Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Baseline captures a state or congressional district’s political performance by combining all federal and state election results over the past four election cycles into a single score. It seeks to approximate what the “typical” Democrat or Republican might receive in any given state, showing major…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

The 2024 elections were going to humble one party, and voters called Democrats to the carpet. It will take days to get final results and probably weeks before there’s a full understanding of what happened, but there are more than a few points that can be made in the wake of elections.

History Making
Donald Trump will be the first person to be elected president after being defeated since Grover Cleveland in the late 1800s. Trump is also the oldest person ever elected president (he’s older than Biden was in 2020). And Trump is the first convicted felon ever elected president.

It wasn’t a surprise.
Unlike 2016, no one was making firm declarations about who was going to get elected president in 2024. The national polling showed an even race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris and the candidates were locked in the seven swing states. Only the foolish were ruling out a Trump victory. 

We even wrote about how it could feel like a landslide if the election shifted a few points in one direction and one candidate swept the toss-up states. Trump might not sweep them, but he’s coming close. Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada have been called for Trump by at least one major media entity. Arizona remains outstanding. Without those states, Trump is at 295 Electoral College votes. (He received 304 in his 2016 win.)

But it was kind of a surprise.
What was surprising was the breadth of Trump's victory across so many demographics. He improved among nearly all types of voters compared to four years ago. Trump gained among various minority voters, younger voters, men, etc. The media could try to pinpoint one specific demographic as the catalyst for Trump’s win, but it was broad.

Before Election Day, it looked like Trump was stuck, politically. He received 46.1 percent nationally in his 2016 win, 46.8 percent nationally in his 2020 loss, and was polling at 46.8 percent in the 538 national polling average. But Trump is hovering close to 51 percent in the current tally. He might be the first GOP presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years, since President George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. He put up massive wins in big states such as Texas and Florida, and came surprisingly close to winning blue states such as New Jersey, where Harris leads by just 4 points.

GOP Senate
As expected, Republicans gained control of the Senate. They needed to gain two seats for a majority and they have at least a three-seat gain. That could push higher with wins in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada in races that have not been called by the Associated Press. With those key races still outstanding, the final could fall within our likely projection of a Republican gain of 2-4 seats or Republican gains could exceed it slightly.

Making History in Congress
Democrats Angela Alsobrooks in Maryland and Lisa Blunt Rochester in Maryland will become the first two Black women to serve together in the U.S. Senate. And Democrat Sarah McBride of Delaware will be the first transgender member of Congress. 

The Fight for the House Rages On
Nearly half of the 65 House races rated as competitive by Inside Elections have yet to be called by a major media outlet. Up to this point, the races have fallen as expected with a few exceptions. Pennsylvania Reps. Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright lost re-election in races rated as Tilt Democratic coming into Election Day. 

With more than 20 races left to be called, the overall House range could fall within our likely projection of anything from a Republican gain of one seat to a Democratic gain of nine seats. Democrats need to gain four seats for a majority. 

Using AP data compiled by reporter Jamie Dupree, Republicans have won or are leading in 221 seats, while Democrats have won or are leading in 214 seats. That would be no net change in the House and fall within our pre-election projected range. But Republicans could still gain a seat or two. 

Who’s to Blame?
Even though Harris is on track to be soundly thumped by Trump, it would be shortsighted of Democrats to place the blame solely on the vice president’s shoulders. 

While the shift from Biden to Harris at the top of the ticket breathed new life into Democratic chances of winning, she was still saddled with Biden’s unpopularity and an electorate sour on the economy and the direction of the country. Nearly 63 percent of voters said the country was headed in the wrong direction compared to just 27 percent who said it’s headed in the right direction, according to the RealClearPolitics national average. Those are difficult numbers for the incumbent party to overcome.

In addition, Trump benefited from collective amnesia around the country. According to Gallup at the end of September, a majority of Americans believed their family was worse off now compared to four years ago. That’s remarkable considering the country was still scrambling in a pre-vaccine pandemic posture, unemployment was at 6.7 percent in October 2020 compared to 4.1 percent last month, and 1,200 Americans were dying with Covid-19 every day in November 2020. 

But voters’ perceptions matter more than reality. And there’s no question in my mind that Trump benefited from the distance between the end of his presidency and the 2024 elections. How do I know? If Americans were so happy with Trump’s first four years in office, then he wouldn’t have lost to Biden by 7 million votes.

Democrats should take the opportunity to reflect and have a broader conversation about the party brand, what the party stands for, what it’s known for, and who will lead the party moving forward. Because there appears to be a chasm between Democrats and a majority of voters right now.

Shifting Coalitions
Yes, Trump improved among all sorts of voter groups and got elected with maybe the most diverse coalition of voters for a Republican in recent history. But I’m not convinced this is a permanent shift for the two parties, but rather a specific dynamic with Trump. Once Trump is gone, I’m not sure this coalition is easily transferable to another candidate. 

We’ve seen over the last couple of years that anybody who tries to be Trump, fails. They look mean or silly compared to the original. But we won’t really know until we have an election without Trump on the ballot, in the White House, and a major part of the conversation.

At a minimum, Trump’s victory will embolden other politicians to emulate his style of brash and even offensive rhetoric. Even if voters didn’t specifically reward Trump because of his words, they certainly didn’t punish him.

Trump is Trump.
Trump’s resiliency is unmatched in American politics, past and future. His pre-established brand as a successful outsider supersedes virtually any wrongdoing because voters have such a low-view of politicians and government and Americans objectify celebrities. There’s no other politician who could withstand more than 90 federal indictments, more than 30 felony convictions, meandering speeches and awkward stage moments.

Even though he’s been a candidate and politician for nearly a decade, Trump is viewed as a change agent and disruptor at a time when voters are discontent. Change is the norm, as explained by DC political analyst Bruce Mehlman. This is the sixth consecutive election going back to 2014 in which at least one of the House, Senate, or White House switched party hands.

Mandate?
“America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate,” Trump said on stage in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, basking in the glory of his victory. Claiming a mandate is a rite of passage for the winning party. 

But while his victory was sweeping, I’m not convinced a majority of voters understand what mass deportation looks like or feels like. Or that voters want the Jan. 6 insurrectionists to be pardoned. Or for Republicans to rehaul the Affordable Care Act. Or to use the Department of Justice against political enemies. Or get rid of fluoride in water. Or ban vaccines.

More voters trusted Trump as a leader compared to Harris, but the results felt more like a repudiation of the Democratic brand than a desire for Trump to pursue his most vindictive goals.

Looking to 2026
While the dust is still settling on the 2024 elections, the baseline for the 2026 midterm elections has been set. Trump’s surprising strength in blue states may put a target on the backs of Democrats in New Jersey and Illinois, including likely new member Nellie Pou in New Jersey’s 9th District. That seat would have voted for Biden by 26 points in 2020 but Pou is clinging to a 5 point lead. Rep. Tom Suozzi also can’t rest easy after narrowly beating an underfunded GOP opponent by 2 points as Trump likely carried his district based on his increased strength in Nassau County.

That said, Trump oversaw a resounding defeat for Republicans in the 2018 midterms and his plans for a second administration could spark even more significant political backlash, so Democrats will be on offense as well — maybe not in Florida or in Texas though, where GOP gerrymanders and favorable political trends have extinguished Democratic hopes two cycles in a row.

In the Senate, Democrats face another challenging cycle, and depending on how uncalled races in Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania shake out, the party could be a distance from a majority. Maine and North Carolina are probably their best pickup opportunities, and in a favorable cycle, Iowa, Texas and Alaska could develop into interesting races. But the party will be on defense in Minnesota, Michigan and Georgia.

Perhaps the most interesting race of the next cycle will be in Ohio, where a special election to replace Vice President-elect J. D. Vance will take place. Tuesday’s results showed Democrats are the underdogs in the Buckeye State, but the political environment could be very different a year into the second Trump administration.

With the Senate potentially out of reach for Democrats, the House will be the focus of the 2026 elections.

The System Worked.
As usual, we had a free and fair election. It’s remarkable that the only times in recent history when there were claims of rigged elections and allegations of widespread fraud were when two people lost: Trump in the 2020 presidential election and Republican Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial election in Arizona. 

Republicans were sowing the seeds of distrust in the system and the election for weeks leading up to Nov. 5, and Trump was even claiming the vote in Pennsylvania was rigged early on election night, but somehow all of those concerns evaporated when he won. 

On the flip side, Republicans have tried to claim that their election integrity efforts or tantrums about fraud are equaled by Democrats. But that’s just not the case. No serious Democrats are casting any doubt about the 2024 results and Harris conceded to Trump graciously Wednesday afternoon. 

In the same vein, both parties are not the same when it comes to protesting the results of an election. Apparently there was some concern that Democrats would riot if Harris lost, evidenced by boarded up buildings and fencing in D.C. It was always unlikely, and it never materialized. 

The Death of Polls?
Did Trump drive a stake through the heart of polls? Maybe, and maybe not. While polls clearly showed that a Trump victory was possible, it looks like many surveys underestimated his support for a third consecutive cycle. 

At the same time, it was the lack of polls that led to a “miss” of Trump’s surprisingly strong performance. If we had had more polls in Illinois or New Jersey or other Democratic places where Trump overperformed, at least some of those surveys would have likely pointed to a stronger-than-normal Republican performance by Trump. 

As we look ahead to 2026, it’s important to remember that polling in 2018 and 2022 was more accurate - notably when Trump wasn’t on the ballot - but pollsters will likely be doing some soul searching on methodologies once again. 

View Article at Inside Elections

It’s never wise to jump to conclusions based on any single poll. But it would be foolish to ignore results from a quality pollster. 

Ann Selzer shocked the political world on Saturday evening with a poll showing Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of former President Donald Trump by 3 points in Iowa, 47 percent to 44 percent. Trump won the Hawkeye State by 8 points in 2020 and 9 points in 2016 but Selzer is regarded as the polling gold standard in Iowa with a reputation for identifying trends that other pollsters missed. 

Up to this point, Iowa has been nowhere near the list of seven toss-up states that have garnered the vast majority of attention from the candidates, campaigns, and the media. Even Selzer’s previous poll in Iowa, showing Trump ahead of Harris by 4 points in early September, did little to put the state on the political radar. Any talk about the presidential map expanding has come from a confident Trump campaign declaring that Virginia, New Mexico, and New Jersey could be within the former president’s reach. There was little evidence Trump was vulnerable on his right flank. 

While the Selzer survey could be an outlier, her record cannot be ignored. Besides the 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses, Selzer's polls have been remarkably accurate. 

Selzer's final pre-election surveys in key statewide races have been within 3 points or less of the final margin in five of the last six election cycles going back to 2012, according to data compiled by Matthew Klein of The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. 

We won’t know until Tuesday night whether the Selzer poll is correct or if it foreshadowed problems for Trump in other states. But, at a minimum, Iowa should be regarded as closer and more competitive than previously thought. We’re shifting our rating from Likely Republican to Tilt Republican.

House Races
Shifting Iowa’s 1st District, represented by Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, from Toss-up to Tilt Democratic and the 3rd District, represented by Republican Zach Nunn from Toss-up to Tilt Republican were two of the most aggressive rating changes we made in the most recent issue of Inside Elections at the end of last week. 

Unfortunately, Selzer does not poll individual congressional races, so an apples-to-apples comparison is not possible. But it’s hard to see how Harris would be ahead by 3 points statewide and not running ahead of Trump in one or both of those competitive districts. In 2020, Trump received 50 percent in the 1st and 49 percent in the 3rd. Between the two incumbents, Nunn is better-positioned to sustain a Trump underperformance at the top of the ticket. 

That being said, without having specific polling between the named candidates, we’ve decided to maintain our ratings in the current Iowa districts. And that includes Iowa’s 2nd District, represented by Republican Ashley Hinson, which is rated as Solid Republican but could be vulnerable if Harris is performing that strong at the top of the ticket. Democrat Sarah Corkery trailed the congresswoman $2 million to $29,000 in available campaign funds on Oct. 16. 

Beyond Iowa
Even if Selzer’s survey is optimistic for Harris, just a shift of a couple points in her direction in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania would be consequential and likely would be enough for her to win the presidency. 

The Iowa poll may not tell us as much about what’s happening in the other toss-up states in other regions including North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, unless the trend is more about winning women and senior voters by larger margins than it is about regional appeal or even specific to Iowa. 

It could also portend good news for Democratic hopes of maintaining control of the Senate. If Harris pulls closer to Trump in Ohio and only loses by mid-single digits or less, that could be enough to help Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown win re-election. Harris would still need to win the White House and Republicans would probably still need to lose either Texas or Nebraska to offset Democratic Sen. Jon Tester’s loss in Montana, but Brown winning wouldn’t hurt.

The Selzer poll also makes me wonder whether I was too dismissive of Democrat Lucas Kunce’s recent survey in neighboring Missouri, which showed him trailing GOP Sen. Josh Hawley by just 3 points. Trump won the Show Me State by 19 and 15 points in the last two elections, so it’s still a long-shot, but those are the sorts of things that go through my head when opening my mind to possibilities.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Once a necessary component for any Democratic presidential win, Wisconsin has become an important part of both parties’ paths to the White House. This November, Trump will lean on his strength with the state’s many rural white voters, while Vice President Kamala Harris will aim to avoid the mistakes of her Democratic…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

I used to be a debate skeptic. I was skeptical that debates changed the trajectory of elections. But after President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump squared off in one of the most consequential debates in history on June 27 and considering the race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is incredibly close, the vice presidential debate became must-watch television. 

It will be at least a few days to know whether GOP Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota delivered a performance that persuaded independent voters in the seven toss-up states, but there are at least a handful of initial takeaways. 

The presidential race was close before the vice presidential debate and it will be close after the debate. I know I say this in response to almost every piece of news, but it still rings true. In an evenly divided country where the vast majority of voters have already decided whether they’re going to support former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, it’s difficult to have a game-changing event. 

It’s hard to declare a winner. As a single event, Vance won the debate. He was more polished, didn’t ever look rattled and didn’t seem to veer from his gameplan or talking points. Walz was visibly nervous at the beginning and stumbled over his words at times (including saying that he befriended school shooters). But that doesn’t mean Vance persuaded voters, which is more important to the election. It will take at least a few days for viewers to digest what they saw or for people who didn’t watch to consume the media coverage and decide whether their minds were changed before we can really declare a winner. 

Vance followed in Harris’ footsteps. While the content of their performances was very different, Vance played the role of Harris in the debate. On Sept. 10, Harris delivered the debate performance that Democrats wish Biden would have delivered on June 27. She was agile in defending her own policies while simultaneously going on the attack. On Tuesday, Vance delivered the performance Republicans wish Trump had delivered on Sept. 10. He kept the focus on Harris and stayed away from many of the internet fights. 

Whiplash on Harris. For the first three years of the current administration, Republicans have dismissed Harris as ineffectual and irrelevant. During the debate, Vance elevated Harris and portrayed her as the most consequential vice president in history. According to the senator, she was effectively playing the role of a king with the power to make decisions and set policies that reverated around the country and the world. It’s the right strategy for Republicans considering the overall voter dissatisfaction with the direction of the country under the Democratic administration. It makes sense to try and hold her responsible, even though vice presidents don’t have that much power. It’s also striking to think about whether Republicans believe Mike Pence held similar power in the Trump Administration. 

The Veil of Midwest Nice. There was a starkly different tone in the vice presidential debate. Unlike the presidential debate, Walz and Vance demonstrated a minimal level of respect for each other and seemed to go out of their way to acknowledge times of agreement. But that doesn’t mean they played nice. Moments of agreement were usually followed by an attack. Even then, those moments were usually delivered in a softer tone that could have been more palatable to voters compared to the presidential debate. And neither Vance nor Walz went to obvious attack lines about military records or childless cat lady comments.

Whiplash on Obamacare. Considering the modern version of the Republican Party came to power in response to the Affordable Care Act, and the former president has spent considerable time trying to repeal it, it was stunning to hear Vance elevate Trump as the champion of Obamacare. It’s more evidence that the ACA has evolved to become an integral part of life for many Americans and Republicans realized that its repeal could have political consequences. Trump has been trying to have it both ways on the issue for awhile now, but I’ve never heard Republicans go as far as elevating Trump as the savior of Obamacare like Vance did on Tuesday night. 

Republicans Might Take the 2020 Election to Their Political Grave. It’s not clear how many swing voters made it to the end of the debate when Vance declined to acknowledge Trump’s 2020 election loss, but they’ll hear about it in the subsequent media coverage. While that stance is probably popular with Trump’s base, it’s a loser with critical independent voters. Kari Lake of Arizona, and even Trump himself, are examples of candidates that would be in a much stronger electoral position if they’d just moved on from 2020. Trump is well within striking distance of Harris despite his actions on Jan. 6, and subsequent legal issues. He’d be in an undeniably stronger position if he’d just take the loss and moved on to the next fight. With the way a majority of Americans think fondly of his time in office, Trump would be a clear favorite in this race. But Republicans always seemed determined to make elections more difficult than they need to be. 

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

The first, and potentially only, debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is in the books. While it will be at least a few days or more to know how the Philadelphia faceoff played with voters, there are at least a handful of key points and initial takeaways. (And this is after watching the debate without being on Twitter/X.)

The race was close before the debate and I expect it to be close after the debate. We can’t forget that the vast majority of Americans have already decided who they are voting for in this election. Neither Trump nor Harris said or did anything on Tuesday night that would cause their supporters to leave at any significant level. But that doesn’t mean the debate is inconsequential. A shift of just a couple percentage points among independent voters in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and North Carolina could make the difference in the race. 

This was the performance Democrats were waiting for. Spot polls aside, it’s too early to measure how effective Harris was during the debate. But it’s clear this was the performance Democrats were hoping Biden would give on June 27 and hoped the vice president would give on Tuesday. She stood side-by-side with Trump, defended herself from some of his attacks while trying to cast a vision for the future, and even launched some attacks of her own. Her performance doesn’t guarantee victory in November, but I don’t think many Democrats walked away disappointed. 

Both candidates avoided some key questions. Both Trump and Harris sidestepped some key questions from the moderators that independent voters probably wanted to hear answered. Harris didn’t directly answer questions about changing positions on some policies, whether people are better off now than they were a few years ago, and about bearing any responsibility for the tragic exit from Afghanistan. Trump didn’t answer questions about why he told Senate Republicans to abandon the bipartisan immigration bill, how specifically he would deport millions of undocumented immigrants, whether he regretted anything about his actions on Jan. 6, and if he wanted Ukraine to win the war with Russia. Trump also refused to acknowledge his 2020 election loss. All of these questions have the potential to hurt each of their candidacies and both candidates declined to take advantage of the big opportunity and stage to answer those important questions. 

There was a clear contrast in style. Harris set the tone from the beginning by walking across the stage to shake Trump’s hand. In the side-by-side shots, Harris was watching and listening to Trump and reacting to his statements. In contrast, Trump stared ahead, mostly with a blank stare, but sometimes with a scowl or a smirk. Harris was calm and mostly serious with an occasional smile thrown in to couple with her attempts to mix in optimism and hope. Trump often had an elevated tone and seemed more angry. This was the contrast Democrats were hoping for, even though it’s too early to know whether it will matter. 

Trump delivered his attacks. Like an open fire hydrant, Trump was incessant in his attacks. He seemed to cover most of his greatest hits from countless attacks about immigrants and the border to former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s comments on abortion, Harris’ comments on fracking, to alleged gun confiscation, predictions of World War III and the financial activities of Hunter Biden, the president’s son. Trump’s amplification of false allegations of pet consumption by immigrants may have sounded strange to voters not buried in the online conversation over the previous 48 hours. Once again, Trump painted a dire picture of the country, hoping voters want to turn the page from Biden and Harris. After nearly 10 years on the national political stage, Harris is hoping voters want to turn the page from Trump. 

There were specific plays for key states. From Trump’s multiple references to fracking to Harris talking to Polish Americans during the Ukraine discussion or bringing up former Sen. John McCain during the health care section, both candidates made specific plays for key states including Pennsylvania and Arizona. 

This is a new race. Tuesday’s debate demonstrated the new dynamic of the race. For most of the cycle, Trump and his campaign were running circles around Biden. Harris showed on Tuesday that this is now more of an even fight, and is sometimes a step ahead of Trump. She delivered a host of attacks that often forced Trump to spend time defending his own record during the debate rather than the former president being able to focus solely on being on offense.That doesn’t guarantee victory for Harris, but it’s an entirely different dynamic than the Biden downward spiral.

It’s OK to wait before declaring a debate winner. Even though instant analysis is expected and rewarded, it’s not as important as how voters react. But Trump’s post debate tour through the spin room felt more like a cleanup than a victory lap.

View Article at Inside Elections

Listen to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Pocket Casts here.

The Inside Elections podcast analyzes congressional, presidential and gubernatorial races in a nonpartisan, data-driven, and accessible way. With a combination of reporting and data, Inside Elections brings valuable context to complex races. Go to InsideElections.com to subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter through individual subscriptions and group packages that are tailored for association and corporate PACs.

View Article at Inside Elections

Trump extended his narrow advantage throughout the spring to a more significant edge after the June 27 debate as President Joe Biden went into an electoral tailspin. Trump led in all of the swing states and threatened to expand the presidential battleground into long-shot states including Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia as Biden struggled with independent voters and the Democratic base, including young voters and minority voters. 

But the race has been turned on its head with…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

View Article at Inside Elections