This year, a divided nation is witnessing a static presidential campaign that, for months, has stayed within the polling margin of error.
That means, thanks to our electoral system, that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet will be selected by a small fraction of undecided voters in seven states, which include the so-called “blue wall†of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and the states of North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.
While an estimated 160 million Americans will cast presidential ballots in 2024, the outcome rests on the electoral votes of those seven states, as each candidate strives to reach the 270 electors needed to win. The other 43 states have been ignored by the presidential candidates, because their outcome appears certain.
One could assume that the winner of the Electoral College vote also would win the popular vote. This was true from 1788 through 1996, with one exception in 1888. But for 2000 and 2016, it was not true. And it could happen again in 2024.
What is so unusual about this presidential election is that polling has remained static nationwide, showing no major changes despite the replacement of a presidential candidate, an attempted assassination, two party conventions, one televised debate and thousands of campaign ads.
In the seven swing states alone, $1 billion has been spent on presidential campaign ads. Never have so many ads been directed to so few.
Other campaign expenses included a fly-over at professional football stadiums on game day.
As for polling in the 2024 campaign, I noticed a change over the years. When I started teaching, I confronted widespread skepticism about polling. But today, we have a plethora of polls and a tendency to take their numbers as gospel.
We forget that polls are a snapshot of the present, rather than a certain predictor of the future. This is especially true, given the margin of error. A candidate could register at 47% in a poll but, given a margin of error of three points, the number could range from a high of 50% to a low of 44%. In the seven battleground states, no poll has a candidate above 50% or more than four points ahead of their opponent.
Pollsters have modified their operations since former president Donald J. Trump’s unexpected 2016 victory and their underestimation of his appeal in the 2020 election. Many polls now incorporate information on the state’s voting history, demography, campaign expenditures and other factors.
But no poll can accurately place before the election the number on turnout, and that will be the number that will influence this razor’s-edge presidential election of 2024.
Another factor in presidential elections is the role of the gender gap. Women received the vote in 1920 and, until the presidential election of 1980, they tended to vote for candidates in the same percentage as men.
Starting in 1980, however, there appeared a difference, with females tending to vote more for a Democrat than males.
In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan made an effort to narrow the gap by promising to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court — which he did as president by nominating Sandra Day O’Connor.
Despite his action, the gender gap in voting continued and has widened. Kamala Harris is currently supported by an estimated 56% of female voters and 44% of men, which stands as a gender gap of 12 points — nearly double 1996 election and expected to be even higher this election, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is a male gender gap, whereby more men than women favor Trump, but by a smaller margin.
For now, two weeks before the election, any prediction is little better than a coin toss, unless an October Surprise moves the result to a landslide.
Robert Rupp is professor emeritus at West Virginia Wesleyan University.
