Trump win confirms America’s political change

 

Gordon L. Weil

American political history has reached a turning point.

So, too, has the country’s moral sense, at least about politics.

But that did not happen this week.  It happened eight years ago, when Donald Trump was first elected president.  Any doubt was erased by his victory and the powerful vote for Republicans across the country this week.  Except for the coasts, that win was national.

Just as in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal changed the country, so have Trump and his intent to “Make America Great Again.”  For FDR, the emphasis was on a “new” start while for Trump the emphasis has been on greatness “again.” 

Before FDR, the nation had been essentially conservative.  The private economy dominated and the role of government and individual rights were limited.  The economic crisis of the Great Depression and World War II forced change. The New Deal era and American post-war world dominance transformed people’s thinking.

By 2016, Trump had absorbed and embodied the increasing public sense that the country had gone too far beyond its conservative origins.  Whether he exploited that sentiment or truly believed it did not matter.  He came to be the flag around which the people yearning for the political norms of the past could rally.

That realization was more than the supporters of the politics and institutions of the New Deal era could readily accept.  Government was the main tool by which Americans took care of one another, and it was difficult for them to believe that cutting its cost would assume a higher priority than increasing or even maintaining its services.

The political aberration may not have been the 2016 election, but the 2020 election when the old guard barely clung to office.  Looking back, it becomes less difficult to understand how bitter it was for Trump and his backers to accept Joe Biden and company who stood as obstacles on their path to changing the country.

This year, Democrats believed they could snuff out Trump’s movement, because of their appeal to growing segments of the electorate and on the abortion issue.  The rushed selection of their candidate, made necessary by a president who ignored his own failings, left them running on the hope that the people would inevitably recognize Trump as a mistake.

They ignored the scope of the belief that the government had gone too far, too fast.   Social change, focused mostly on the sexual identity of some people, was not yet acceptable to many.  The lack of control of the border, seen by some as the government’s intent, created national uneasiness.   Democratic progressives, buoyed by a few election upsets, overreached.

American politics have fundamentally changed, and Trump has been able to take advantage of it.  Originally, Congress was supposed to be the dominant power of the federal government, not the president who had replaced the British king.  Parties were not expected to matter as much as the balanced institutions with their built-in checks.

In 1992, Newt Gingrich, the House Republican leader, set out to change the system.  GOP members of Congress would commit to acting like a bloc and would loyally back the leader of their party.  In effect, the U.S. would adopt the parliamentary system.  It has worked and congressional Republicans, whatever they may think of Trump, are totally loyal to him.

This year, the power of the president was further boosted by the decision of the Supreme Court that the chief executive could exercise almost unchecked power.  The appointed Court, confirmed by the president’s party, became a prime driver of presidential dominance.

Underlying the changes that are taking place is a reversal of what had come to be accepted political morality.  It has been a version of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In practice, that meant there were certain unwritten understandings about political behavior.  The Constitution could not describe every possible form of government conduct, but the early leaders believed that certain customs would be observed.  They could not suspect that acceptable behavior would change as much as it has.

Trump was clearly behind the assault on the Capitol.  He radically denies undeniable facts.  He savagely attacks those who oppose him and shows no respect for many people who have earned respect, even if they disagree.  The way he denigrated John McCain, an American hero of unlimited courage, went beyond civilized bounds.

If not dead, the constitutional culture is seriously wounded.  Unwritten understandings are readily repealed. The Trump goal is nothing less than the transformation of government.

Voters may be ready to believe that Trump does not mean what he says when he lashes out or that he cannot carry out his threats, but they may find his claim is true: he will be a president unlike any other. 

Harris could win EV, lose popular vote

 

Gordon L. Weil

After Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton who had been supported by most voters, the National Popular Vote campaign gained momentum.   The similar result in the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 had laid the groundwork.

The conventional wisdom, appealing to Democrats who are the traditional losers when minority popular vote presidents are elected, is that the electoral vote system favors the Republicans. 

NPV supporters assert that the will of majority should not be ignored, despite the outmoded electoral vote system found in the Constitution.

Based on the compromise that brought the states on board, the presidential election is a collection of elections in the states and D.C.  Because all states are constitutionally guaranteed a minimum of three electoral votes, individual voters in the small, usually rural, states have more voting power than those in larger states. By strict proportionality, small states like Maine might get one electoral vote, which is clearly politically unacceptable.

The National Popular Vote campaign seeks an agreement among states with a majority of electoral votes that their electors will vote for the candidate winning a majority of the sum of the popular votes of all jurisdictions.  With enough participation, that group of states could determine the outcome of the election no matter if others chose not to join.

Today, because of separate state elections, elections focus on the few states where the outcome is not in question.  Thus, the campaigns concentrate on those swing states while taking for granted the result in other states.  With a national popular vote, all individual voters are in play, which should result in a truly national election and a better reflection of the people’s preference.

If National Popular Vote were adopted, this disproportionate weight of voters would largely be solved.   But each state would continue to have its usual number of electoral votes, continuing to tilt the Electoral College somewhat toward small states.

Until now, states with 207 Electoral Votes in 2020 have voted for the NPV.  All of them voted Democratic in that election.  No state that voted Republican has signed on.

For the NPV states to automatically determine the Electoral College winner, additional states with 61 electoral votes would have to support the proposed compact among states.  In 2020, eight states with 86 votes voted Democratic, but have not signed on. 

Not all are likely to accept the NPV.  Among these states are swing jurisdictions – Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and Nebraska’s Second District – that had 43 Electoral Votes.  If they do not support NPV, only 43 votes remain among the Democratic-voting jurisdictions, not enough to make NPV a reality.  No GOP state is likely to join.

The conclusion is clear.  The NPV is partisan.  If there were enough NPV states for the Democrats to overcome the supposed GOP Electoral Vote advantage, the Democrats would win without needing the NPV. 

To be sure, the NPV could mean something if expected Democratic states voted for GOP candidates or if some Republican states accepted the NPV.  If this were to happen, a state would accept being bound to a result opposed by a majority of its own citizens.  In theory, NPV makes sense; in practice, it may not.

If the electoral vote and the popular vote more closely coincided, the underlying reason for the NPV would be weakened.  That may be happening this year.

In 2016, Clinton won a substantial majority of the California vote, which helped boost her national popular majority.  Some of her votes there produced no electoral votes for her and were, in effect, “wasted.”

It seems possible that this year, there will be fewer such unneeded votes.  In effect, the gap in swing states between Kamala Harris and Trump could be closer to the national popular vote gap between them.  

Trump may be gaining support in overwhelmingly Democratic California and New York.  He’s also polling better in states that went strongly for Republican congressional candidates in 2022.  But his gains in either case would not earn him more electoral votes, though they would contribute to a narrower national popular vote margin.

At the same time, Harris is doing better than expected in swing states.  While her gains may involve fewer total voters than Trump’s gains in solidly Democratic states, they indicate that she could win the election with a narrow national popular vote margin.

Because this analysis is based on polling of varying quality, these conclusions may be problematic.  And it’s unknown if the polls fairly account for new voters or if some voters will be denied access to the ballot box.

Conventional wisdom has suggested that a Democrat needs to win the national popular vote by a comfortable margin to be sure of winning most electoral votes.  That may not be the case. 

 

Harris' biggest campaign event; Trump's 'best'?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The debate revealed a split between the presidential candidates going beyond their differences on the issues.

At several points, Kamala Harris directly addressed viewers, reaching beyond the limits of the ABC debate set.  Donald Trump, expected to be on offense but finding himself mostly on defense, never left the limits of the debate.

After the war of words, Trump told the media, “It was the best debate I’ve ever had.”  That may be a case of wishful thinking or an attempt at campaign spin. But that statement amounted to his giving himself a grade on his performance.  He was telling the voters that this was him at his best.

The presidential election is held in each state for its electoral votes.   Trump played to his core backers in the belief that he had locked up safe states and could raise doubts about Harris in the swing states.  Of course, Harris has her own safe states, but she was reaching for voters in both swing states and on Trump’s own turf.

It’s all about electoral math. Just below the surface of the presidential election lies a politically deadly force that could pick the winner despite the will of the people.

This forecast is not merely a possibility; it is a certainty.   When the votes are counted on and after November 5, the outmoded Electoral College will determine the winner, no matter the popular vote.

The practical effect of the Electoral College is that the Democratic candidate for president must win by much more than a slim majority in the national popular vote.  If Harris leads by one or two percent in the polls, that’s probably not enough.  She needs more than a national squeaker to be assured of enough support across enough states to prevail.

The reverse is true for the Republican candidate.  They may win less than a majority of the vote nationally, but still be elected.  This seems to be an iron law: every time since 1824 when there has been a minority winner, the victor was a Republican.  Trump can win with less than a popular majority, as he did in 2016.

While a narrow national margin either way may mean a Trump victory, Harris can win by carrying swing states, and she can win big by taking one or two safe Trump states.  If she trails in swing states, even while winning the national popular majority, Trump’s electoral vote could overrule her majority.

So, Harris had to accept the electoral math and tried to turn the debate to her national advantage.  For her, it was not so much a debate as a way to talk directly with swing voters all across the country.  For Trump, it was a matter of reinforcing his hold on his MAGA core and raising doubts about Harris with other Republicans and possibly with independents. 

She stuck to her case and often avoided answering some moderators’ questions.  She needled him. He boldly asserted untruths, knowing there was not enough time to refute them all.  He was so intent on his false claims, some of them wild, that he failed to successfully link her to President Biden.

Whatever the points the candidates thought they scored in the debate format, Harris sought to use it as her only national campaign stop.  In what was clearly the best answer given by either candidate, she forcefully laid out the case for reproductive freedom for women.  This was an attempt to reach voters in all states.  If successful, she could overcome the electoral math.

The effect of the Electoral College can only be defeated in one way – turnout.  Motivated voters showing up to vote can undermine the implicit assumptions about the way states will decide. 

When voter turnout is unexpectedly high, it can upset what polling forecasts.  A surge in support for a candidate might overturn the expected outcome, flipping the electoral math.  This might occur in both the swing states and in supposedly safe states.  Momentum can make swings happen anywhere.

The debate was Harris’s chance to recover her momentum and Trump’s chance to block it.  If she rekindled enthusiasm for her candidacy, the debate could have helped her in swing states, but also to reach into Trump’s supposedly safe states.  It seems less likely that Trump could have loosened her hold on her safe states.

If one party invades the other party’s safe states, then a voter anywhere can make a difference.  That’s possible this year, because Trump may have peaked, leaving Harris nowhere to go but up.

Growing enthusiasm helps boost momentum.  Watch the number of small contributions; they reflect that enthusiasm.  Also, the surge in voter registration may be a positive sign for either candidate.

Will there be another debate?  It could help either candidate, but in hugely different ways. 

 

Close election? Don't count on it

Gordon L. Weil

“It don’t mean a thing, if you ain’t got that swing.”  That’s the name of an old popular song.

It could be the theme song of this year’s presidential election.  And it may be the key to a big win for Kamela Harris, not the expected close election.  Instead of barely scraping by, as the pundits and polls now forecast, she could win by a convincingly large margin.

We are constantly reminded that in a few states, a few votes could determine the result.  Because the outcome could go either way, that makes them swing states, while the results in all others are considered to be locked in. 

But the election across the country may depend on the changing preferences of key groups of voters.  Swing voters could have an effect in many states beyond the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

Who are these groups?  Voters over 65, disaffected Republicans, Latinos, Asians and rural residents.  And the biggest group – women.

Beyond these groups are those whose leanings are known, and the question is if they will turn out to vote and have unimpeded access to the ballot box.   They are Blacks and young people.

As I’ve repeatedly noted, the so-called suburban women with a post-high school education have become a major voting force.  They outnumber the blue-collar men having no education beyond high school.

Not only do they outnumber the supposed Trump core, but they vote at a higher rate. They are reported to be better motivated in this election because of the abortion issue.  And they are becoming a separately identified and independent minded political force.

Older voters have traditionally been Republican supporters, but they have become almost evenly divided between the two presidential candidates.  They show up to vote at a higher rate than any other age group, so this shift could move active voters from one camp to another.  The same trend may be true for rural voters.

Clearly, Trump forces have taken control of the GOP from traditional economic conservatives.  While many Republicans will remain faithful to the ticket, others are now in play. Will they hold their noses and vote for Harris or will they stay home? 

Their leader is likely to be Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming GOP member of Congress. While she was soundly defeated in the party primary by a Trump backer, she retained a share of her state’s Republican voters.  Now that she has spoken out against Trump, millions of disaffected Republicans across the country might follow her lead.

Latino and Asian voters are not expected to depart from their usual voting patterns.  Much support will remain with Trump.  But to the extent that their support is loosened, possibly because they are uncomfortable with his style, they weaken his chances.  Given that he has likely hit his maximum level of support, he cannot afford such defections.

Black voters had been reported as lacking enthusiasm for President Biden leading to a reduced turnout and some even turning to Trump.  Their loss was a major problem for Biden.  But Harris, firmly recognized as a Black, despite Trump having tried to create doubt, can bring them back.

The constitutional amendment allowing voting at age 18 has been a disappointment as many young people have remained aloof from politics. But issues ranging from abortion to Gaza appear to be creating a wave of new registrations among the youth.  The Democrats think they stand to gain from first-time voters.

These swing voters may not only be a factor in the seven swing states, but are likely to appear to some extent in almost all states.  That may mean that states rated as solidly in the Republican camp could move closer to being in play.

Florida, once a toss-up state, has been thought to be a win for Trump.  Texas, seeming to be firmly under Republican domination, has been seen as a sure thing for him.  Neither now appears likely to disappoint him.  But the gap between Trump and Harris has narrowed to the point where both, with a total of 70 electoral votes, have lost their certainty for Trump.

The campaign is far from over.  Trump could win half of the swing states. He could try to slug it out in Pennsylvania, a state critically important for Harris.  And, of course, there could be major, unforeseen events that can radically change the election outlook.

But if the swing voters turn out to make a difference across the country with their shift not limited to the swing states, Harris could gain a major victory.  Her momentum matters.

Not only would such a win give her a clear mandate, but it would undermine any disruptive Trump “Stop the Steal” effort and promote an orderly transition.

Close election?  Don’t count on it. 

Harris’ policies versus Trump’s

 

Gordon L. Weil

During the Democratic National Convention, news analysts repeatedly say that Kamala Harris had better hurry up and define her policies before Trump does it for her, putting her on the defensive.

They start from a false premise.  She has stated these major policy positions:

Reproductive choice (formerly known as abortion rights).  She is outspoken on this key issue and wants a federal guarantee of this right.  By contrast, Trump varies between banning it nationally and state action.

Economy.  She has proposed traditional Democratic pump-priming measures to stimulate housing and jobs.   She wants anti-gouging laws as some states, like Texas, already have. She favors an independent Federal Reserve.  By contrast, Trump favors wealth accumulation, which should be an incentive to striving workers. This is even less than trickle-down.  He would end Fed independence.

Immigration.  She supports bi-partisan legislation, which Trump instructed the GOP to block, so he could later get the credit for it.  She also supports Biden’s immigration controls which are working with Mexican help. Trump wants to deport millions of long-term residents, that would undermine the economy.  Plus, the wall.

Labor unions.  She supports them and their greater role.  Trump would fire people who seek to organize.

Israel-Palestine.  She supports immediate cease-fire, but cannot depart from Biden policy on arms sales.  The country can have only one foreign policy at a time.  Trump supports Netanyahu, so could not broker peace.  This is a loose end for Harris, but you cannot negotiate independently from Biden or by showing your hand publicly.

In a short campaign, the candidates can focus on a few of the most major issues.  They have done so and have contrasting positions.  The pundits should back off. 

Finally, Trump sees America as failing; Harris sees it rising.  It’s the “vision thing.”

Election puts image over issues

Gordon L. Weil

Political campaigns look for motivational catch phrases. 

One of the most famous was posted in Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign headquarters.  It simply read: “The economy, stupid.”  Workers were to focus on this single issue as a key to winning.

This year, the key may just be emerging to voters distracted by daily polls.  It could be: “It’s about image.”

Pollsters ask voters about the issues most important to them.  Or they may ask about whether a voter views a candidate favorably or unfavorably.  If you have ever voted for a candidate you disagreed with on a major issue or just plain disliked, you might doubt the value of such opinion surveys.

Polls don’t ask if the personality and character of a candidate influences a voter more than their position on major issues.  This year, it’s possible that the image reflecting each candidate’s character may matter more than their positions on issues.

Of course, this effect focuses mostly on swing voters.  The great majority of voters decide based on party affiliation or their personal loyalty to a specific candidate.   Relatively few such people are moved by campaigns. Some issues, like immigration or abortion, may promote voting swings, but how much is not clear.

The contest between former President Trump and Vice President Harris appears to turn largely on who they are more than on any single issue.

Donald Trump provides simple answers to difficult questions. His intentionally inflammatory statements appeal to some people unhappy with the government, especially when they believe others benefit at their expense.  He is negative about the country, and his recourse to America’s “great” past may signal an attempt to slow the changing national ethnic mix.

Yet, Trump’s simple answers may turn out to be simplistic, turning off some voters.  He does not hesitate to lie about objectively verifiable facts.  Recently, he has boldly asserted that there were no crowds at Harris rallies, when thousands could directly testify to having been there. 

He makes claims about his past successes and unfounded charges against the Democrats, but the risk is that the media’s fact-checking can sound like sour grapes.  He is harshly negative about the state of the nation.  His self-confidence may stifle reporters, who struggle to avoid showing any bias against him.

He is more attached to power than the substance of policies, many adopted from hard-right advocates.  He has successfully attached himself to extreme Republican conservatism, which he found ready for strong leadership.

Trump has always been ambitious.  His political career seems more driven by self-gratification than public service.  As with some other past political leaders, the old mantra may apply: “Deep down, he’s shallow.” 

Perhaps above all else, the undeniable fact is that he is now by far the oldest candidate, which could bring him under closer scrutiny.  He now seeks debates, both because he may see himself as the underdog and to demonstrate that age has not taken the same toll on him as it has on Biden.

Trump is well-known, but Kamala Harris has to become known in a short period of time.  Her undeniable facts are that she is middle-aged, far younger than Trump, and a woman.  The challenge for her is to demonstrate that matters politically.

She is trying to show herself as highly active and able to maintain a level of campaigning that is beyond Trump’s ability.  She implicitly makes age an issue and makes frequent campaign stops so that voters and the media can form fresh opinions about her.  She is upbeat.

The test of her political skill comes in having to remain loyal to Biden, who gave her the path to the presidency, while showing she has a mind of her own and can open some space with the administration in which she still serves.  Israel-Palestine may be a bigger challenge to showing if she can lead than immigration or the economy.

Pundits have focused on the Democrats ceding blue collar voters to the GOP, implying that these losses cannot be fully made up by their gains among educated women voters. Harris obviously ties her image to support for abortion choice, an issue resonating with women voters, and the numbers may be in her favor.

The number of women over age 25 with post-high school educational attainment far exceeds the number of men whose schooling ended at high school or earlier.   Here Harris’ persona could matter.

As for running mates, they likely can hurt a ticket more than help it.  JD Vance, like Trump who chose him, runs based on his celebrity.  He is intensely loyal.  Harris’ Tim Walz, a Minnesotan, comes across as a Midwesterner in the tradition of his state’s long-ago Veep, Hubert Humphrey, called “the happy warrior.”

Voters may decide based on candidates’ images, more than on the issues.  Maybe they always have. 

 

‘The Big Mo’ -- Harris needs momentum; Trump would block it

 

Gordon L. Weil

Political candidates want “The Big Mo” – big momentum.

The idea, which originated in professional sports in the 1960s, soon spread to politics.  The theory is that momentum influences how people vote. Progress promotes progress.

In this year’s presidential race, we may see momentum. That’s because the 100-day campaign is much shorter than it has been in more than half a century.  President Biden’s withdrawal produced a new Democratic candidate and entirely changed the landscape for the challenger. 

Not only is the campaign brief, but also both candidates start from scratch.  Though her success came rapidly, Vice President Kamala Harris could not begin her campaign until she had lined up the necessary delegate support.  For former President Donald Trump, it meant going “back to the old drawing board” to redesign his campaign.

For Harris, given the declining Biden support, there’s nowhere to go but up and momentum is essential.  She needs to restore Democratic unity and gain among independents and disaffected Republicans.  For Trump, who may have peaked just short of 50 percent, the challenge is stalling her momentum by adding to his core support.

The shorter campaign with its necessarily sharper focus might increase voter interest between now and November 5.  In this short race, the vice-presidential picks could be a factor.

Trump’s choice of hard-hitting JD Vance was meant to appeal to Mid-America’s workers. So far, Vance has not boosted Trump’s standing.  Harris’ had the same intent with Tim Walz.  She may hope that his affable style plus his greater federal government experience than Trump, Vance or herself can add to her momentum.

The media plays a critical role in how campaign interest develops.  Aside from the purely partisan players like MSNBC and Fox, preaching to the faithful, many voters develop their impressions of candidates from the media’s coverage.  Media messages may not be explicit, but can be tilted.

Of course, money also matters. With huge war chests, candidates’ paid media conveys often exaggerated or false information, focusing more on the opposition than themselves.  That can motivate their supporters and influence people who accept the video spots as fact.  The bias is obvious but still can be influential.

A driving force behind media attitudes is opinion polling.  The polls now come in a daily torrent.  Every day’s little movement, even within the so-called margin of error, influences the media. Does it focus on Harris’ experience or inexperience?   On Trump’s policies or his posing?  The polls may guide the coverage.

As frequently noted in this column, polls have serious defects, ranging from the refusal of many voters to participate to the undisclosed bias of the pollsters.  So, survey numbers should be viewed with skepticism.

But they are useful in at least one respect. They reveal momentum.  If a candidate’s numbers are steadily growing, that shows positive momentum.  At that point, the media can be expected to become more positive about a candidate whose support is growing.  In turn, more positive media coverage can stimulate more positive poll results.

Handle with care. The poll results are fragile and can be affected by a single major event.  The bottom fell out for Biden after his debate failure in a way that could not have been foreseen.  That one evening changed the entire election campaign.  If the event or error is big enough, simple coverage of it can affect voters.

Much of the media and voter focus is on the national poll standing of the candidates.  That’s not really helpful, because we do not have a national, popular election.  Given the way the electoral vote works, a Democrat is likely to need a solid lead in the country as a whole to be assured of gaining enough electoral votes.  Running even with a GOP opponent may not do the job.

Where history has shown close races, the media focuses on swing states that might determine the election outcome.  Polling may focus on individual states, but the surveys may be intermittent or incompetent. The same concerns apply as for national polling.

The greater the margin between the two alternatives, the more reliable are the poll results.  Statistics show that survey data is more reliable the wider the gap.  Here polling momentum can matter, flowing through to the media and back again.  Within the margin of error, differences don’t matter.

Trump must try to block any Harris momentum by extending his appeal beyond his MAGA core.  If he holds onto Republican conservatives, he could win.

Harris has benefitted from increased party unity following her selection and may get a lift from the Democratic National Convention. 

Can she capture “the Big Mo” next month?  If her progress is more than a polling “bounce,” she could surprise with a solid victory. The bigger her margin, the lower the likelihood of an effective Trump post-election challenge.

Trump-Harris race confused by wild speculation

 

Gordon L. Weil

Last December, I wrote a column headed, “Biden versus Trump? Not so fast.”  A month earlier, I had described a scenario in which Trump could face somebody other than Biden.

I recall these columns not to say, “I told you so,” but to underline again how much we should be skeptical of campaign punditry and polling.

Between now and Election Day, there will be a new and short campaign with former president Trump and Sen. J. D. Vance facing Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate.  That’s all we really know.

Within seconds of Biden withdrawing and endorsing Harris, the pundits hit the media. The range of subjects on which they began speculating was breathtaking, sacrificing thoughtful analysis for the sake of speed.  Notably, comments instantly criticized Harris, going tougher on her than it had on Vance, when Trump named him.

These shoot-from-the-hip opinions will probably prove worthless and will soon be forgotten, to be replaced by new rounds of punditry.  Right now, it is more useful simply to focus on the “known unknowns” about the race.

Why will Harris be the Democratic nominee?

Any challenger would have a tough time overcoming Harris’ advantage as the heir to the Biden-Harris campaign.  The campaign will be short, so the Democrats opted not to spend weeks in a nomination contest ending at an open convention. 

Does Biden’s withdrawal improve the Democratic Party’s chances for the presidency?

With Biden having appeared increasingly weak, voters may no longer worry about the age of both candidates.  Harris is younger and more connected to middle-aged and young voters.   Democrats, especially donors, seem to be enthusiastic about her.  That should improve the party’s prospects, but is far from ensuring a win.

Does the focus on Trump change?

He will now be the old man of the election and that could change perceptions of him and increase attention to his oratorical confusion and false statements.  Harris could exploit his weaknesses as Biden couldn’t and try to change the focus from being a referendum on Trump.  She might push her own agenda, while dismissing his attacks and recalling his legal woes.   

Who will the Democrats pick as their vice-presidential candidate?

They have the opportunity to avoid an elite image. Trump chose mid-American Vance, and the Democrats may be tempted to pick a male candidate from Arizona, Kentucky, Pennsylvania or North Carolina, an election victor in a GOP state who could help Harris in swing states.

Has the influence of women in the election changed?

With Harris heading the ticket, women might be even more engaged than they have been, because of the abortion issue.   The battle for the suburbs could turn on the votes of women determined to show up at the polls.  She may attract some supporters of Nikki Haley, the last GOP opponent to Trump’s nomination.

What about Black voters?

They were reportedly losing some enthusiasm for Biden.  Harris is a graduate of Howard University, a leading Black school.  That contrasts even with former president Obama’s education at Ivy League universities.  Her background could help motivate Black voters, who might swing the election.

Will there be debates and will they matter?

Both say they want to debate, but they must first agree on the media and rules. Trump may not want the CNN rules, preferring a format that allows him the chance to interrupt.  Harris may try to put him on the defensive in her own style, distinct from Biden’s or Hillary Clinton’s.  A debate could be the high point of the campaign and make the election into a real contest.

Is there something happening below the surface?

Voters pick the president. But who gets to the ballot box matters, and Trump’s GOP is ready to make voting access difficult. If he loses, Trump will inevitably challenge the result and is already preparing.  It’s not clear if the Democrats are ready to deal, quickly and effectively, with both attempts.

Could something unexpected happen?

Yes.  The debate, the assassination attempt on Trump, and Biden’s withdrawal have had major unforeseen effects.  Candidates are vulnerable in many ways, especially to their own failings.  A single unexpected event could still change everything.

Will pundits promote a clear view of the election?

Unlikely.  The “experts” change their views as often as they change their clothes.  They engage more in speculation than in careful analysis.  A single day’s news event becomes the foundation of their short-term take on long-term wisdom.

What about opinion polls?

Their problems in finding willing participants and phrasing questions are well known.  In this new political situation, they are likely to be unreliable at the outset.  Polls appearing just before the elections are likely to be the most valid forecasts.

Bottom line on the election?

Be skeptical. Avoid speculation. There’s a lot we don’t yet know.