Connect with us

News

Would Kamala Harris be a stronger candidate than Biden?

Published

on

Would Kamala Harris be a stronger candidate than Biden?

On Thursday, June 27, President Joe Biden had one of the worst debates for an incumbent president in recent memory. According to a 538/Ipsos poll conducted after the debate using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, the average debate watcher thought the president did “poor” (on a scale from “terrible” to “excellent”), and only 21 percent thought he performed best in the debate. By contrast, although former President Donald Trump turned in just an “about average” performance that included numerous lies, 60 percent of debate watchers told 538/Ipsos they thought he performed the best. And according to 538’s average, Trump’s margin in national polls has increased by 2 percentage points since the debate.

In the aftermath of Biden’s performance, the president has faced a barrage of calls to drop out of the presidential race to make way for a Democrat with a better chance of defeating Trump. Following a slew of articles written by its op-ed columnists, for example, The New York Times editorial board wrote, “The greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.” Even some elected Democrats have taken the extraordinary step of publicly suggesting he should step aside, with Rep. Lloyd Doggett writing on Tuesday, “Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory.”

If Biden were to step aside, Vice President Kamala Harris is the most likely choice to replace him as the Democratic nominee — not necessarily because she is the best pick (this is impossible to test) but purely by virtue of her being first in line to the presidency. The million-dollar question, then, is whether Democrats would be better off with Harris as their nominee than with Biden.

That’s ultimately an unanswerable question, given the unprecedented and hypothetical nature of such a switcheroo, but we can attempt to quantify Harris’s odds of winning based on the (limited, imperfect) information we do have. So, as a thought experiment, we ran two different versions of the 538 presidential forecast with Harris as the Democratic nominee instead of Biden.

538’s election forecast, Harris-Trump edition

Let’s get one caveat out of the way: We don’t have that many public polls testing Harris against Trump. From April 1 through July 2, just over a dozen polls asked about this alternative matchup. But we do have polls from all the major swing states, thanks largely to tracking from Morning Consult, and we have enough national surveys to calculate a Harris-versus-Trump national polling average — and thus to forecast how she would perform in states without any polls.

Advertisement

For the most part, national polls have shown Harris doing about the same as Biden in head-to-head polls against Trump. In a March Fox News poll for example, Trump led Harris by 6 points and Biden by 5 points (well within the survey’s margin of error). And as recently as June 28, a Data for Progress poll showed the president and vice president each losing to Trump by 3 points (also within the margin of error). That said, a June 28-30 CNN/SSRS poll found Harris losing to Trump by only 2 points while Biden was trailing by 6. This was also within the margin of error but was nonetheless a bigger gap and could mark the beginning of a shift for Harris.

When we plug all these polls into a polls-only version of the 538 forecasting model — which jettisons the economic and political priors our full model uses, giving us an apples-to-apples comparison between candidates — Harris has a slightly higher chance of winning the Electoral College than Biden, but it’s not a significant difference: 38-in-100 versus 35-in-100. On a state-by-state level, Biden looks stronger than Harris in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, while Harris’s odds are higher than Biden’s in Nevada.

Harris also does slightly better than Biden in our forecast of the national popular vote. The model forecasts that Trump would outpace Harris nationally by 1.5 points, while he would outrun Biden by 2.1 points. However, this could be an artifact of our model not having any Harris-versus-Trump polls that include independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who tends to take slightly more votes away from Democrats than Republicans when included in a poll.

However, Harris’s popular-vote edge is almost entirely negated by the bigger Electoral College bias against her. In our polls-only forecast pairing Biden against Trump, the Democratic candidate needs to win the popular vote by just 1.1 points to win the presidency. That’s thanks to Biden doing better in Pennsylvania, the likeliest tipping-point state in our model. Harris, by contrast, would need to win the popular vote by 3.5-4 points to win Pennsylvania and, with it, the Electoral College.

However, whether Harris would truly be a stronger candidate than Biden also depends on information besides the polls. In our full forecast model — which includes a variety of non-polling economic and political variables, which we call the “fundamentals” — Harris does much worse than Biden across the board. Whereas Biden has a 48-in-100 chance to win the Electoral College, Harris has only a 31-in-100 chance.

Advertisement

This is thanks in large part to the boost our model confers on Biden as the incumbent president, which is worth an extra point for Biden over Harris in our fundamentals-only forecast of the national popular vote. However, one factor our model does not consider is whether presidents’ approval rating and economic growth impact incumbents running for reelection more than non-incumbents running from the same party, and that may actually push Harris’s numbers over Biden’s. In other words, your mileage may vary depending on how much you believe that Biden should get a boost because he’s the sitting president. There is no objectively correct answer here; one of the reasons election forecasting is hard is that it requires judgment calls like these.

Sometimes, it makes sense to bet on uncertainty

Biden’s core problem may not be captured in current polls, however. As his critics said after the debate, concerns about age and competency do not go away with time; in fact, they tend to get worse. Our forecast for Biden today depends on many known knowns and known unknowns, and, unfortunately for Democrats, the known downsides for Biden currently outweigh the known upsides. Another way of saying this is that Biden’s chief risk is a “hard” risk (as opposed to a soft one) — a product of an immutable trait that voters are unlikely to overlook by November.

Replacing Biden with Harris, by contrast, would introduce more uncertainty into the election; in other words, Democrats would be betting that her “soft” risks aren’t as bad as Biden’s. For example, Harris had one of the most left-leaning voting records during her time in the U.S. Senate, which could hurt her among moderate voters. Yet Biden already does poorly with moderates — and at current levels of political polarization, a cross-cutting issue like Biden’s age may make more of a difference with swing voters, anyway, than any narrow disagreements about policy.

At the end of the day, any decisions about whom the Democratic Party nominates for president will — or should — take more than just the polls into account. Right now, there is a lot of uncertainty around the alternatives for Biden. We have few polls for Harris, for example, and other alternatives are less well known and have not been vetted at the level a president or vice president is scrutinized at (just ask South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem). Until recently, that uncertainty was enough to hold calls for a new Democratic nominee at bay. But just as uncertainty creates more downside for a party, it also creates more upside. Given what Democrats have now realized about Biden, they may be willing to take that risk.

Advertisement

News

Judge pauses deadlines in Trump classified documents case over immunity questions

Published

on

Judge pauses deadlines in Trump classified documents case over immunity questions

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Greenbrier Farms on June 28 in Chesapeake, Va. The judge in the classified documents case against him has paused some deadlines.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has paused a few deadlines after Trump’s legal team requested a review of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

On Friday, Trump’s legal team presented a filing to the court that said this week’s ruling from the nation’s high court means he has blanket immunity from prosecution for his “official acts.” As part of an effort to have the case dismissed, attorneys for the former president asked Judge Aileen Cannon to rule whether or not the conduct involved was official.

Trump’s legal team had also asked to argue the immunity issue before Cannon between now and early September, which would have effectively delayed all aspects of the case for at least two months.

Advertisement

Cannon’s order issued Saturday does not give a date for any discussion of the immunity issue to be held, but does allow for a short pause related to two deadlines for Trump’s lawyers and one deadline for prosecutors. The order gives federal prosecutors until July 18 to respond to Trump’s request for an extended delay. Trump’s legal team will then be due to reply to the prosecution on July 21.

Trump has argued that his removal of classified documents from the White House and then relocating them to his Florida resort home at Mar-a-Lago constituted an official act — and that the Supreme Court’s ruling should translate to charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith being dropped.

In Friday’s court filing, attorneys for Trump also pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the immunity decision, which questioned Smith’s appointment and authority in the classified documents case. Trump’s team also has sought to have the case dismissed on those grounds, arguing that Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional.

Smith has said the Supreme Court’s decision does not apply to the classified documents case because the documents were taken as Trump was leaving office — and that the former president obstructed FBI investigators from recovering them from Mar-a-Lago once he was no longer president.

Cannon has yet to set a date for a trial in the case. The Trump appointee has been criticized for indefinitely suspending the start date for the trial after announcing she needed more time to examine pretrial motions from the former president’s legal team requesting that the case be dismissed.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Marine Le Pen’s party in talks to join Viktor Orbán’s group in European parliament

Published

on

Marine Le Pen’s party in talks to join Viktor Orbán’s group in European parliament

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

France’s Rassemblement National is in talks to join a new group with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán in the European parliament as far-right parties are jostling to convert their votes into power.

The RN, which is forecast to win the most seats in Sunday’s French legislative elections, will decide whether to ally with the Patriots for Europe group on Monday, three people familiar with the situation told the Financial Times.

Orbán’s Patriots group on Saturday gained its seventh member party, meeting the threshold to form an official faction under the EU parliament’s rules.

Advertisement

If the RN joins with its 30 MEPs, the Patriots are likely to overtake the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) to become the third-largest group in parliament.

Vox, the Spanish hard-right party that counts six MEPs, quit ECR for the Patriots on Friday. The Freedom party of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and the Danish People’s party, which have seven MEPs between them, also said they would join the Patriots.

The ECR, dominated by Italian PM Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, relegated the Renew group built around Emmanuel Macron’s centrists into fourth position last month, but has now dropped to 78 members. Renew has 76 members.

But the proliferation of right-wing groups also means their dreams of a super-merger that would wield significant power in the EU assembly appear to be over.

“Anything that furthers the interests of Patriots in the EU parliament is good for us. Orbán is a fine politician who has the skills to operate at the EU level,” said one RN official.

Advertisement

Zoltán Kóvacs, Orbán’s spokesman, told journalists to “stay alert in the next few days”.

Alternative for Germany leader Alice Weidel, whose MEPs were expelled from the outgoing Identity and Democracy group dominated by the RN, told the FT last week she was also seeking to form a group — potentially based on the remains of ID.

But it remains unclear whether the AfD will manage to secure MEPs from enough countries, given that four parties have now left ID for the Patriots.

Russia is the main dividing line between the Patriots and AfD on the one hand, and the ECR on the other. Meloni is a strong defender of Ukraine, while Orbán, Le Pen and Weidel have traditionally held more pro-Moscow views.

The Hungarian leader met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday, causing outcry among EU leaders who said he did not represent them, just after he made a surprise visit to Kyiv on Monday.

Advertisement

On Wednesday the Russian foreign ministry posted on social media what appeared to be a congratulatory message for the RN, featuring a photo of Le Pen celebrating her first-round victory.

“The people of France are seeking a sovereign foreign policy that serves their national interests and a break from the dictate of Washington and Brussels,” said the post. 

Le Pen, who has long tried to counter criticism that she is too pro-Russia, criticised the post on TF1 news on Thursday. “I absolutely do not feel responsible for Russian provocations towards France,” she said, adding it was “a form of interference”.  

However, Orbán said earlier this week he was confident the Patriots group would grow “faster than anyone thinks now” after the second round of the French elections.

“You will see . . . those who promised to join and create a pan-European faction, the third largest, then the second largest. Later we will attempt to be the largest but that won’t be this year.”

Advertisement

He will combine his group’s power in parliament with his country having just taken the six-month rotating presidency of the bloc, which allows his ministers to set the agenda of meetings.

The centre-right European People’s party is the largest in the 720-strong parliament with 188 members, followed by the centre-left Socialists and Democrats, with 136. Party size dictates how many coveted positions such as committee chairs and vice-presidents they get. 

However, MEPs still vote on the positions, and the pro-European majority, including Renew, the Greens and other parties, operates a “cordon sanitaire” to reject any far-right candidates. They also voted to divvy up committee chairmanships based on group size on July 4, before the Patriots are constituted.  

The ECR secured one committee chair and one vice-president during the last term because they came from its more moderate parties.

“No one beyond the cordon sanitaire can chair a committee,” senior Socialist MEP Alex Agius Saliba told the FT. 

Advertisement

But János Bóka, Hungary’s Europe minister, told journalists that there would be “an institutionally and politically strengthened right in the European parliament and in an ideal world, this should be reflected in the distribution of positions”.

Video: Why the far right is surging in Europe | FT Film
Continue Reading

News

Judge Aileen Cannon grants Trump's request to pause some deadlines in classified documents case amid immunity questions

Published

on

Judge Aileen Cannon grants Trump's request to pause some deadlines in classified documents case amid immunity questions

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Saturday granted former President Donald Trump’s request for further briefing on the issue of presidential immunity in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and delayed certain deadlines.

Cannon’s order marks the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision on Monday, which ruled that Trump has immunity from prosecution for some conduct as president in the federal election interference case.

In the order, Cannon afforded special counsel Jack Smith the right, but not the obligation, to file a submission on the use of classified information at trial. At the same time, she paused two upcoming deadlines for Trump and his co-defendants.

Smith’s brief is now due on July 18, and a reply from Trump’s team is due on July 21.

Neither Trump’s lawyers nor the Department of Justice immediately responded to a request for comment Saturday afternoon.

Advertisement

There is no trial date in sight in the classified documents case. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The latest development comes after Trump’s attorneys on Friday asked Cannon to pause court proceedings and consider how the Supreme Court’s ruling affects the case. Trump’s team in February had also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on immunity grounds.

Saturday’s order also makes Trump’s team busier — at least in the short term — as it attempts to minimize or outright dismiss two of the three other criminal cases pending against him.

Through an order earlier this week, Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump’s criminal hush money trial earlier this year, stayed Trump’s July 11 sentencing hearing to allow for briefing on Trump’s motion to set aside the verdict in that trial.

Trump’s brief, which is expected to focus on evidence involving his official acts admitted during the trial to prove his knowledge and intent, is due on July 11. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s response is due on July 24.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending