The Paradigm Is Shifting

Yesterday I posted on how uncomfortable I've become with the RealClearPolitics model of the election, whereby Trump leads Biden by a small aggregate anount in battleground states, and this situation hasn't changed in six months. Yet issues like inflation and illegal immigration haven't been fixed. while Biden's deteriorating physical and mental condition have become increasingly visible. On top of that, the enthusiasm levels of the Trump and Biden campaigns are increasingly in contrast.

I pointed to little-reported trends in states outside the conventional-wisdom battlegrounds like Minnesota, Oregon, and Virginia, and by coincidence, I noticed a new Roanoke College poll that says Trump is tied with Biden in Virginia.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are tied (42%-42%) in a head-to-head matchup in Virginia, while Biden holds a two-point lead (40%-38%) when other candidates are included, according to the Roanoke College Poll. The Institute for Policy and Opinion Research (IPOR) at Roanoke College interviewed 711 likely voters in Virginia between May 12 and May 21, 2024. The survey has a weighted margin of error of 4.24%.

. . . This is the first time the Roanoke College Poll has shown the candidates tied, although the polls in February 2024 and November 2023 showed them within the margin of error.

Other Virginia polls have also been showing movement. RealClearPolitics itself lists only three polls since last December, including this most recent from Roanoke College. A Richmond Times-Dispatch poll from December 15-19 had Biden over Trump 49-43. A Virginia Commonwealth University poll from December 28 to January 13 had Biden over Trump 43-40.

That there are so few polls from an important state just outside the consensus battleground group is puzzling in itself, but if those polls are showing anything, they're showing that broader opinion is moving, while the polls from the battleground states aren't. As a contrarian, this suggests to me that there's a consensus methodology that's using data from a set group of "battleground" states that were battlegrounds only in 2016 and 2020 to impose a model on the 2024 election. This feeds my sense that Rush Limbaugh was right, that the polls are meant to shape the news, not report it.

There's a more complete discussion of the problems with the battleground theory at The American Spectator, The 2024 Battleground Grows and Tilts Toward Trump.

It is not just that the states that decided 2020’s outcome are increasingly leaning toward Trump — although they are. There are also strong indications that more states could play a potentially determinant role in 2024’s outcome and that these, too, are moving closer toward Trump.

. . . There are also strong indicators that five states not considered battleground states in 2020 could be today. Then, Biden won these by seemingly safe margins: Maine (9.1 percent), Minnesota (7.1 percent), New Hampshire (7.3 percent), New Mexico (10.8 percent), and Virginia (10.1 percent). However, recent polls show that Biden’s falling fortunes are having an impact here too.

. . . The six battleground states that Biden won in 2020 by less than 3 percent of the popular vote — and all of which he now trails — account for 77 electoral votes. Five second-tier battleground states of 2020 — which Biden won and, if Minnesota and New Hampshire are indicative, are now potentially in play this November — account for another 34 electoral votes.

What this means is that Biden is defending potentially 111 electoral votes, from which Trump only needs to win 35. In contrast, Biden has only one state, North Carolina (and he is trailing in polls there by far larger margins than the one he lost by in 2020) with 16 electoral votes, with which to potentially compensate for any electoral votes that Trump flips from him.

So this is suggesting there's something fundamentally wrong with the RealClearPolitics model: right now, RCP has poll aggregates showing Trump leading Biden by 0.9% in the popular vote, although this is meaningless, since the president is elected by the Electoral College. RCP has a separate Electoral College prediction based entirely on its aggregates in the consensus battlegound states, which has Trump leading by 219-215, a similar tossup assessment -- and this also hasn't moved in months. It then has a "no tossups" total 0f 312-226, which has likewise been static for months, but if there's an explanation of what the methodology here is, I haven't found it.

By the same token, the RCP list of seven "battlegrounds" hasn't changed for many months: Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsyhlvania, North Carolina, and Nevada. But the Americn Spectator piece makes an important point:

According to RCP polling averages, Biden now trails in each and by 3 percentage points (44.6 percent to 47.7 percent) in all combined. In North Carolina, the only battleground state Trump won in 2020, Biden’s deficit has increased from 1.3 percent four years ago to 4.8 percent today.

Wait a moment. Why is North Carolina even listed in the "battleground" group if Biden lost it in 2020 and seems almost certain to lose it in 2024? What was the logic of all those "battleground" choices? For instance, they aren't even listed in alphabetical order, it's just sort of a list without much of a reason for being there, and right now, Trump's likely to win all or most of them. So why are they "battlegrounds"? Why not start to add states like Virginia, New Hampshire, or Minnesota to the list and maybe even take states like Nevada or North Carolina off it? Wouldn't that more accurately depict the current state of the campaigns?

The current received line is that the election is a tossup, and Sean Trende is apparently in the middle of declaring that it's a tossup if the election is a tossup. This works to the Democrats' advantage by giving people like Dr Jill the credibility to say "those polls are going to turn, I’m confident of it.”

But if it were a tossup, the prominent anonymous Democrats wouldn't be freaking out.