral votes. We break down why she does win the popular vote, and why she will win the states necessary to win the Electoral College.
Why Harris Will Win
If Kamala Harris ever were to win, this chart would explain why. This is a chart of the enthusiasm gap among registered voters in the United States in every election since 2000. 77% of Democrats and those leaning Democratic are more enthusiastic about this election than any past election before. Only 67% of Republicans and those leaning Republican feel the same way. This is a 10% gap between the two parties. This amount is also higher than when Barack Obama got elected in his 2008 landslide victory.
When Joe Biden was still in the race, Democratic enthusiasm was lower than Republicans, hovering barely over 50%. When Harris entered the race, it skyrocketed to nearly 80%. That enthusiasm has remained consistent throughout the campaign. While having an effective ground game and voter turnout is good, enthusiasm is a factor that is hard to beat.
This enthusiasm has been reflected in the early voting numbers thus far. While the number of early votes is down from 2020 (which had the COVID-19 pandemic), turnout is on track to be high this year, with half the 2020 electorate already having voted this cycle. Women in particular have been voting far more than men at this stage – 53-44. This was the same margin Joe Biden was at with women in 2020. As polls have suggested all cycle long, women are backing Kamala Harris by large margins. In that regard, there is certainly enthusiasm among women voters in this country.
The Harris campaign has taken advantage of the millions of dollars it has raised from fundraising to effectively build a ground game. There are multiple reports from swing states attesting to the strong ground game by the Harris campaign. On the other hand, the Trump campaign’s ground game is nonexistent in some battleground states. Even in Nevada and Arizona, where the Trump campaign’s ground game has been run by a pro-Trump PAC, thousands of door knocks were determined to be fake. The Trump campaign has been ineffective in its ground game, and it will ultimately pay the price for this lackluster voter outreach.
Another piece of the puzzle as to why Trump will lose is within his party. Republicans are less supportive of their nominee than Democrats are of Kamala Harris. When Donald Trump was still in the primary process earlier this year, nearly 24% of Republican primary voters chose someone else other than him. That is not an insignificant figure. That represents millions of American voters, many of whom are in the swing states that will decide this election. Even as Trump’s rival Nikki Haley had long dropped out of the race, thousands still bothered to support her in the remaining primary races that were still left.
Trump has made history for the Republican Party: no other candidate before him has received more defections from prominent party members. George W. Bush, the only other living former Republican president, refuses to endorse him. Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, also refuses to endorse him. Thousands of former Republican officials who have served under Republican presidencies and in Congress have refused to endorse Trump and have even endorsed Kamala Harris, the most prominent one being former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Trump is a very polarizing figure in American politics. Millions of people have been motivated to vote against him and will continue to vote against him. Trump’s share of the popular vote has stayed consistent in the past two elections at a little over 46% of the vote. Trump has consistently had a negative favorability rating throughout the election, whilst Harris has had a mixed or positive favorability rating. While there is the potential that Trump will outperform that vote share this time, he will only do so slightly.
The Rust Belt
Kamala Harris will win in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. These three states have voted in tandem every election since 1992 and thus are counted nearly monolithically. She has achieved the polling numbers possible and the support to win each of these states.
First, there’s Michigan: this state unlike the other two has consistently polled for Harris despite the errors we will talk about later, and although the Arab vote seems to be much shakier for Harris this election cycle, considering the polls, robust early voting data, and the economic fundamentals that have improved especially in urban centers like Detroit, we believe that Michigan will go for Harris. We predict that it will be the state Harris wins by the most among the three Rust Belt states. We rate this state as Lean Harris.
Then there’s Pennsylvania. Although it lacked the same early voting vigor as Michigan had, it nonetheless seems ripe for Harris as many (including us) believe that Republicans are “cannibalizing” their Election Day votes in favor of voting early as well. When looking at polling for Pennsylvania we see that a much tighter race than Michigan is apparent. However, this is likely caused by the first major issue we see in polling: herding. Herding is the idea that pollsters are scared of being wrong again so they tweak their results to match that of other pollsters, yet when nearly everyone does it, it creates an inaccurate environment. Following standard statistics, if polls were not herded, a Pennsylvania that’s exactly tied between Harris and Trump should have polls between +4 Harris and +4 Trump and almost no polls exactly tied. Yet in Pennsylvania especially, likely due to its status as the deciding state this year, pollsters have found a great number of tied poll results. This makes us believe that the actual results are being tweaked to be more favorable to Trump out of fear of getting the result wrong in his opponent’s favor again as happened in 2016 and 2020. We believe that based on the early voting data out of heavily Democratic Philadelphia and Pittsburgh turnout will match 2020 numbers, a year where Biden won Pennsylvania. We rate this state as Lean Harris.
Finally, there’s Wisconsin, the state that was closest among these three back in 2020. Yet, just as with the other two, when going past herding and only following the most accurate pollsters, you see an environment that is seemingly +2-3 for Harris which although seems possibly too optimistic for her, does likely mean a result that Harris wins just not necessarily these margins. The early voting data out of heavily Democratic Madison and Milwaukee highly suggests that this year’s numbers will match 2020’s numbers. We rate this state as Lean Harris.
The Selzer Poll
One pollster has been able to very effectively predict the Rust Belt, J. Ann Selzer. When she polls the state of Iowa she has captured trends in white Midwestern voters that other pollsters are seemingly unable to. Take for example 2016 when she called Iowa for Trump by 7%. Nearly everyone called her foolhardy and said her career would be over. Yet, she was the most accurate of the pollsters and showed a hidden trend in less educated white voters that other pollsters missed. Or take 2020, where a nearly identical situation occurred and it showed the Rust Belt not being won comfortably by Biden but instead nearly a toss-up; this is exactly what happened. Selzer’s polls are the “gold standard” of the polling industry.
Thus, a Harris +3 poll in Iowa that came out on Saturday, November 2, seems to be the same, capturing a hidden trend that others might have missed. Although we do not think Iowa will go for Harris by 3%, Trump outperforming this poll by 8% would only mean a Trump+5 victory in the state, a far cry from the 8% margin he won by in 2020. If Trump is underperforming in Iowa of all places, what about the rest of the Midwest? Based on this poll, we can extrapolate trends and apply them to neighboring states and be much more confident in a Harris win across the Rust Belt. Her poll showed Harris winning Midwestern women by huge margins, meaning that if Midwestern women in Iowa are motivated more than ever to vote for Kamala Harris, the same can be said for their counterparts in the three competitive Rust Belt states. If Iowa is trending toward the Democrats as Selzer suggests, this means Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will be won by Kamala Harris.
The Sun Belt
The competitive Sun Belt states of Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada are much harder to get a pulse on. The former two seem to trend in similar ways likewise do the latter two. Even if Harris loses all four of these states, she will still win with the solidly Democratic states in addition to the Rust Belt states as those add up to 270 electoral votes, the amount needed to win.
Georgia had seemed a loss for Harris until these last weeks. Now, polls have shifted ever so slightly for Harris but is currently in a dead heat. What makes it a tilt Democrat is one phenomenon: very high early voting. In Georgia’s urban centers, early voting has exceeded all expectations as it seems that this state with restrictive abortion regulations wants to change this. Harris’ loss in Black voters seems to be entirely made up for by the very enthusiastic women and suburban voters who have come out in droves for early voting in Georgia. Therefore, we rate this state as Tilt Harris.
Then there’s North Carolina, the white whale for Democrats along with Texas. In 2020 it seemed ripe to finally go Democratic and yet didn’t. The same could very well happen here but what gives credence to a Harris win there as opposed to in 2020, is that women seem very fired up in early voting. Hurricane Helene’s effect has also been noted; turnout is down in the heavily Republican areas that were impacted by the storm. Combined with the leftward shift of the suburbs and the unpopularity of the Republican nominee for governor, this state will be close. However, ultimately, we ultimately that this state will narrowly go for Trump. Black turnout appears to be lagging behind 2020 levels, and their support is critical for Kamala Harris to win the state. As a result, this state is Tilt Trump, but Harris can still pull off a narrow win in this state if Black turnout improves in the time after this article is released.
Finally, there’s Arizona and Nevada. Both states seem to be redder than in 2020 with Arizona leaning Republican and Nevada being too close to call. This is likely due to a mix of anti-southern immigration sentiments, and an influx of more conservative domestic migrants from out of state. Just as North Carolina has been elusive for Democrats, so has Nevada been for Republicans. Arizona on the other hand has had too much negative polling for Harris and some signs seem to be pointing at the fact that these polls might have been too pro-Trump. However, we believe that not enough Republicans are backing Kamala Harris the same amount as Joe Biden had to win the state in 2020. Therefore, we are rating this state as Tilt Trump. Nevada, on the other hand, is too close to call. While Republicans have built an early voting advantage, Democrats still have time to improve come Election Day. For now, we are placing this state as Tilt Harris due to the state’s history of voting for Democrats since 2008 and the fact that we expect independents to vote for Harris in general.
We must note one other thing, however. Democrats have been dreaming of a blue Texas for decades now. Although that will not happen this election cycle, the trends are in favor of a blue Texas in the future. The so-called Texas Triangle, comprising the Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston metropolitan areas, has seen heavy population growth in recent years. Turnout in Texan metropolitan areas is also very high, and there exists the possibility that the margin of victory in Texas will be closer for Trump than in 2020. Because of these factors, we are still placing Texas as Lean Trump.
A state trending in the opposite direction, though, is Florida. Turnout has been abysmal for Democrats in early voting numbers, and with the expected trend of Latinos in the state toward the Republicans, Kamala Harris has been placed at a significant disadvantage in the state. We think that Trump’s margin of victory in the state this time around might even be greater than 2020. As a result, we rate this as Likely Trump.
Conclusion
Despite this article being quite pro-Harris in the sense of her chances of winning, there is no doubt that Trump can still win. Fundamentally, if polls are to be believed the election is so close that it wouldn’t even take a polling error for Trump to win, as margins of error are wide enough for the election to go for Trump.
If Trump wins the big three states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, there just is no path to victory for Harris as the electoral college votes would work out in Trump’s favor. The Rust Belt could still very much go for Trump.
The fundamentals of enthusiasm, ground game, early voting numbers, and turnout all point to a Harris win. But Trump’s supporters, as many as they are, are motivated more than ever to turn out. As such, these predictions may turn out to be awfully wrong. After all, they are just predictions, and whether predictions turn out to be true or not is subject to the electorate. The election will be close, and more than ever it is important for everyone to vote.
This article was written in coordination with Deputy Editor-in-Chief Felix Puig Seppalainen.
Emil Ordonez, a rising college freshman, is the founder and editor-in-chief of Polinsights. He has been deeply passionate about politics and history since learning every U.S. President at the age of five. He was compelled to start this blog after meeting many people who were misinformed or had become apathetic about how society worked. He hopes to provide factual knowledge and insights that will encourage people, especially the young, to get more engaged in their respective communities. In his free time, he edits for Wikipedia and makes maps for elections. He aspires to work in Congress or even the White House in the future.
Leave a Reply