Polls Indicate Harris Gains Momentum Following Presidential Debate

A recurring theme in political discourse is the notion that certain events or statements may not have significant impacts on voter sentiment. Often, it seems that not even glaring gaffes or scandals can sway public opinion or alter perceptions of a candidate. However, presidential debates have been proven to be exceptions to this tendency.

In last week’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, while both candidates provided fewer policy details than many voters desired, Harris effectively highlighted issues with Trump’s record. In the subsequent week, polling data revealed a modest uptick in support for the Democratic nominee. By September 16, Harris’s chances of winning the election, according to 538’s forecasting model, climbed to 61 in 100, surpassing her previous peak noted on August 26.

Evaluating the statistics from various polling firms after the debate reveals Harris’s small yet significant gains. For instance, an Ipsos/Reuters poll noted a 1-point increase for Harris, while RMG Research, Morning Consult, and Big Village each indicated a 2-point gain. Only a few exceptions surfaced, including results from Leger and Redfield & Wilton Strategies, where Harris saw a decline of 1 point or remained stable.

The comparisons drawn from 538’s averages indicate that Harris has indeed secured slight advantages post-debate. As of September 17 at 9 a.m. Eastern, she led Trump by an average of 2.9 points in national polls, a slight improvement from her earlier 2.5-point lead on debate day. This change, while positive for Harris, remains relatively modest in the context of historical post-debate polling shifts, attributed largely to the present high levels of political polarization.

Importantly, Harris’s ascent isn’t merely reflected in gaining a few points. It also halted Trump’s recent upward trajectory in popularity. In the weeks leading up to the debate, Trump had been consistently gaining ground, narrowing the national margin between the candidates. Had this trend continued, he could have been positioned as the favored candidate in 538’s forecast within a short time frame. Instead, the debate’s outcome has allowed Harris to improve her standing in the race.

The pivotal factor in presidential elections, however, is the Electoral College, meaning state-by-state polling holds greater significance than national averages. In revealing state polls, Harris demonstrated noteworthy gains as well. A Saint Anselm College Survey Center poll in New Hampshire indicated that Harris was leading Trump by 8 points, a 2-point improvement from her pre-debate standing. Similar positive data emerged from states like Alaska, Arkansas, and New Mexico, where her support exceeded expectations. A poll from the Trafalgar Group also showed a slight edge for Harris in Nevada.

Polling data from InsiderAdvantage and Marquette University Law School found Harris ahead by 2 and 5 points, respectively, among likely voters in Wisconsin. Additionally, a widely respected poll conducted by Selzer & Co./Des Moines Register depicted a narrowing lead for Trump in Iowa, a state he was initially predicted to win comfortably.

Even movements in traditionally non-competitive states hold significance, as positive polling in those areas indicates broader shifts that may affect competitive battleground states. If gains are observable in Iowa or Arkansas, it may parallel similar trends in key states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

This collective momentum translates into a more optimistic forecast for Harris in terms of electoral outcomes. The model projecting election results reflects a distinct upward shift toward Harris, estimating a slightly enhanced margin for her in seven critical swing states compared to the previous week. Specific improvements included a shift from Harris +2 to Harris +3 in Wisconsin and similar boosts in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The forecasting method indicates that Harris’s standing may be even stronger than those reflected in national polling data. Currently, the model suggests an implied national popular vote in favor of Harris by approximately 4.2 points, exceeding her current 2.9-point lead in direct polls. This situation echoes occurrences from the 2012 election cycle when state polls showed a more favorable outlook for President Barack Obama than national averages reflected.

While such differences might seem slight, they could prove pivotal, particularly given that numerous states’ projected margins hover around 1.5 points, impacting a total of 68 electoral votes. In the previous election cycle, winning a minimum popular vote margin of 3.8 points was essential for Biden to secure enough states for a victory. This year, however, projections suggest Harris may need a narrower popular vote lead—about 2.1 points—to be favored for the presidency. Yet, this reality indicates that Trump still benefits from the Electoral College system, emphasizing the importance for Harris to sustain her leads in key battleground states.

Despite current trends, it’s important to recognize that the electoral landscape can shift dramatically. With seven weeks remaining before Election Day and many prominent polling firms yet to release post-debate statistics, ongoing observation of polling data is crucial. Historical trends demonstrate that new information or changes in candidate perception can materially impact tightly contested elections, and this cycle is no exception.