Dive into the complexities of this election year.

How They Create Perceptible Bounces for Political Candidates

Consider a scenario in which a highly contentious election unfolds, characterized by an early and lopsided debate, a change in candidates, the withdrawal of a third-party contender, and a steadfastness among voters in their preferences. While this situation does not precisely mirror the events of America's 60th presidential election year, it bears a notable resemblance.

The public has observed the unprecedented occurrence at the 43rd Republican National Convention, where, for the first time in the party's history, a presidential candidate has been nominated for a third consecutive term. The only other Republican to achieve three nominations was Richard Nixon, albeit not in consecutive elections.

Similarly, the 49th Democratic National Convention witnessed the nomination of the incumbent vice president for the fourth time in the party's history, a feat last accomplished by Martin Van Buren in 1836.

Despite these significant developments, there has been little shift in voter sentiment. An analysis of the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls reveals that, from the day preceding the Biden-Trump debate to the Tuesday following the two conventions and the withdrawal of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Vice President Kamala Harris is polling 3.1 points ahead of President Joe Biden, while former President Donald Trump has seen a slight increase of 0.3 points since June 26.

This situation starkly contrasts with the 1988 election cycle, a period marked by peace and prosperity, during which concerns were raised about the incumbent president's age and vitality. At one point, Democrat Michael Dukakis held a commanding lead over Vice President George H.W. Bush by 27 points.

Ultimately, on Election Day, Bush secured victory with 53.4% of the vote, achieving a margin of 8 points in the popular vote, indicating that a significant portion of voters—between one-fifth and one-quarter—had shifted their support from one candidate to another.

The phenomenon of significant post-convention bounces for candidates has largely diminished in contemporary politics. Historically, national conventions were instrumental in generating noticeable increases in candidate support, with data from polling expert Nate Silver and his associate Eli McKown-Dawson indicating that from 1976 to 2000, when candidates had secured their party nominations and conventions were meticulously orchestrated events, the average bounce was recorded at 7.2 points.

In stark contrast, the period from 2004 to 2020 has seen a dramatic decline in these bounces, averaging merely 1.8 points, a trend attributed to heightened partisan polarization and a decline in convention viewership. As initial post-convention data emerges, McKown-Dawson notes a slight bounce, albeit with the important consideration that Vice President Harris's potential increase in support may have already occurred prior to the convention.

Additional nuances arise when examining the current polling figures for Trump in relation to those from previous election cycles. Currently, Harris holds a lead of 1.5 points according to RealClearPolitics, which is significantly lower than Biden's 7.1 points at the same juncture in 2020 and Hillary Clinton's 6.0 points in 2016.

In both of those prior elections, the polling figures for Democrats in late August closely aligned with their eventual popular vote percentages in November, while Trump's late August numbers were lower than his final popular vote totals by 2.9 and 2.5 points, respectively. Notably, Trump secured victory in 2016 and narrowly missed winning in 2020, falling short by just 42,918 popular votes across three states, largely due to the concentration of Democratic votes in heavily Democratic regions, which did not translate into additional electoral votes.

Silver posits that this year, Trump may experience a diminished advantage in the Electoral College, primarily due to his growing support among Hispanic and Black voters, which is likely to narrow Democratic margins in traditionally blue states. He also emphasizes that while polling in 2016 and 2020 may have underestimated Trump's support, there is no assurance that this trend will persist in the current election cycle.

It is uncertain whether most journalists will remain indifferent to Harris' stances on various issues, continuing to uncritically promote anonymous campaign staffers' claims that she has shifted away from the unpopular positions she held as a 2020 presidential candidate, such as banning fracking, defunding the police, and abolishing private health insurance.

Fracking may become a more prominent topic, especially given its significance in western and central Pennsylvania, areas traditionally supportive of Trump outside of gentrified urban centers. In her convention speech, Harris notably avoided the term "climate change," opting instead to discuss "clean air," a concept rooted in 1970s legislation, and she has yet to clarify her reasons for abandoning her strong opposition to fracking.

Additionally, Harris does not possess the local advantages that Biden leveraged in 2020, such as his Scranton connections, nor the potential support from Governor Josh Shapiro had she selected him as her vice-presidential pick. Current polling from RealClearPolitics indicates Trump is slightly ahead by 0.2 points, contrasting with his previous deficits against Biden and Clinton at this time in 2020 and 2016.

If Pennsylvania's 19 electoral votes are added to the 235 from states Trump won in 2020, along with the 16 from Georgia and 11 from Arizona that he narrowly lost, he would reach 281 electoral votes, surpassing the 270 needed for victory and potentially leading to a Republican-controlled House if the election were to result in a tie.

Similar electoral scenarios can be envisioned for Harris, who currently has a 52.5% chance of winning against Trump according to Silver's analysis. Alternatively, one might consider the results of this month's all-party primary in Washington state, which has historically been a reliable indicator of general election outcomes since 1994.

In his analysis this year, Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics has scrutinized the electoral results and concludes that they indicate Democrats are likely to secure approximately two percentage points less than Biden's vote share from 2020. He also suggests that the outcome in the House of Representatives is expected to be tightly contested, with the potential for either party to emerge victorious. This assessment represents one of the clearest forecasts from Trende, who notably anticipated the Republican shift among non-college-educated white voters back in 2013. Overall, the political landscape remains marked by significant upheaval yet shows minimal substantive change.

Thank you for your donation!