Many of us have written that there are two upcoming events that offer an opportunity to boost her poll numbers. The first is the election of a vice president. The current Democratic Party nominee chose Governor Walz as her running mate, and she has continued her rise in the polls. At least we can say that he has not done any significant damage to her poll numbers. It is not plausible to say that he has really hurt her poll numbers, but she has been so great despite voters’ resentment of her vice presidential pick and their belief that he was a mistake that she has continued her unabated rise in the polls. It is plausible that he has helped her marginally, although we cannot prove this. The second opportunity to boost her poll numbers is the Democratic National Convention.
.
.
This was not inevitable. I will keep this brief so as not to distract from my main point. The results of her 2020 Democratic Party primaries and polling results on a variation of the question, “If President Biden does not run for re-election, who would you vote for as your candidate?” suggested otherwise. Until recently, her best showing on that question was 53% approval, meaning half of Democratic Party voters did not want her as their candidate. The next best showing was 33%. The others were even worse.
.
.
The point is that it is far from obvious that Democratic voters would rally around her. Her approval rating was minus 14. She was not ahead in the polls against Donald Trump. Her chances of winning the Electoral College were 31 to 100, while President Biden’s were 48 to 100 because he supposedly had a better chance of winning Pennsylvania, the state most likely to be the deciding factor.
.
There has been an argument that the point of a political movement and a major political party is to win by getting behind the winner of the Democratic Party primary, as was the case in 2012 when we had a similar type of non-competitive primary with no debate or other high-profile opponents. I’m not saying that’s a powerful argument, but it’s defensible.
.
.
There has been an argument that in a binary election, Trump was ultimately so toxic that President Biden would have ultimately won. Donald Trump has NEVER received majority approval of his work and he NEVER won 47% of the national vote. Again, I’m not saying I agree with that argument, but it’s not completely irrational.
.
.
I now believe that it was wrong to accept without criticism Vice President Harris’ negative approval rating of 14 out of 538. I completely agree with Sarah Longwell that voters had only a negative impression of her, but it was changing, while President Biden’s numbers were most likely not going to improve. That approval rating can be very important, especially in a very partisan era, in the following respect: You can win the vote of someone who dislikes you as the candidate of a major political party, but likes your opponent, the candidate of the other major political party, even less. However, you are very likely to win the vote of a voter who views you favorably. In other words, it sets a floor, not an upper limit.
.
.
It is therefore very significant that their approval ratings for their work have improved significantly.
In our first swing state polls since entering the race, Vice President Harris is four points ahead of Donald J. Trump in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin among likely voters. That’s a significant departure from previous Times/Siena polls, which found Trump ahead by an average of one to two percentage points in each of the same three states, with at least 49 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin each saying they have a favorable opinion of her in the poll, a level that neither Ms. Harris nor Mr. Biden reached in any previous Times/Siena poll this cycle.
.
.
If these positive poll numbers on her are real and accurate, then it is extraordinarily difficult to see how Donald Trump can win. The positive poll numbers on her are much more important because they are in these three blue wall swing states. We are at a point now where I would say that, as a counterfactual, if the election were held today, we would win the electoral college votes. If that is true, it is difficult to understand or believe that the felon could win. Her poll numbers must be volatile. If a meteoric rise is possible, a star’s fall is also possible. It looks like her poll numbers are likely to continue to rise. I do not think they are going to fall.
.
.
While I still have doubts about the polls, these results are to be welcomed. What’s really important is that she gets 50% on the top number, because if she gets 50% of the vote in those states, then she wins those states. If she wins those states, she wins Nevada (the polls in that state are going our way and Charlie Cook is now saying it’s neck and neck) or Arizona (the polls are going our way in that state too and Charlie Cook has always moved it from Lean R to neck and neck) or Georgia (same thing, the polls are going our way and Charlie Cook has always moved it from Lean R to neck and neck, just like Nevada and Arizona) or North Carolina or ME-02 and NE-02, she wins the electoral votes.
