The Ephemeric

It was tipped as the closest polled election in modern history, a true tossup. Ultimately, the 2024 coin flip did end up landing in the direction of Donald Trump, who will return to the White House for a second term, completing an undeniably remarkable political comeback for someone whose political career had been considered by most to be finished. The world is stunned once again as we head into a new era of deep uncertainty. How did this happen, what can we learn from it, and, looking at it objectively as a realist, what actually happens next?


Results
These results are undeniably quite remarkable. Having lost the national popular vote in both of his previous Presidential bids, Donald Trump is on course to win it in 2024. He will be the first Republican to do so in 20 years. If his 2016 win was narrow and tinged with good fortune, the same can not be said about 2024. This is a good, decisive win for him.

We are now less than one week away from the 2024 Presidential election, an election that, depending on which news networks you view, either portends the end of American democracy, or an apocalyptic invasion by immigrants. Hyperbole aside, the results of this election will have major ramifications as to the direction of the country and indeed the world at large, from the Ukraine war to the future of NATO and global climate accords. Per tradition, it is time for this blog to deliver its forecast, shedding some light on the likely outcome and making a few final predictions.

Indeed, this blog has a pretty good track record when it comes to these forecasts. In the 2020 forecast we correctly called the winner in all three of the Presidential race, the House race and the Senate race. The Senate predictions were within 1 seat of the actual results and the Presidential predictions called every single state correctly except for Iowa and the lone electoral vote from Maine's 2nd Congressional district. In 2022, this blog was one of the few places to correctly predict that Democrats would hold the Senate and remain competitive in the House, in an election where most were predicting a red wave that never materialised. I say this not to brag but to point out, in all frankness, that if you're looking for some indication of how this thing is leaning and what is likely to happen on November 5th, you could do a lot worse than The Ephemeric.

So let's get to it. The White House, House of Representatives and Senate are all up for grabs. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is a favourite in all three contests, although it remains very close. The topline prediction is this: The Ephemeric predicts Kamala Harris to win the Presidency, the Democrats to take control of the House of Representatives, and Republicans to take control of the Senate.

Presidential Election Verdict: Kamala Harris Elected President

Predicted Electoral Map: Kamala Harris (D) - 286, Donald Trump (R) - 252.

The above map is based on data from a variety of aggregators, including Split Ticket, Fivethirtyeight, and analysts including Sabato and Cook Political, and shows the expected electoral map. The rest is pretty self explanatory: dark blue represents safe Democrat wins, light blue leans Democrat, grey is toss up. Meanwhile on the other side, light red to dark red represents lean to likely Republican.

A few notes about this map. I have attempted to remove "toss ups" to the extent reasonable. I think analysts in general have become a bit too lazy about calling close states toss ups, rather than making an actual prediction. For example, Cook recently referred to a Wisconsin Senate race, with a polling average margin of 6%, as a toss up, which is just silly. For me, a toss up is a state that is literally too close to reasonably call, and I am drawing that line at under a 0.5% margin, and generally only where there is high quality polling indicating a victory for both candidates. A candidate leading by 1% in a state, yeah it's close but I can reasonably say that it's leaning towards one candidate based on the available data, so long as that lead is consistent in multiple high quality polls over an extended period of time. A 0.1% lead either way, on the other hand, is completely meaningless. I want to be clear though, just because a state isn't shown above as a toss up doesn't mean it isn't competitive, or realistically winnable by either side, just that there is a reasonably identifiable favourite as it stands.

In addition to looking at the polls, I am also taking into account other sources of data. This includes special elections & primaries, key economic data and trends, and the early voting data that has been made public. 

A quick caveat on the last one: early voting data should always be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. Historically, this is not especially indicative of the final results. Democrats usually do better in early and mail voting, so the fact that the early returns favour them doesn't tell us anything useful. But this can provide some useful clues when we compare the data to our priors and expectations. For example, in 2024 we would expect the volume of early/mail votes to be reduced from 2020, which took place in the height of the pandemic, and less Democratic-leaning due to the Republicans making a big early voting push, compared to 2020 when they attempted to brand it as some kind of fraud. Accordingly, if we see a state where turnout or Democratic advantage is increased relative to 2020, that wouldn't necessarily mean anything definitive, but it would be a bullish sign for Democrats. 

There are seven realistically competitive battleground states in the 2024 Presidential race: WI, MI, PA, NV, AZ, NC and GA. Beyond these seven, we could theoretically get an upset, like Democrats winning Florida or Texas, but it's unlikely. I would be quite confident in saying that all the other states will vote as indicated on the above map.

While this race remains close and competitive, Kamala Harris is favoured. There has been a lot of hype in the media about how this race is a toss up, or too close to call, and that really just isn't the case. Kamala Harris leads in the polls, both nationally and in sufficient battleground states to win, and has done pretty much constantly and consistently since she entered the race.

In fact, for all the talk about how unpredictable this election is, or the constant media oscillations between who's on top, this has been about as boring and consistent an election as we've seen in recent years. That may come as a surprise in a race where one candidate was convicted of multiple felonies, and the other quit halfway through the race to be replaced by his Vice President, but despite this the polling in recent weeks has been very steady. There's been a lot of chatter of different candidates having momentum, or surges in the polls, but as you can see, there's been basically zero net movement in the last several weeks. 

The high quality polling currently has Kamala around 3% ahead nationally. As anyone who follows American politics will know, the national popular vote is not what wins you the election, it's the electoral college. This gives us the so-called electoral college gap, ie the national margin that a candidate needs to have in order to be roughly tied in sufficient states to win the election. In 2020, Biden won the electoral college somewhat comfortably with a national popular vote margin of around 4.5%. It is generally expected that the Democratic Party candidate will need to be winning by around 2% nationally in order to win the electoral college, although there is some evidence that this gap may be narrower in 2024. The long and short of it is that a 3% national margin should be sufficient for Kamala to win, and in fact she can probably afford for the race to be a little bit narrower than that. If her lead ends up being less than 2%, however, then it starts getting a bit dicey. 

But while we can infer, to an extent, Kamala's chances based on the national margin, ultimately it's victory in the individual key states that will win this election. There's no sense beating around the bush, the key to this election is the rust belt battleground, WI, MI and PA. If Kamala wins those three states, she wins the election regardless of what happens elsewhere. 

The good news for Democrats is that Kamala has led in all three of these states pretty much constantly since entering the race, and is favoured to win all three. In fact, you need to look pretty hard to find high quality polling showing Kamala trailing in any of these three states. The data is consistent enough for me to say that Kamala is favoured in both MI and PA, albeit narrowly, with only WI remaining a true toss up. 

The Pennsylvania position requires a little more elaboration. Throughout this election, the primary focus of media coverage has been on Pennsylvania. It's obvious why, it's a massive state with a lot of electoral votes. It is reasonable to say that whoever wins this state is favoured to win the election as a whole. It is also the state that, in most analysts' estimation, is the closest in the polls. The last few days have seen a number of polls ranging from Trump +1 to Kamala + 2, with most showing a tie, averaging out at around +0.5% Kamala. So why don't I consider this a true toss up? A few reasons. Local and district-level polling has tended to be stronger for Kamala than the big national pollsters, with most showing Kamala either matching or improving upon Democrats' numbers in 2020. This is supported by the early numbers (keeping in mind my caveat, above, about reading too much into EV data) which is showing a higher than expected turnout in Democratic strongholds. 

But more to the point, it's difficult to see where Trump gets the votes he needs to win PA. Even the polls which have been more bullish for him still only show him with around 46% of the vote. There aren't enough votes in the rurals to get him up to the 49% or so he needs to plausibly win. He would need to get some serious movement towards him among either college educated suburban voters, or non-white voters in urban districts. Right now, the pollsters showing a toss up are betting on this happening, but there isn't a lot of tangible data to support it, and certainly we're not seeing that in the early vote or local polling. Conversely, there is some suggestion that pollsters may simply be "hedging" and herding towards a tie to avoid getting egg on their face - it is worth noting that most of these polls are making a point of providing data favourable to both sides, eg a poll showing Trump ahead head-to-head, but losing in the full field of candidates, or a poll showing Trump narrowly ahead with likely voters, but comfortably behind among registered voters. There does seem to be an element of pollsters not wanting to stick their necks out too far for fear of being wrong, and with that in mind it leaves me inclined to trust the local polling and fundamentals to a greater extent. Trump absolutely has a path to victory in PA, but it requires just about everything to go right for him. You would rather be Harris right now.

In my opinion, more people should be talking about Wisconsin. Of these three states, Wisconsin is the most purple, it is the one that has been closest in each of the last five electoral cycles, and the only state to regularly vote for Republicans in statewide elections in recent years. Crucially, while Pennsylvania has been trending left across recent years, Wisconsin has not, so it's much easier to believe that Wisconsin would suddenly shift to the right of 2020 and 2022 than Pennsylvania. Let's put it another way: I can't see a situation where Kamala wins Wisconsin, and loses Pennsylvania, but the reverse is very plausible. In other words, Wisconsin is the state to watch. If Kamala fails to win MI and PA, I would be surprised. Wisconsin, on the other hand, is a true toss up, and pretty much a must-win state for Trump.

Yet, this demonstrates just how much of an uphill battle Trump faces. If Kamala does win MI and PA (which seems more likely than not) then she only needs to pick up one out of WI, AZ, NC and GA. Trump would need to run the board on all of them. 

Of these, Kamala leads the polls in Wisconsin. NC and GA are essentially tied, with some polls showing Kamala ahead, others showing Trump ahead, but with the margins negligible. Statistically speaking, you would expect Kamala to win one of these tied races. Arizona is a race where Trump leads, narrowly but consistently enough that you would have to call him a favourite (JD note: since writing, there have been a glut of polls in AZ showing Kamala ahead, so this may end up being more of a true toss-up than initially thought).

All in all, these four states are a coin flip. You would expect Kamala to win at least one or two of these just by probability. She could win more, she could win fewer. The bad news for Trump is he needs to win all of them. It's very possible that he does win all of them, but certainly the less likely outcome.

It's also worth noting the down-ballot races in these states (more on these later). Democrats are currently running with significant leads against Republicans in statewide races in WI, AZ and NC. The latter two in particular feature especially problematic Republicans with major scandals or popularity issues. The suggestion is that this could potentially have a knock-on effect on the Presidential election. While this is plausible, history tells us that the top of the ticket race tends to be the greater driver to the polls. In other words, Trump is more likely to lift up unpopular candidates, than be dragged down by them. In practice, the result will likely be somewhere in the middle, but closer to Trump's numbers. This may seem minor, but with such close margins it could be material.

Then there are the often overlooked primary and special election results from this past year. Throughout this election cycle the election results have been indicative of a far more left-leaning year than the polls, with primary and special election results very strongly bullish towards the Democrats. Democrats have consistently overperformed their polls, including in some key bellwether contests and open primaries where they were able to run against Republicans. Trump, meanwhile, generally underperformed his primary polling to the tune of 15-20%. He even managed to lose a few states, making him one of the only incumbent or quasi-incumbent candidates to do so in the modern era.

In addition, the fundamentals clearly favour Kamala, with a strong economy, indicators trending the right way for the incumbent party, and a Presidential election year which, historically, has resulted in greater turnout from Democrat-leaning demographics. When you get this close to the election, the polls matter more, but in a tied race, these factors may just prove definitive.

Lastly, there is the effect of Trump himself. Trump likes to brand himself as a winner, but the undeniable fact is that Democrats have won pretty much every election since 2016, with the Republican nominee's divisive brand of politics receiving increasingly diminishing returns with each cycle. 

So Kamala is the favourite, but that isn't really how the race has been portrayed in the media. In fact, the average person following the election might be forgiven for thinking that Trump leads in the polls, or is favoured, as that is often how this election has been covered. 

Why the disparity between the data and the coverage? Well there's a few reasons. The first is that the "conventional wisdom" seems to hold that Trump will over-perform his polls, as he did in 2016 and 2020. To be blunt, this view is not a particularly sharp one. Polling errors are rarely consistent from one election to the next, even with the same candidates involved - in fact, no political party has ever overperformed polls in three consecutive presidential elections. Pollsters generally adjust their methodology to account for such errors, and in many cases are more likely to overshoot than repeat the same error. 

More to the point, the "polling errors" in 2016 and 2020 are a little overhyped. The 2016 polling miss resulted from the high number of undecided voters breaking for Trump, which analysts either missed or ignored - there are fewer undecided voters in 2024 (practically zero, compared to double digits in 2016), and so a much lesser risk of this happening again. The 2020 polling miss was nowhere near as substantial as claimed, and also not consistent from state to state. For example, Pennsylvania actually had zero error in 2020, while Georgia polls were actually biased towards Trump, things which never seem to be mentioned when the media discusses polling errors.

The simple fact is that there is no particular reason to think the polls will underestimate Trump. The polls in 2024 are not really comparable to either 2016 or 2020. If anything, they most closely resemble the 2022 polls, which underestimated Democrats significantly. 

The most notable feature of 2022 polling was the extent to which polling averages were influenced by, frankly, junk polls. This was driven by well-known propaganda pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar, but also by a new crop of unknown polling organisations which seemed to pop out of the ether with no track record. These pollsters deluged the averages and created the impression of a right wing wave election which never materialised. By contrast, the high quality pollsters indicated a close 2022 election. As a reminder, this blog was one of the few forecasts to correctly identify this phenomenon and predict a better than expected election night for Democrats. It's important because we're seeing the exact same thing in 2024. To be clear, polling averages are still invaluable, and the best indicator we have as to an electoral outcome, but some critical scrutiny is required.

It's also an unfortunate fact that there are simply far fewer high quality polls than there used to be, and this lack of clarity is contributing to the uncertainty among forecasters. By comparison, September and October 2020 saw the release of some 20+ Pennsylvania polls from high quality pollsters, this year we have seen basically nothing until the final days, and even then only from a small number of pollsters. Why this may be the case is a topic for a separate, much longer discussion.

All of this is to say: the polls are close. There's no particular reason to think Trump will over-perform them. There may in fact be greater reason to think that Democrats will over-perform. Your best bet for predicting the election is, as always, to follow the average, while filtering for high quality, reputable pollsters.

Ultimately, you would have to favour Kamala based on the data, and Trump faces the more uphill battle to reach 270. Make no mistake, the polls are super close, and Trump could still win this, but it would be a surprise. He is certainly not the favourite, as some are suggesting. If forced to make a firm prediction, I would say Kamala to win WI and one of GA/NC. WI has polled narrowly, but consistently to Kamala's favour. NC is close enough that I think the down-ballot races could give Kamala the edge. NV is a total toss up, but the fact that this state has been trending Republican in recent years gives me the sense that it will go for Trump. At a push, I would make Kamala to be a 60/40 favourite right now, which is pretty close to where the highest rated forecasters currently have the race.

House of Representatives Verdict: Democratic Majority

Current House Map: Democrats - 212, Republicans - 220.
Predicted House Map: Democrats - 226, Republicans - 209.
Approximate Net Change: Democrats gain 15-20 seats.

Key Races: AZ-01, CA-13, CA-27, CA-41, IA-01, IA-03, LA-06, NJ-07, NY-19, OR-05, NC-06, NC-13, NC-14

How things have changed. For the longest time, the House was considered to be a bit of a foregone conclusion. The extreme partisan gerrymandering employed by the Republicans resulted in a House where it was extremely unlikely that they would lose control, even in a year in which voters decisively backed their opponents. 

At its worst, it was estimated that Democrats needed to win nationally by the near landslide margin of 5% just to break even. Following the 2020 redistricting, that built-in advantage seems to have all but disappeared, as demonstrated by the 2022 election in which Republicans tied the popular vote, but only won a majority in the single digits. 

The new consensus estimate is that Democrats need to win nationally by about 1.5% to take a majority. Given Democrats currently lead nationally by around 3%, this would make them the narrow, but clear favourite to take control of the chamber this year.

Caveat, estimating the result in the House is far from precise. The balance ultimately comes down to individual races being won or lost, which depends on a myriad of factors beyond simply the national vote. The national vote merely serves as a useful estimate for a forecast that would ultimately require detailed analysis of hundreds of individual races. So consider this an estimate with a wide margin for error. Nevertheless, the odds remain in the Democrats' favour.

Senate Verdict: Republican Majority

Current Senate Map: Democrats - 51, Republicans - 49.
Predicted Senate Map: Democrats- 49, Republicans - 51.
Approximate Net Change: Republicans gain 2 seats.
Key states to watch: AZ, MT, NE, OH, TX

Let's begin by stating the obvious: this is a bad map for Democrats. Control of the Senate depends on them successfully defending numerous states that Trump is expected to carry easily, with very few apparent pick up opportunities. Even in a good year for Democrats, they would probably lose this map. The fact that it is even close is due to the gulf in candidate quality, a consistent feature in down-ballot races throughout the Trump era.

This leaves Democrats in a very precarious position. Currently, they are favoured to win races in OH, NV and AZ, all states where Trump is arguably favoured to win in the Presidential race. On top of this, they are defending seats in the battleground states of WI, MI and PA, albeit in races that they are broadly expected to win. The trouble is, even if they win all of these seats, Democrats still lose the Senate.

Maintaining control of the Senate will ultimately depend on Democrats successfully defending Tester's seat in deep red Montana, or pulling off an upset in equally deep red Texas or Nebraska.

Montana is an interesting race. It's not a state that Democrats are expected to come even vaguely close to competing at the Presidential level. But Tester is an institution, popular in his home state despite being a Democrat, and arguably a much stronger candidate than his opponent. The fact that he trails in the polls is due solely to the (D) next to his name, and while that fact makes the race competitive, it nevertheless makes him a clear underdog. Polls have started to move away from him of late, and accordingly I predict Republicans to take this seat.

Texas is just about in play due to the unpopularity of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz. Cruz has always been a divisive politician, even within his own party. He faces additional pressure in Texas following a number of scandals, most notably where he very publicly fled his home state for Cancun during the natural disasters of 2021, something from which his approval has never recovered. He only won re-election 2018 by a mere 3%, albeit in a blue-wave election year, and Texas has arguably trended left in the six years since. Currently he very narrowly leads in the polls against former professional football player Colin Allred. I still expect Cruz to win here, with Trump's presence on the ballot likely enough to pull him over the finish line, but it's close.

Lastly, I am flagging up the race in Nebraska. An interesting one, considering there isn't even a Democrat on the ballot. This is because of the independent run of Dan Osborn, a popular labor leader from the state. Osborn's surprise campaign has closed the race to within 2% in the polls, a testament to how advantageous it can be to run in a deep red state without the (D) next to your name. This race arguably is a toss up at this point. The only reason I give it to Republicans is because of the paucity of high quality polling in the state, as well as the ambiguity of whether Osborn would actually caucus with the Democrats should he win. Increasingly though, if Democrats keep control of the Senate, it's looking like it may come from this race.

Conclusion
So there it is. It's a close election, and one without close parallel due to the unique events that have occurred during the campaign. Nevertheless, the data presents a tangible, albeit narrow favourite. Ultimately, while the margins are tight, Harris simply has an easier path to 270. But this is far from a done deal. The race could still change in the final days, there could be polling error one way or the other, or independents/undecided voters could break unpredictably for one candidate. Such is the magic of democratic elections, you're never entirely sure which way it is going to end up. This forecast is probably about as accurate a sense of where things are going as can be formed right now, so take it for what it is, and good luck. 

We're back. The transfer window has slammed shut, and with that the die is cast and another season of Premier League action awaits. It's a season chock-full of narrative and drama. Can anyone stand in the way of Manchester City's quest to turn the world's greatest football league into a one-club contest? Can Arne Slot slot into the Jurgen Klopp-shaped hole at Anfield? Will Arsenal finally go one better than oh-so-near and return to the summit of English football? Watch this space.

Are you not entertained? There is rarely a dull moment in American politics, and this week delivered a particularly historic curveball, as incumbent President Joe Biden withdrew his re-election bid, throwing his endorsement behind Vice President Kamala Harris. How did this happen? Why? What does it mean for the upcoming election? Let's talk about it.

When this blog last spoke about the election in our way too early preview back in March, we set the baseline for what to expect from the 2024 election. As a relatively legislatively accomplished President, absent of major scandal, and presiding over a roaring economy, Joe Biden was in a strong position for re-election. History tells us that a President in his position is an overwhelming favourite for re-election.  

At the time, I wrote that the number one risk to Biden's re-election bid, the thing that could potentially undermine all the advantages he held as an incumbent of a successful administration, was his age and health. In the end, that ended up being precisely what came to pass.

It became very clear in that ill-fated first Presidential debate that Biden's age was starting to catch up with him, and that his decline had clearly been worse than was publicly known. But to be clear, it was not the flubs, the mixed up names and other slips of the tongue that raised concern - his similarly aged opponent has more than his fair share of these - but the physical frailty and the lack of attention. This election is not just about who we want to be President in January, it's about who we want to be President in four years, and it became all too clear that Joe Biden does not have another four years of this highly demanding job within him.

So, like George Washington before him, Joe Biden did what was in the best interest of the country, and stepped aside, endorsing his Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him. This can't have been an easy decision. Few in power choose willingly to part with it when they have the choice, and indeed it is hard to imagine his opponent ever making a similar choice in the interest of serving his country. 

The primary driver behind this decision will have been the upcoming election, and the increasing doubts as to whether Joe Biden would be able to beat Donald Trump. Now to be clear, the general consensus had been grossly underestimating the chances that Biden could still win this election. The way pundits spoke of the race, you would think Biden was down 10 points, when in reality he was down maybe 2 points, some of which was likely to be a temporary post-debate dip, and Trump riding a bump from the Republican national convention. Polls were still showing this as a very competitive race, and any suggestion that it was well and truly out of Biden's reach is more "vibes" based than anything borne in the data.

But at the end of the day, a decision needed to be made quickly with the Democratic National Convention approaching. I suspect that, ultimately, it was not so much the current polling deficit that sealed the decision, so much as the potential for further age-related setbacks further down the line. It was a high risk and a risk that did not need to be taken. 

The end result is that Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee in November, with the opportunity to make history as the first woman to be elected President of the United States.

What are Kamala's chances in this election? The potential upside is clear. Joe Biden had a great number of advantages behind his bid, and Donald Trump a great number of detriments. The fact that Biden was polling competitively with Trump in spite of his age-related issues makes that clear. One would expect that another Democrat without this major weakness, but still able to take advantage of her party's strengths, would poll better. Add to this the fact that Kamala was polling at a similar level to Biden, despite a lower name recognition - and thus, more room to grow - and it would seem that Kamala comes into this race with a ceiling that is potentially far higher than Biden's.

Indeed Kamala's campaign is off to a near perfect start. Announcing the switch at the close of the RNC was a master stroke, effectively halting any momentum Trump may have received from his party's headline event. Not to mention, it comes at a time when Republicans are more or less locked in to their ticket, with less room to react to the change in circumstances. 

In the first 24 hours, Kamala raised a record breaking $86million. At the time of writing, she has raised more than $200million this week, a new one week record. In the polls, Harris started level with Biden, a few points below Trump. But after just a few days, most polls are showing her level or ahead. Reuters/Ipsos has her 4pts ahead of Trump nationally. New York Times, a pollster that until now has been an outlier in showing strong Trump numbers, swung from +6 Trump to a tie. Kamala's net favourability is surging and has overtaken Trump. If this trend continues (a big "if", mind), Kamala is likely to lead in the polls soon.

The mood in the campaign has changed completely. Suddenly, it's the Trump campaign on defence, looking bewildered and unsure of how to proceed. Their attacks this week have flailed between the baffling (Kamala laughs too much) to the explicitly racist and sexist. Already there are signs that Donald Trump is looking for excuses to back out of the remaining scheduled debates. The momentum is very much with Kamala Harris, and the Trump campaign is running scared.

None of this is helped by Trump's pick for Vice President. Even before Biden dropped out, JD Vance seemed a terrible decision. Another Putinist Republican who exists solely to echo Trump's slogans and does little to expand the appeal of the ticket. I mean, Nikki Haley was right there and back on board. Even Burgum or Tim Scott would have been something. Vance is an absolutely baffling pick. Unpopular, unappealing, poorly vetted (if the stories coming out this week are any indication), and now it's too late for them to do anything about it - or very, very difficult and painful to do so anyway.

It's still early days. Who knows if Kamala's momentum continues, or if it lasts. Right now it's looking like there's more upside ahead than not. Kamala can expect additional momentum from her upcoming VP announcement and the Democratic National Convention, not to mention Trump's potential exposure in his upcoming criminal procedures. It's still entirely likely that Trump gets sentenced for his fraud convictions before the election, after all.

There will be a lot more to say and write about this in the coming days. It remains to be seen how, exactly the electoral math will change with these new candidates. In general, Harris' numbers are up pretty much across the board, but so far the most notable difference appears to be in Georgia, with polls now showing a tied race in a state that was previously considered to be a long shot for Biden.

It is hard to see this as anything other than a colossal misstep for Republicans. They were hammering Biden hard to drop out of the race, but clearly never countenanced the idea that he may actually do so. Now, much like the dog who caught the car, they got what they wanted and have no idea what to do with it. That error in strategy may end up costing them the election.