For reference, all election ratings used in the text and maps of the article employ this color-coded system:
Safe Democratic: Dark Blue
Likely Democratic: Light Blue
Lean Democratic: Pale Blue
Tossup: Beige
Lean Republican: Pale Red
Likely Republican: Light Red
Safe Republican: Dark Red
All polling averages are from FiveThirtyEight.
The Presidential Election
NATIONAL: Harris +2.7 (+0.1)
Swing States
Lean Democratic
Wisconsin: Harris + 1.7 (+0.5)
Michigan: Harris + 1.6 (+1.1)
Tossup
Pennsylvania: Harris + 0.8 (+0.5)
North Carolina: Trump +0.5 (+0.2)
Georgia: Trump +1.2 (+0.4)
Arizona: Trump +1.2 (+0.1)
Nevada: Harris +1.1 (+0.4)
Peripheral States
Florida (Likely R): Trump +3.8 (+0.2)
Texas (Likely R): Trump +6.2 (+0.3)
New Hampshire (Likely D): Harris +7.1 (no change)
Virginia (Likely D): Harris +6.9 (+0.1)
The State of the Senate
Key Seats
Michigan (Lean D): Slotkin +4.7
Ohio (Tossup): Brown +2.7
Montana (Lean R): Sheehy +4.3
Texas (Lean R): Cruz +3.4
Florida (Likely R): Scott +4.4
Nebraska (Likely R): Fischer +2.6
Gubernatorial Elections
Weekly Recap: Vice Presidential Debate, Nebraska, and the Middle East
As with the past several weeks of polling, there have been few major shifts in the presidential race. Harris retains a small lead in the Rust Belt swing states (though a surge of polling from Republican-funded pollsters has caused a likely-temporary drop in some of her leads), while Trump narrowly leads in many of the Sun Belt swing states such as Georgia and Arizona. The governor’s races are mostly the same—Mark Robinson’s campaign hurtles towards disaster in North Carolina, while the New Hampshire race still suffers from a lack of polling. Polling is becoming more abundant for Senate races, however, giving us a much clearer idea of which seats are most likely to determine control. As Election Day is merely a month away, both presidential campaigns are going to have to fight harder and harder to make substantial changes in the direction of the race—though there’s always the chance of an “October Surprise” occurring.
The Vice Presidential Debate
Vice presidential debates tend not to matter much to the average voter; they are viewed by fewer people and covered less intensively than presidential debates, and they generally attract audiences of mostly decided voters. Once the debate has happened, voters usually forget most of the fine details—the only thing most voters remember about the debate between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence in 2020, for instance, is a fly landing on Pence’s head.
Still, debates provide a good opportunity for assessing vice presidential candidates’ skills in a rapid-fire, high-pressure situation. They also give voters who may not have heard much directly from the candidates an opportunity to learn more about their personalities and policy positions. The vice presidency may not be the most powerful or significant position in American politics, but who ultimately fills the role still matters greatly; we have learned this both from Mike Pence’s actions during the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and from Joe Biden’s rapid replacement by Kamala Harris in the race this summer.
How did this debate go, then? For the most part, it was a draw: polls from CNN, CBS, and Politico show viewers were essentially split down the middle on whether J.D. Vance or Tim Walz won. Interestingly, the CNN poll also shows large increases in favorability for both candidates: Walz’s favorability went from +14 to +37, while Vance’s went from -22 to -3. This may have been because the debate was relatively civil compared to recent debates, excluding a few scuffles over January 6 and fact checking by the moderators. Both candidates seem to have proven to the public that they are capable of remaining relatively civil, but it is highly unlikely that this will cause many Americans to change their votes.
Senate Spotlight: Nebraska
Of all the states in which one would expect to see a competitive Senate race this year, Nebraska is probably near the bottom of the list. It voted for Donald Trump by 19 points in 2020, and it has long been one of the most Republican states in the nation. Since Senator Ben Nelson was re-elected for the last time in 2006, Democrats have not won a single statewide race.
What about a candidate who isn’t a Democrat, however? Could running under an independent label against a Republican help to overcome such intense partisanship? This is what Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Deb Fischer for one of Nebraska’s Senate seats, hopes to accomplish. His strategy—running as an independent while Democrats don’t field a candidate—has precedent. Evan McMullin attempted it in the 2022 Utah Senate race; he lost, but also outperformed Joe Biden’s 2020 margin by double digits. Greg Orman attempted it as well in the 2010 Senate election in Kansas, similarly losing while vastly outperforming a typical Democratic performance in the state.
Osborn, depending on how you look at the race, may have a chance. Osborn has actually led in some polls of the race, and is only narrowly down in others. There are multiple catches, however. For one, the polling that shows Osborn doing best is most often from his own campaign; campaign polls tend to exaggerate support for their chosen candidate. Additionally, in this extremely polarized era, polling tends to more closely approximate typical state partisanship as undecided voters break towards the dominant party. If this trend continues, expect Osborn’s vote share in polls to stagnate as Fischer’s shoots up. If Democrats have extra money to spare—or are feeling desperate to find a way to keep their tenuous Senate majority—they could invest in this race. If other options remain open, however, it may be best for Osborn to fight this race on his own. Who knows, perhaps keeping some distance from Democrats could help him in the end.
A Middle Eastern October Surprise
The “October Surprise” is an oft-repeated cliche of the last few weeks of an election campaign: people tend to be most tuned into politics during the end of a campaign, and so a major shift in national or global affairs in October can be enough to single-handedly change the outcome of the election. Some notable events labeled as “October Surprises” include Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey’s announcement of support for a bombing halt in Vietnam and the initial success of talks to end the Vietnam War in October 1968; rapid developments in the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1980; the release of a video by Osama bin Laden criticizing George W. Bush’s foreign policy in 2004; the release of the Access Hollywood tape containing offensive remarks from Donald Trump and the release of leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016; and Donald Trump’s diagnosis with COVID-19 in 2020.
While some of these “October Surprises” genuinely did involve major developments at home and abroad, it is important to note that some are simply promoted by media outlets to generate attention. Over the course of the month, expect to see many stories labeling one event after another as the true “October Surprise,” and remain skeptical as to whether or not that event will have a large impact on election outcomes.
If there is one thing that might have an impact this October, it is looking likely to be foreign policy. As stated above, many notable “October Surprises” have involved events abroad, and this month’s dramatic escalation of the conflict in the Middle East may follow the same pattern. Right now, it seems nearly impossible that there will be any de-escalation in the region, as Israel prepares for a strike against Iran and continues its invasion of Lebanon and war in Gaza. Really, it is a matter of whether the Biden administration can prevent further slippage in its already dismal approval on the war from harming the Harris campaign, and whether Harris can successfully separate herself from the administration’s policies—much as Hubert Humphrey split from the Johnson administration’s stances on Vietnam in 1968. The American public is not likely to take too kindly to an all-out war with Iran, given existing discontent with the conflict and bad memories from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is in the best interest of the Harris campaign for the current administration to not stir the pot in the Middle East; her lead is tenuous, and could disappear with a major change.
The opinions expressed within this piece represent the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jefferson Independent.
Leave a Reply