Major Shifts Beneath the Surface in a New Trump-Harris Poll
By: Nate Cohn (The New York Times)
No, there has not been any major shifts. The only thing current polling shows is the electorate is really, really, really, really happy that Joe Biden has dropped out. Otherwise the election is back to where it was for a couple of months before Biden's big screwup.
The faces may change but the choice is still the same. Seems that voters aren't as stupid as The New York Times would have us believe.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
After all the political tumult of the last month, Thursday’s latest New York Times/Siena College poll is full of findings unlike any we’ve seen this cycle, with one exception: who leads the presidential race.
The poll found Donald J. Trump ahead of Kamala Harris by one percentage point, 48 percent to 47 percent, among likely voters . Other than the name of the Democratic candidate, “Trump +1” is a result that could have been from any other Times/Siena poll before President Biden’s disastrous debate.
But on question after question, there are major shifts from previous Times-Siena polls, which were all taken before Vice President Harris essentially locked up her party’s nomination for president, before the Republican convention, and before the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump. Even the one-point Harris deficit represents a significant improvement for Democrats from Mr. Biden’s six-point deficit in our last Times/Siena poll.
As I have written , these events make it hard to know what to make of the results of recent polls , including this one. The survey is a useful marker of where the race stands now, but there’s no reason to be confident that this is where the race will stand once the dust settles.
While the overall result between Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump may look familiar, the poll is full of signs that there’s a lot of dust still in the political air.
-
Mr. Trump hits a high in popularity. Overall, 48 percent of registered voters say they have a favorable view of him, up from 42 percent in our last poll (taken after the debate but before the convention and assassination attempt). It’s his highest favorable number in a Times/Siena poll, which previously always found his favorable ratings between 39 percent and 45 percent.
-
Ms. Harris is surging. In fact, her ratings have increased even more than Mr. Trump’s. Overall, 46 percent of registered voters have a favorable view of her, up from 36 percent when we last asked about her in February. Only 49 percent have an unfavorable view, down from 54 percent in our last measure. As important, her favorable rating is higher than Mr. Biden’s. In fact, it’s higher than his standing in any Times/Siena poll since September 2022, which so happens to be the last time Mr. Biden led a Times/Siena national poll of registered voters.
-
The national political environment is a little brighter. The share of voters who say the country is on the “right track” is up to 27 percent — hardly a bright and smiley public, but still the highest since the midterm elections in 2022. Mr. Biden’s approval and favorable ratings are up as well. The ranks of the double haters have dwindled: With both Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump riding high, the number of voters who dislike both candidates has plunged to 8 percent, down from 20 percent in Times/Siena polls so far this year.
-
With all of these underlying changes in the attitudes about the candidates, there's no reason to assume that this familiar Trump +1 result means that the race has simply returned to where it stood before the debate. For now, these developments have mostly canceled out, but whether that will still be true in a few weeks is much harder to say.
By the book, Mr. Trump’s gains over the last month resemble a classic “convention bounce,” perhaps with added good will from his survival of the assassination attempt. Historically, bounces usually fade, but not necessarily in their entirety.
What has happened to Ms. Harris over the last week doesn’t follow any book at all. She’ll presumably keep riding the momentum of her new candidacy for a while, but after that anything is possible. Only time will tell how the public will react to her as they hear her — and the attacks against her — in the days and weeks ahead.
Below, a few outtakes from our poll.
Yes, voters seem fine with the Democratic makeover
I don’t think the Times/Siena poll has ever found 87 percent of voters who agreed on anything, but that’s the share who say they approve of Mr. Biden’s decision to stand aside in the presidential race. Only 9 percent disapprove.
Democrats, meanwhile, are ready for Kamala . Nearly four-fifths say the party should nominate her for president, compared with 14 percent who say they should nominate someone else. A slightly larger 27 percent say the party should encourage a competitive nominating process, but 70 percent say the party should unite behind Ms. Harris and quickly make her the nominee.
A more typical demographic divide
If you’re a longtime reader of the Tilt, you know we’ve been tracking Mr. Biden’s weakness among young, Black, Hispanic and low-turnout voters for nearly a year now .
It will take some time — maybe more than a month, given the potential volatility ahead — before we have a good sense of the demographic contours of this new race. But in this poll at least, the Harris-Trump matchup brings a different and more typical demographic divide.
In the poll, Ms. Harris fares better among young (18 to 29) and Hispanic voters than Mr. Biden did in any survey this year. She fares better among nonvoters than Mr. Biden did in all but one Times/Siena poll over the same period. Conversely, she fares worse among white working-class voters and voters over 65 than Mr. Biden did in all but one prior Times/Siena poll.
Of course, this is just one survey; the results of individual subgroups from one poll are noisy and subject to a hefty margin of error. But there’s good reason to think that these demographic shifts are part of something real. The findings are consistent with those of previous Times/Siena polls . And more generally, they’re in keeping with the expected relative strengths of a Black woman (who also has Indian ancestry) from California in her 50s compared with a white man from Scranton, Pa., in his 80s.
Will Kennedy help Harris?
Ms. Harris actually pulled even with Mr. Trump when all the minor-party candidates were included along with the independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Ms. Harris was at 44 percent and Mr. Trump at 43 percent (Ms. Harris’s lead rounds to zero using the exact figures, 43.5 to 43.2), with Mr. Kennedy at 5 percent. That’s Mr. Kennedy’s lowest tally since we began naming him in our polls.
Mr. Trump led in the two-way race — but not the multicandidate race — because he won Mr. Kennedy’s sliver of support by more than a two-to-one margin. It’s a small sample, but it is Mr. Trump’s largest advantage among Kennedy supporters in our polling to this point.
It’s just one poll, but there’s something to the idea that Mr. Kennedy’s presence in the race might more clearly help Ms. Harris. Throughout the race, Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy has tended to appeal more to the right than the left. In this poll, for instance, Mr. Kennedy’s favorable rating is positive among Republicans but negative among Democrats. Even so, he had been drawing relatively evenly from President Biden and Mr. Trump, as he managed to win a considerable number of the disproportionately young voters disaffected with Mr. Biden.
Ms. Harris, however, does not necessarily have the same vulnerability. If she’s sufficiently appealing to young, disaffected voters who ordinarily lean Democratic, Mr. Kennedy might not siphon away as much of her support — and might start to draw disproportionately from Mr. Trump.
Nate Cohn is The Times’s chief political analyst. He covers elections, public opinion, demographics and polling. More about Nate Cohn
Democrats have already killed the thrill for their convention. The only anticipation left is whether or not the protestors will break through the barricades. And Pelosi might push to let the protesters in just to get some sort of sympathy vote like she did on J6.
Kamala Harris' post Biden bounce apparently is mostly relief that Biden is gone but also that Harris has sewn up the nomination and gotten the endorsements of heavy hitters. There won't be any surprises on the stage at the DNC convention.
Pretty sure she didn't decide to "let" the insurgent rioters in on j6.
Was there ever a thrill for the RNC convention?
The only surprise was JD Vance and he only took a week to start replacement rumors.
Opinions do vary
Rumors started by their friends on the left and never Trumpers. Spin baby spin …. Didn’t matter who Trump picked … resistance attack mode engaged .
It is better for Trump to be stuck with Vance. And based on logistics, I think that is how this will play out. The RNC has their ticket: Trump and Vance. The DNC should be very pleased with that.
Good luck in November
I hope the nation has good luck and avoids yielding the power of the presidency to a vindictive, traitorous, narcissistic scoundrel .
Yeah, I agree. Harris would be a disaster if she wins.
That is an elementary school tactic akin to "I know you are but what am I".
It is also ridiculous since you are claiming that Harris is a vindictive, traitorous, narcissistic scoundrel.
Fair enough
The only ridiculous thing here is the assumption she is none of those things but it is true. She’d certainly be a disaster for other reasons. She will most definitely lean harder left on a country that is teetering too far left right now.
But hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong
[✘]
Prior to Biden withdrawing we were stuck with a choice between two old men, neither of whom should be running for PotUS. One is entirely unfit to serve in any public office. It was a frustrating situation for the electorate.
Now we have a youthful, positive, experienced candidate enjoying solid support from her party against a negative, vindictive scoundrel who has demonstrated that he will abuse the powers of the presidency per his desires.
I think the contrast is stark and the electorate (even those who have not been paying attention) will catch on.
The election is still between candidates who are 'unfit for office' (whatever that dog whistle is supposed to mean). There were rumbles within Democrat ranks late last year to replace Kamala Harris before the primaries stated.
Joe Biden's exit marked the end of the Reagan era. Trump is certainly no Reagan Republican. And Kamala Harris is definitely not a Clinton Democrat. Both Trump's and Harris' party loyalty seems rather superficial; they aren't party brand type politicians. Both candidates seem to be more concerned with domestic issues (inward looking) rather than foreign policy (outward looking). Both candidates are focusing attention on middle class issues and reviving American values (according to their own visions). While there is a contrast between small government/big government approaches to domestic policy, the contrasts are not as stark as ultra-partisans would have us believe.
The electorate hasn't been fooled so far. The race remains neck and neck. It is still rather amazing that a tiny, dedicated minority of voters will determine the outcome. This is deja vu all over again for the third time.
Did not even read the rest of your comment since you lost all credibility with the above.
That's information that everyone needed to know. /sarc/
I really don't see Kamala as youthful, positive, or experienced on any relevant issues. She has really accomplished little of consequence in almost 4 years of making nonsensical run on sentences. She's been shown to be the most socialist Senator of all, even to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Word salad babble to the contrary, she has a very visible history of saying some really stupid shit and supporting all the wrong things. The electorate isn't as stupid as the Dems seem to think and will easily disregard the usual leftist propaganda she and her handlers will be spouting.
Well of course you don't based on your comment history.
That tired, stupid talking point is not going to fly. Especially given the amazingly stupid shit from Trump.
I'm amazed he hasn't been awarded a PhD in history.
The stupid shit from Trump is staggering. How anyone could vote for that vindictive, negative, moronic asshole is a mystery to me.
Interesting since many of the folks voting or considering voting for him have made it pretty clear many times. Maybe listening to what they say instead of..........................................., could help understand. Not saying you would agree but understand their reasons.
It seems like if you give reasons about why Biden and now Harris is not qualified or fit to be president, many lefties resort to taunts and insults. They simply refuse to read the room, or accept the mood of the electorate.
[deleted][✘]
First of all, that is bullshit. Most Trump supporter here simply criticize Biden (and now Harris). They do not explain why they are voting for Trump; many (if not most) will not even admit they will vote for the scoundrel.
Those few who do give their reasons offer these:
They all also seem to argue that his abysmal personal negatives are not important to them. They do not care that he is a vindictive asshole who has demonstrated that he will abuse the powers of the presidency to satisfy his personal whims. They do not care that he is the oldest nominee in US history. They do not care that he is a convicted felon. They do not care that he is the only PotUS in US history to use coercion, fraud, lying, and incitement in an attempt to steal a US presidential election. They do not care that he is not very smart but always thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.
They simply ignore all of Trump's negatives and focus on factors that any of the other GOP primary candidates could have brought to the table.
Trump's MAGA base is a cult that holds a fantasy depiction of Trump as their hero. Much of the remaining Trump supporters, IMO, are partisans and low-information voters who vote by party affiliation, name-recognition and/or other superficial factors.
Make your case for why Harris is not qualified or fit to be PotUS.
[✘]
Donald Trump is not a Reagan Republican. Donald Trump is not a Gingrich Republican. Donald Trump isn't even a Romney Republican.
For over a decade we've heard Democrats lecture the country that the Republican Party must change. Now Democrats are telling Republicans they need to go back? Why? What the hell did Democrats think was going to be required to change the Republican Party?
Democrats quoting Reagan from the peanut gallery might catch some big money donors. But that big money will expect the Democratic Party to change, too. How much is a Democrats' soul worth? Democrats got the change they demanded. Maybe that change isn't the way Democrats wanted it. Too bad. But the only way Democrats can exert that kind of control would be to become Republicans themselves. And Joe Biden gave it a real shot.
Why would voters support Donald Trump? The short answer is that Trump ain't a Republican like we've seen over the last four decades. Trump is a new Republican in a different Republican Party. Too bad if Democrats don't like it. Democrats are going to have to change with the times.
None of this was mentioned in my post.
Again, non sequitur. I also do not think the Ds (and others) are lecturing about going back but rather criticizing the mess the current GOP is.
Could you be more vague?
[deleted][✘]
Yeah, when you cannot make a rebuttal just make a claim. Does not matter if it is even remotely close to the truth. Works for Trump.
I quoted what I am responding to. I am not the only who has explained to you why they are voting for Trump. You made a broad generalization that is obviously untrue.
Why is it a non sequitur? Throwing out allegations doesn't make them so. There's no denying the Republican Party has changed. And Democrats have been quoting their preferred Republicans more often, apparently in hopes that Dems can influence Republicans to turn their backs on the new, changed party.
Joe Biden's popularity has waned because Republicans have not responded in manner he expected. Biden has need to adopt more Republican policy and rhetoric because Republicans weren't there to provide cover. Biden didn't see the hostility toward NATO coming from Republicans. Joe Biden has, at times, seem to plead for Republicans to go back to the Reagan status quo.
Vague? Skipping over the presented facts can only provide vague understanding. My comment spelled it out in simple terms.
Trump is a Populist running on an Alt+Right Populist platform.
Partisans and trump haters are hoping no one notices
Gaslighting shift …. Biden to Harris …. Woof
They sure did move away from the dem big lie that Kamala and many other dems helped perpetuate.
Sigh, another flawed candidate the Dems are trying push off as the next great hope. We all witnessed where their last great hope led us. So flawed, so sad …..
Amazing that someone who has declared that he will vote for Trump has the temerity to even hint that the other candidate is flawed. Trump, I am confident, is the most flawed nominee for the presidency in our history.
Opinions do vary. It takes real balls to try and pass Harris off as a people’s candidate after she received zero votes in this primary and couldn’t even win her own state in the last one.
The democrat overseers will tell the masses what is best for [them.....][✘]
Are you really trying to push the "racist Democrat" lie while simultaneously criticizing Dems for voting for a Black woman?
That's a pretty spectacular logic fail.
[✘]
You have made your opinion abundantly clear. Others have made it abundantly clear they do not share your opinion.
Black/Indian/White Woman. Not that there is any science behind these arbitrary categories.
That's the point Sandy, nobody voted for her, she is being appointed the democrat nominee by the democrat overseer's, last time they had her try to get votes she lost to Maranne Willaimson and didn't even win her home state.
Again you merely state the obvious.
Might as well just say: ' people have different opinions '
Brilliant
I could, or I could just say what I said. My choice and I made it.
Does she check 2 boxes if she is Black and Indian?
The Ds were faced with a historically unique situation. They had no time to go through a primary process. Biden released his delegates (as Haley did for the GOP) and those delegates were then free to vote as they chose. That is how our system works.
Yes, a primary would have been better but life sometimes puts us in situations where we must cut corners.
The electorate has a choice. We can vote for Harris, Trump, or anyone else on the ballot.
Who has passed her off as the people's candidate? I certainly have not so what are you blabbing about? Do you have anything other than strawman arguments?
You're evading the question, George. If the Dems were racist, as you're trying to imply, they would not have nominated a Black woman, which they will.
If you want to address the nomination process, that's fine. But trying to tie it into racism torpedoes your point, given the candidate's racial background.
2 1/2 for a history making nomination.
Her dad is Afro-Jamaican and her mother was Indian. From the looks of their bios, they met at Berkeley, and both had very successful careers. Growing up in such an elite environment and never lacking for anything, it is easy to see how she turned so far left. She's simply too extreme and unlikable to be elected, just like Hillary.
No it doesn’t, if you pick anyone based on the color of their skin you are racist, by definition it’s racism. And the democrat overseers are appointing her.
Spin away.
Do you actually think that the primary reason Kamala Harris secured the nomination was because of her skin color? You actually believe that??
Further, racism is discrimination based on race. You know, like diminishing the qualities of a person by claiming her success is simply based on skin color.
he primary reason Kamala Harris secured the nomination was because of her skin color
Would she have secured the nomination with the exact same resume as a white woman?
Which white woman do you have in mind?
Bluntly, WTF are you talking about? Are you asking if she would have secured the nomination if she were white?
[deleted][✘]
Joe was a moderate that went left. Kamala is starting way left (considered most liberal senator in 2019 ) and will possibly try to pass herself off as a moderate. At least she can't go any farther left...........................can she?
Don’t really want to think about it.
What in the absolute fuck is wrong with people
The world is going totally fucking mad.
It was meant to be a tribute to the Greek god Dionysus, the god of wine and pleasure.
Yeah, it's very doubtful they would mock Allah and his Muslim followers
They don’t have the stones to mock Allah and his followers,
They didn't mock anybody.
Lol.
The misinterpretation by some uneducated folks with their panties perpetually in a twist does not mean they mocked anybody. It didn't reference the Last Supper.
Lol. It's amazing how people will literally ignore their own eyes when they are told to.
You're going to tell us that you know the artistic director's intent better than he did, himself?
Amazing.
Reuters:
Your source truncated the quote by Jolly.
You and your source are both dead wrong.
I saw it myself. Look with your own eyes...
For All Non-Cultured nor Greek Mythology Knowledgable Humans:
Olympic Opening Ceremony: It was a celebration of Dionysus, Greek God of wine, merriment, food, theater, etc. It was celebrating the theatrical.
NOT THE LAST SUPPER!
He was always depicted with ivy growing on him, as was the guy in blue. If you watched it, it did not look like a table. It was in fact a huge runway for a fashion show, which followed.
There were 18 people, not 12...
Then why did they apologize for it......................
Did you read your link?
Also, they didn't apologize for doing it. They said they were sorry if people were offended, which is different. Basically "Sorry you chose to misinterpret this scene and get triggered and butthurt. You misread our meaning, and we're sorry you did."
Now THAT is putting words in someone's mouth. But thanks for your opinion.
It's paraphrasing.
They didn't apologize for the scene, and in YOUR link, you know, in the portion you ignored, said it wasn't the Last Supper. But thanks for your opinion (that isn't supported by your own link).
Of course they were.
The Producers of the tableux :
“For the ‘Festivities’ segment, Thomas Jolly took inspiration from Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting to create the setting,” producers said in the statement. “Clearly, there was never an intention to show disrespect towards any religious group or belief "
but sure: "The misinterpretation by some uneducated folks with their panties perpetually in a twist by some uneducated folks with their panties perpetually in a twist does not mean they mocked anybody." Even "uneducated" producers misinterpreted their own production. It's amazing how far people will go to disbelieve their own eyes.
Did they not say "we are really sorry"? That is still an apology. You may now have the last word.
From the same link.
It's a non-apology apology. Designed to smooth the ruffled feathers of the butthurt without taking responsibility for the ruffling of those feathers.
I don't see any similarity between that picture and the painting of the Last Supper
Dionysus, Greek God of wine, merriment, food, theater, etc., If I was going to pick a god he looks like a good one.
No kidding. The producers admit the intent, the director denies it.
There are a million news stories around the world pointing out the obvious similarities between the two. Either the director is an ignorant fool who's never seen the Last Supper and somehow produced a tableaux that everyone, including the people who produced and starred in it, immediately associates with it by coincidence, or he's lying.
Which do you think is more likely?
Here's how the "butthurt" left wing French Press covered it:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is what happened. It's the answer to "what if we turned the Last Supper into a Dionysian bacchanal.
I blame NBC as they did a terrible job explaining the tableaux last Friday.
Who knew that Smurf man was aimed at making us realize “the absurdity of violence between human beings”?
Apparently whites in black face doing caricaturing Blacks, are horrifically racist and insulting. Males caricaturing woman though, is complimentary and inclusive.
You say it was. The guy who created it says it wasn't. Guess who's the better authority?
In case you hadn't noticed, people have been eating at tables for quite a while now. Artists have painted pictures of people eating at tables for quite a while, too. Every painting of people eating at a table isn't going to be the Last Supper.
Oh, look, people eating at a table. Must be the Last Supper! Nope, it's the Feast of the Gods by van Bijlert.
More people eating at a table. The Last Supper, surely? I mean, there's an angel. Gotta be a Christian thing, right? Nope, the Apple of Discord, by Jordaens.
Wait, when did all the disciples get nekkid at the supper table? Oh, that's not the Last Supper, either, cherubim notwithstanding. It's the Nuptials of Thetis and Peleus, by de Clerck.
It's gotten pathetic. It's just the same cowardly bullies engaging in the same tired pretense of rebellion. It's supposed to be shocking, and avante garde, but of course the elite love it and it is the safest possible target. Their is zero risk in making fun of Christians.
It's easy and safe to mock Christians. Have a transvestite play Allah in a set piece. That would actually be provocative.
OOHH. A guy on the internet. No different than a guy walking into a magazine office and murdering a dozen people for the crime of drawing Allah.
As I recall, the attack on Charlie Hebdo's headquarters revealed widespread support of the right to criticize Islam in France.