Harris’s Ghosts from Polling Past

In Charles Dickens’s classic “A Christmas Carol,” curmudgeon Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by Christmas past, present, and future ghosts, transforming him into a kinder and more generous soul.

Political polling also creates grouches, especially when we see our favored candidate losing in the polls, or our disliked candidate given a false boost due to the polling sample composition.

What do the polls of elections past tell us about the current presidential race? We know the present as there is no shortage of polls these days. We wish we knew the future as many of us would sleep better at night, or else make sure our passports are renewed, ready to move to a less dystopian country, if any still exist.

As a simple exercise, let’s look at presidential polls from 2016 (Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton), 2020 (Trump versus Joe Biden), and 2024 (Trump versus Kamala Harris).

We can review popular polling organizations that were active in all three elections and also look at the same point in time, late September, just over a month until the election.

 This is the last week of September. The Real Clear Politics average shows Harris up 2.1 points over Trump, with only Rasmussen Reports and Atlas Intel giving Trump a 2 to 3-point lead.

Now let us look at specific polls.

For 2024. Quinnipiac (9/19-9/22) shows a tie. Reuters/Ipsos (9/21-9/23) shows Harris +6. CNN (9/19- 9/22) has Harris +1. Fox News (9/13-9/16) shows Harris +2.

Now look at the same polls eight years ago. The dates don’t match exactly as the polls are not commissioned on identical dates each election cycle but are all in the same general time frame of late September.

 For 2016. Quinnipiac (9/22-9/25) showed Clinton +1. Reuters/Ipsos (9/22-9/26) had Clinton +6. CNN (9/28-10/2) also showed Clinton +6. Fox News (9/27-9/29) had Clinton +5.

In other words, late September polls in 2016 showed Clinton had a bigger edge over Trump compared to Harris’s current lead over Trump, but Clinton lost the 2016 election.

Now for 2020. Quinnipiac (9/17- 9/21) had Biden +10. Reuters/Ipsos (9/18-9/22) showed Biden +8. CNN (10/1=10/4) had Biden +16. Fox News (10/3-10/6) showed Biden +10.

Biden went on to win, although with a very small margin based on a handful of battleground states. NPR said of the close election, "Just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College."

Averaging the four polls noted above for late September, Clinton was +5, Biden was +11, and Harris is currently only +2.

If both Clinton and Biden had big polling leads in late September and the final margins were very narrow, Harris at the same point in time, with smaller polling margins, is likely to lose.

These comparative margins suggest the Democrat candidate will perform 8 to 10 points lower than the polls today indicate. If Harris today only polls a couple of points better than Trump, she will likely lose the general election.

Nate Silver calls the race today “a toss-up.” In 2016, Nate Silver’s 538 Project, on September 27, gave Clinton a 56% chance of winning, compared to Trump at 44%. Today the 538 Project also gives Harris a 56% chance of winning.

Clinton and Harris had the same slight chance of winning their respective elections in late September, and Clinton lost. Does this foreshadow the same fate for Harris?

The conclusion is that Harris is underperforming in the polls compared to Clinton and Biden at the same point in the election cycle. Clinton lost, and Biden closely won, although there is much skepticism over that result.

If Harris is running behind both Clinton and Biden in late September, it is reasonable to surmise, barring any potential October surprises, that Trump is favored to win on November 5.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer.

Follow me on Twitter @retinaldoctor

Substack Dr. Brian’s Substack

Truth Social @BrianJoondeph

LinkedIn @Brian Joondeph

See Other Commentaries by Brian C. Joondeph.

See Other Political Commentaries.