The presidential campaign between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump has generally shown 50/50 support for both candidates on the polls. For example, while Atlas Intel showed a slight nation-wide advantage for Trump, two polls by the New York Times and Siena College Research institute showed Harris taking the lead in the swing state of Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the poll aggregators by the Financial Times and the Silver Bulletin (which correct for any anomalies in individual polls) show a slight lead by Harris but an upward tendency by Trump, mainly because of improved performance in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
The reason for this surge are unknown, although some commentators believe that this is due to conservative pollsters flooding the aggregators with pro-Trump polls. However, this seems to have had an effect on Harris, who recently had some interviews at the Howard Stern’s show and at Fox News, likely aimed at swing voters. She has even stated her willingness to appoint republicans as members of her cabinet, while her campaign team has identified college-educated Republican women as potential new voters alienated by Trump’s rhetoric. Trump, on the contrary, is mainly aiming at his loyal support base, while also pandering to working class voters and the black and Hispanic communities. Campaign moves like serving fries at a McDonald’s’ restaurant set a clear distance between him and the moderate strategy engaged in by Harris.
Although polls do not tell us the whole story, they do serve as accurate predictions of an election. Nevertheless, since we are still a few weeks ahead of the election, any last-moment developments could have an important impact on a very close presidential election, especially in swing states, i.e., those without a clearly republican or democrat orientation.
Author: Luis Cabezas