Nebraska changing it’s laws to WTA would alter a couple of scenarios, turning narrow losses into ties or ties into narrow wins. Most of these scenarios aren’t very likely(two involve Maine state flipping and one involves Trump doing really well in the Rust Belt and flopping in the South which would be absurd), but the 'Trump sweeps the South and South-West and Harris dominates the Rust Belt" scenario is currently THE most likely on polls, more likely than a safe Trump win by yoinking PA or WI or a safe Harris win yoinking Nevada or Georgia. And that’s a tie if Nebraska changes the laws, which puts it to the House…except each State gets one vote and the reps just have to work together to pick that vote. So even in a Blue House they’d be likely voting Red.

What would you put the odds of-

1. Nebraska changing the laws before the election.
2. Maine being unable to gather support and pass laws to change their own system in response in time(Nebraska’s been trying since March, if Nebraska passed it in September or October would Maine rally in time? It may only be one point +R one point -D, but that single point matters if every state voted exactly as it’s polled right now on the most centrist polling sites.

I’ll be keeping a close eye on how quickly the cyan and pink states on the East Coast get called(New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio) get called, as well as which swing state gets called first(propotionally, adjusting an hour or so to account for when they start counting). If Georgia or (proportionally) Arizona gets called first, that’s a strong sign for Trump. Michigan or Wisconsin(Michigan proportionally) strong sign for Harris.

Pollsters have been solid on the actual locked in voters the previous years, so this is coming down to the undecideds. Harris has a ground game edge, but the third party sphere has shifted against her compared to prior years and her shorter campaign is a bottleneck.

It’s sickly funny in a way that the 268-270 SunBelt RustBelt scenario is probably the most likely Harris win scenario(it’s what the polls are predicting). Had a couple local politicians in Nebraska 2 months ago made a different choice and changed to Winner Take All that would be a 269-269 tie leading to a Trump win.

I tend to use a couple of different Polling conglomerate sites to get my info. All reputable, all easy to read, but all slightly different (538 trends slightly left, RealClear trends slightly right, and The Hill is relatively centrist). I feel more comfortable in this because none of the 3 are disagreeing on basic trends or rough ranges. They all showed the same pattern since the start of the month of Kamala Harris slowly gaining ground, just the baseline and the exact pace of the change is different(538 had her ahead by Late July, THQ had her ahead by August 3rd, and RCP had her ahead by August 5th). Sure, 538 has a stronger democrat baseline, RCP a stronger Republican baseline, they disagree on which polls to include sometimes, but the general trend line is in 100% agreement. The democrats have been gaining strength since the start of the month.

You can also use this on the State by State level, though it’s less accurate as there’s less info, especially for less tight Swingstates like NC or MI. In general Georgia is tightening, but none of the 3 sites have it ever going into the blue. 538 is dead even last two days, 0.1 Trump today, RCP is 0.8 for Trump, and The Hill is…2 points up, but they haven’t updated Georgia in a day or two so probably actually under 1. All 3 agree on a blue trend line, and in this case all 3 agree Trump is still the favorite, but how tight it is varies. That’s a normal polling difference.

Pennsylvania, same thing. All agree on a blue trend, 538 says Harris took the lead a bit ago, The Hill shows her just barely having done it, RCP still shows Trump half a point up. Same trend, no massive outlier variance, just different final numbers due to differences in weighing and which polls get included.

Reverse trend in other states, Nevada and Arizona are red on THQ and RCP, but just barely blue on 538. Definitely redder than Pennsylvania and also Nevada especially is horrifically underpolled, all 3 are using scraps. There’s universal agreement on North Carolina and Georgia(barely) being red and Michigan and Wisconsin being blue. None of the 3 sites show those going the other way albeit the ratio varries. Pennsylvania leans blue, Arizona leans red, Nevada leans on no fucking data what did the polling guys pull a Fear and Loathing and run off? It’s supposed to be Loathing on the Campaign Trail not in Vegas, god we need to double check the books we give these guys before we send them into Bat country.

This Election is giving me a lot of 2004 vibes for various reasons. Excluding the two Trump elections, it’s probably the one closest overall.

There are a lot of reasons for this, and I don’t just mean the Swiftboating ‘and yes it’s true I won it thrice’ thing.

First off, just as a whole, the VP options Tim Walz and JD Vance give very similar vibes to Bush and Kerry in a lot of ways and are making a lot of the same arguments. (Some of JD’s positions that are super fringe now were a bit less fringe in 2003-2004 and many Republicans then supported them. This was the peak of the family values Anti-Gay Marriage or civil unions period) Tim Walz is a nice white guy, but he isn’t exactly a super charismatic. JD Vance is being made fun of for being a weird idiot, even to the degree of a bit of fabrication(Bush wasn’t illiterate, JD Vance never fucked a couch).

Second of all the previous election was close and we’re in an era of weak incumbents. Some degree of reversal here(Red’s won in 2000, blue’s in 2020), but due to Biden dropping out the red’s actually have the incumbent candidate of sorts,

And also thirdly the Democrats are somewhat on the back foot candidate wise despite being the incumbent party. They’re handling it better than 2004, but also had a better starting position so you be the judge. Both times there was a bit of a scramble for the nominee without the best pool or timing. (Al Gore had lost in 2000, running him again had been Plan A, but that wasn’t viable. Hillary was a known upcoming blue candidate option, but she had just gotten her senator job and wasn’t ready yet. JFK Jr. was also being courted to go after Al Gore when he was ready, but he died in 1999 in a plane crash. And Obama was only just getting into major politics.).

Sure you could also draw comparisons to the 1968 scramble (Where the incumbent dropped out, the obvious successor got murdered at the last minute, and they had to settle for Hubert), but there’s also some 2004 vibes. A bit of both actually. Kamala is better known nationally than John Kerry and there wasn’t an assassination on that side, but she also wasn’t really seen as viable for the position due to being relatively far left and also not being personally super popular (that combination isn’t super ideal, you can work one or the other, see Bernie and Biden, but both is harder). But due to timing there wasn’t really a better option.

Also in terms of how close the election is and how long it takes to call I’m expecting 2004 margins. 2004 was electorally margin wise closer than 2016 or 2020, and the winner won the popular vote. 2004 was called around 10-11 AM the next day(depending on time zone), compared to 2 AM in 2016, before midnight basically every other year (11 PM for 2012), and 3 or 4 days later in 2020. A lot of pollsters, most of them actually as of late, are saying to expect a closer election than either of the previous two, and that there’s a pretty high chance of the Electoral College and Popular Vote agreeing. Still quite a bit higher than the pre-2016 world where it supposed to be like a 1 in 30 event (Now it’s 1 in 3 and it was even higher the previous two), but still. If it doesn’t come down to a tight race in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin we’ll probably know the results early the day after, as a ton of other states changed their mail in counting laws to prevent another 2020. (Although it almost certainly will. The Democrats would have to sweep everything that isn’t Georgia and Trump would have to sweep the non-Rust belt and get the Nebraska law passed for those two states to not matter and both outcomes are super unlikely.) If Harris wins she’ll probably win the popular vote, and if Trump wins he still very well could mostly because Solid Blue State turnout is almost certainly going to drop off a bit for many reasons, not to mention there isn’t a strong Libertarian this time.

Also, while the democrats are the incumbent Party, Trump is moreso the incumbent candidate which comes with advantages and disadvantages(though the fact Covid only broke out during the last 6 months before the election is interesting timing. Trump was there when it started and Democrats love to use that, but more people died after the election than before and more Pandemic time total happened under Biden).

Heck, if you buy the 13 keys, while they do predict a Harris win, this specific combination is extremely volatile. 5 False, 8 True is a rare rare Combo, it’s only happened 4 times…including both 1888 and 2000. Whoops. Also as I noted the Incumbency Key really just, does not handle this sort of thing well. Rematches are rare(hey Aldi Stevenson), a rematch between two former presidents one term each (which we almost had) is unheard of. Now we’ve got the Incumbent Party on one side and an Incumbent Candidate on the other, a knowable party platform and a knowable person platform .If the keys fail, it’ll either be because of that unique situation, or because they have a rough track record with minor third parties in tight races (1996 and 1948 had third parties, big enough to flip the key false, but that was required to get it to 5 keys, they weren’t already there. Truman was holding his own fine even with that, and Clinton arguably moreso. Meanwhile 1888 and 2000 didn’t flip the key, but notably the third party roster those years leaned against the eventual loser, so there’s evidence in a close race third parties can sway things even if none of them crack the 5% margins).

There’s a lot of elements of prior elections here. Trump is not in office and is running against a middling historic popularity woman who isn’t in office, just like in 2016. Trump has a lot of baggage, but also some good times to point at, just like in 2020. A ton of specific elements being argued about, aspects of the line up, and the general rushed and imperfect Democrat pick vibes all fit 2004. And of course, the nominee violence, DNC protests in Chicago, and general issues with last minute changes fits 1968. We shall see.

Reminder: Every swing state in 2020 voted Red of the National Average. And it’s a pretty sharp jump. (Michigan favored Biden by 2.8%, next state down was Minnesota was 7.11%. Nationally it was 4.5%). Meanwhile in 2016 only two states did, New Hampshire and Minnesota.(Meaning if Trump had flat won the popular vote in 2016 he’d only get those two states, albeit cutting Gary Johnson would move others).

If it’s a Hillary level margin or closer, the historic data says Trump wins the electoral college. Biden level margin she wins. Hillary got 2.1% lead, Biden got 4.5% lead. 3% - 3.5% is the tipping point for the bulk states.

I should also note the evidence suggests the specific state margins may shift in order. Arizona is trending left, Nevada is trending right. Wisconsin is holding steady, Michigan is trending left, Pennsylvania slightly left(though recent events have masked it to a degree).

The good news is Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania is a knock out safe win. Tie proof. (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin isn’t as if Nebraska switches it’s law it would be a tie). Bad news is Wisconsin is the whitest of all the swing states(period), least educated of the 3 rust belt states, and aging. Biden(pre-debate) was doing better here than Harris is.

It also basically guarantees that if Harris doesn’t break into the South we’re in for a drag out election. Michigan is the bluest swing state, Georgia is the reddest, let’s say North Carolina holds., but Arizona trends blue again. At that point Nevada literally does not matter, it’s down to capturing Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Dems need both, Reps only need PA unless they lose Maine-2 and don’t get Nebraska law. This sucks because Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are the two states who haven’t tweaked their mail in laws, meaning it’ll still be a multi day count.

The other dragout scenario is the Rep’s breakthrough Arizona and get Nebraska law, but lose Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Then it’s all down to Nevada and if the reds get it it’s a tie vote. Nevada infamously counts slowly just in general.

Harris weakens the rust belt(Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) at the exchange of strengthening Arizona and getting a shot of taking the Southern states. We’ll see how it pays off

I think Trump’s gains with young men are the main area patching him back up and are what’s mostly being missed when people ask how it’s this close.

While it’s true that Younger Generations are getting more Liberal, that trend is only extremely strong among women. It’s a weak trend among men(and it really only works if you compare them directly to like, Boomers). Gen X males have been gradually shifting right compared to the Obama years, and Gen Z is just broadly more right wing than Millennials. Gender may legitimately be the biggest divider right now, only rivaled by Urban Rural.

Rural Male Gen Z isn’t as left as many people would think.

These gains(plus slow steady gains among Latino blocs, mostly Cubans and old blood Tejano types) are making up for the losses in women voters he suffered in 2022 and 2016 and the loss in black voters thanks to Harris.

That and the right wing is slowly clawing back control of portions of the media. In the Aftermath of Gamergate most of the mainstream internet platforms swung hard to the left and several became fully controlled like Twitter and Tumblr. Thanks in part to several tech bro defections and bot operations places like Facebook slipped in 2020 and now Twitter and CNN follow. That was keeping most of the bitter young men who weren’t involved in GG or Republicans prior in line with the democrats. With that control erroding they’re starting to slip. We’ve seen this playout in South Korea before, who’s gender political divide is among the nastiest worldwide among democracies.

Despite how close it is the most likely individual scenarios are still sweeps, as a small error one way or the other effectively cleans out. The 4 most likely scenarios are still ‘Harris sweeps swing states’, ‘Trump sweeps swing states’, ‘Harris sweeps all, but Arizona or Georgia’, Trump sweeps all, but Michigan’

Also, I personally feel the Electoral College is archaic and was built upon the principal of inequality. It is also the only reason George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump even got elected in the first place; neither had the popular vote.

I could write an entire essay on how the US and the world would be better off without the Electoral College, but I would just be preaching to the choir and probably nobody would bother reading it (lol.)