Please Subscribe to our channel.
With the election just days away, let's take a close look at this Marist poll and analyze why it’s so significant. But before we dive into the poll results, I’d like to touch on pollster rankings because I know some of you have asked about this in the past. According to FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings, Marist is rated as an A+ pollster, which is quite high. This rating gives us confidence that the poll results are reliable and worth considering in our discussion of the electoral outlook.
To give you a bit of background on pollster rankings, FiveThirtyEight’s ratings provide a helpful framework for identifying consistent and reliable pollsters. For instance, the New York Times/Siena College poll holds the top spot and is widely regarded as one of the most accurate polls over an extended period. This consistency is what makes their poll results valuable, as they’ve conducted about 120 polls over time, achieving an average accuracy rating of 3.0, which suggests a high level of reliability. However, not all pollsters achieve these levels of accuracy. Some may have a strong track record for one election cycle, but consistency over multiple elections is what really matters.
Interestingly, while the New York Times/Siena poll is ranked first, some polling sources like YouGov also deserve recognition. YouGov has conducted over 596 polls, more than the New York Times, which only has 120 polls under its belt. This larger sample size suggests that YouGov may offer a broader view of voter sentiment. In fact, based on their track record, I would rate YouGov as comparable, if not slightly higher, than the New York Times. Their accuracy and reliability are ranked as close as possible: YouGov has a bias score of -1.1, while the New York Times sits at -1.5. These close ratings make YouGov a worthy competitor, especially given the volume of polling data they provide.
So, why focus on Marist? Marist ranks sixth with an accuracy score of -0.9 and a transparency score of 9.1 out of 10. Transparency is crucial because it indicates how openly a pollster shares its methodology and data. In this case, Marist is highly transparent, allowing organizations like FiveThirtyEight to review their findings and verify how they reached their results. Additionally, Marist has conducted over 200 polls, establishing a solid track record and ranking as a reputable source.
In the poll results we’ll be discussing today, we’re relying on Marist’s data to give us a clearer sense of how Harris and Trump are performing in key battleground states. And to make things easier, I’m referencing data compiled by Interactive Polls on Twitter. If you’re interested in getting updates on polling data as they come out, following accounts like Interactive Polls can be a time-saver, allowing you to access key insights without having to check multiple sites for updates.
Now, let’s dive into the numbers. This final Marist poll covers Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—three critical states often referred to as part of the “blue wall.” For Pennsylvania, Marist has Harris leading with 50%, while Trump is close behind at 48%, giving Harris a two-point lead. In Wisconsin, the results are similar: Harris leads with 50% to Trump’s 48%, another two-point advantage. Finally, in Michigan, Harris is polling at 51% compared to Trump’s 48%, with a three-point lead. These slight but significant leads in each state suggest that Harris is in a favorable position heading into election day.
The reason these leads are crucial is that they create a clear path for Harris to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Let’s visualize this on the electoral map. If Harris secures Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she will reach exactly 270 electoral votes, enough to clinch victory. This is why Marist’s results are such good news for her campaign—they indicate that her path to victory is solid and achievable. Essentially, if she maintains her leads in these states, she’ll be able to block Trump’s route to the White House.
Next, let’s examine the potential routes for both candidates. For Trump, the most straightforward path involves winning Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, which would give him a total of 270 electoral votes. He could then claim victory without needing to win some of the other key battlegrounds. However, Trump’s path is narrower than Harris’s, as he would need to secure all three of these states to ensure victory.
We also need to consider Nevada and Arizona, which are typically considered swing states. However, even though Nevada and Arizona are competitive, they’re not necessarily critical for either candidate. The states that truly matter are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina. These five states have emerged as the focal points of the 2024 race, and winning a majority in these states could make or break a candidate’s chances.
Let’s take a closer look at North Carolina, where Harris appears to be performing well in early returns. The data shows that women are voting in high numbers, and this trend is significant because women tend to lean Democratic at a higher rate than men. The increased female turnout could be a positive indicator for Harris. For the 2024 election, this gender gap is especially noteworthy. Given that more women than men typically turn out to vote, this demographic shift could be pivotal, especially with a female candidate like Harris on the ballot. Additionally, the recent Dobbs decision on abortion rights could play a role, as it’s the first presidential election since the decision, and it may energize women voters even further.
Returning to the map, let’s consider some additional scenarios. Suppose Harris wins North Carolina. Along with Wisconsin and Michigan, this would bring her close to victory. In this case, she wouldn’t even need Pennsylvania to win. Nevada alone, which is expected to lean blue, would push her over the 270 mark. This scenario highlights the flexibility in Harris’s path to victory, as a win in North Carolina would block Trump’s ability to reach 270 by forcing him to win nearly every other remaining battleground state.
If Harris can hold Wisconsin and Michigan and pick up North Carolina, Trump would need a near sweep to reach the threshold, giving Harris a significant advantage. This shows why each state’s outcome is so critical, especially in cases where the margins are narrow. Harris’s potential to win North Carolina could close off Trump’s chances even further, shifting the entire dynamic of the race.
To illustrate further, let’s consider a scenario where Harris wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina but doesn’t secure Pennsylvania. By adding Nevada, she would reach 273 electoral votes, crossing the threshold needed to win. This scenario would leave Trump with a challenging path, requiring him to win Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania to have any shot at victory.
Now, let’s talk about Trump’s strategy. For Trump, his most viable route involves securing states like North Carolina and Georgia while holding onto Pennsylvania. Winning all three could get him to the 270 mark, but the difficulty lies in the narrow margins and unpredictable voter turnout. Even if he performs well in early returns, Trump will need to sustain his lead in these states on election day. This means that any misstep, especially in North Carolina or Georgia, could jeopardize his chances.
If Harris manages to win North Carolina, for example, it would set her on a strong path to victory. Trump would then be forced to focus on securing Pennsylvania and other battlegrounds with little room for error. And if Harris were to also win Michigan, that could potentially seal her victory without Pennsylvania.
All of this suggests that the final days leading up to election day are crucial. The data we’re seeing now is the latest and most reliable, so while early polls may have provided some indications, the current polling is likely to be the most accurate. A-rated polls, like those from Marist, New York Times, and YouGov, have established track records of reliability, and their insights provide a clearer picture of what we might expect on election day.
In closing, the current outlook suggests that Harris has multiple paths to reach 270, while Trump’s options are more limited. This gives Harris an edge, especially if her campaign can mobilize voters in the battleground states where she’s polling well. And the enthusiasm among female voters, along with the impact of key decisions like Dobbs, could further shift momentum in her favor.
In the next video, I’ll dive into exit poll data from early voters, which will give us even more insight into how this election may unfold. Exit polls provide real-time information from voters, giving us a snapshot of where support might be trending. So be sure to stay tuned for that.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Do you think Harris will win, or do you believe Trump will pull through in the end? Please like the video if you found this analysis helpful, and don’t forget: polls don’t vote—people do. So make sure you get out and vote to have your voice heard. Thanks for watching, and I’ll see you in the next video.
0 Comentarios