Cleveland, Ohio, The United States - As the shadow of election day begins to peak over the horizon of tomorrow, a shiver of anxiety and dread creeps stealthily within the battle-worn cracks of our political environment, threatening to burst them apart once more. Beneath the hardened concrete, thousands of bipolar numbers, conflicting voting data points, and haywire predictions have engaged in an all-out brawl among entrenched ideologues even before the first votes have been counted. While these skirmishes, which promote the overused rhetoric of this being the most important election, may have dulled the political sensitivity of veteran voters accustomed to multiple election cycles, the overwhelming majority of Americans are now realizing that the 2024 election is noteworthy for several reasons that could genuinely earn it that distinction. For the first time in recorded history, a major nominated candidate’s prospects of serving a jail sentence for the rest of his life hang in the balance, along with the prospective amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, the livelihoods of the unborn, and the bleak cloud of censorship that poises its treacherous claws over the frail texts of our Constitution.

Thus, whoever is sworn in on January 21st will provide people on both sides of the political spectrum with the awakening that the outcome was either a hard-fought step forward in breaking free or ten steps backward into the grips of an abusive mob. To cut through this discourse clouded by extreme partisanship, an analysis of hundreds of numbers, expert opinions, data models, past accounts, and experimental outcomes has led to a tentative conclusion: Donald Trump is currently the moderate favorite to win the election on November 5th. However, the purpose of this analysis isn’t to foster complacency or a belief that Trump’s victory is secure, but rather to emphasize that such an outcome relies on the active engagement of voters. For those who were demoralized after a series of setbacks in 2020 and 2022, the aim is to revitalize resolve and hope to continue the good fight until November 5th.

Before delving into a deep analysis of the current state of polling, it is important to recognize that polling isn’t the gold standard. Contrary to popular belief, it does not possess the predictive power many assume; instead, it provides snapshots in time of possible results rather than serving as a crystal ball for the future. Just as different camera angles can produce vastly different images of the same person, the variety of variables involved in a poll—such as who is surveyed and the questions asked—can lead to a broad range of opinions on the political climate. While some polls may perform well, each election cycle inevitably discredits others, regardless of their established credibility.

Given this context, polling should be approached with caution, as it can be used to craft narratives that influence the elections being forecasted. For instance, a series of pessimistic polls may motivate more voters to turn out for the losing party, while in other cases, they might depress turnout for the leading party.

Nonetheless, polling can highlight certain aspects that may serve as optimistic signs for Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

One significant indication is that polling has historically struggled with errors that under-report Trump support, particularly in key areas of the Electoral College. In both 2016 and 2020, this was evident not only in the national popular vote but also in many swing states, including Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina. At times, even red states like South Carolina and Texas were considered competitive, only to fall short of their polling averages—sometimes by close to double digits. This discrepancy often arises from the types of voters that polling firms tend to miss, particularly white working-class and rural voters, who may be less accessible due to their separation from most forms of technology and their reluctance to participate in surveys.

What’s interesting is that this polling error amongst such voters isn't novel to Trump's presence but can rather be traced back to elections prior to 2016 when many of these voters still leaned Democratic. In 2012, Barack Obama slightly outperformed his polling averages in the national popular vote but did particularly better than expected in states in the rust belt, where he massively overperformed his Michigan poll numbers by 4 and a half points, due to these white working class voters coming out in droves to give him a second term. In 2016, and 2020, it was just the opposite, as those same voters came out en masse for Donald Trump in a realignment towards the GOP, thus leading to his well documented 7-8 point overperformance in certain states at the rust belt.

With this context, polling for 2024 looks promising for Donald Trump, even if a historical polling miss similar to the likes of 2016 and 2020 doesn’t materialize. In the national popular vote poll aggregate on RCP, he is down by less than 2 points, a significant improvement from his 9-point deficit in 2020 and even a 4-point deficit in 2016 at this stage. Additionally, previous polls during this time of year have consistently captured the Democratic vote share accurately, with Hillary Clinton predicted to receive about 48 percent and Joe Biden at 51.2 percent. Currently, Kamala Harris is pulling around 49 percent of the vote share, and if this pattern holds, Trump is likely to significantly close the gap to under a 1-point deficit by election day, especially given the lack of third-party options.

Now, one might wonder: why is the close national popular vote significant? The answer is that, while the national popular vote doesn’t determine the winner like the Electoral College does, statistician and pollster Nate Silver gives Donald Trump a 60 percent or greater chance of winning the Electoral College if his deficit remains around 2 points—the margin by which Clinton defeated him. This is largely due to the concentration of Democratic votes in heavily populated states like New York and California, while lesser-populated swing states can tip the Electoral College in Trump’s favor. Although the bias in the Electoral College toward Trump has diminished, as he appears poised to outperform his 2020 margins in these deep blue and red states, a deficit of 1 point or less would signal a significant shift, potentially allowing Trump to win by an even more decisive margin than in 2016. As of this moment, the polling aggregate in the RCP seems to point in such a direction, with many numbers continuing to swing in Trump’s favor even while this article itself is awaiting publication.

In addition to national polling, Trump is also performing well in state polls, maintaining a thin but steady lead in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina for several weeks. If Donald Trump wins all of these three states, he only needs one state from the rust belt to get him over the 270 benchmark of the Electoral College, thus securing a second term. And as of right now, the race for the Rust Belt states shows that Pennsylvania polls are a pure toss up, Michigan polls averaging to a one point lead for Trump, and Wisconsin favoring Harris by less than half a point in the polling aggregate. What this means is that the polls right now point to him winning Michigan and Pennsylvania by a close margin even without factoring the possibility his vote share might be underestimated, while a 1-point polling error, more than six times closer than that in the rust belt in 2016 and 2020, could flip all three states to his column. This is a stark contrast to previous cycles when it was believed that he would need to overperform his averages by at least 3 (and in some cases 6) points to win a second term. Furthermore, these projections do not account for Trump’s current last-minute surges in Rust Belt polling—a notable feature of both previous election cycles—making a Trump polling lead in every swing state on election day a very real and potentially catastrophic scenario for the Harris campaign.

Now, it is time to address the possibility that the reverse is true, where 2024 polling could be a repeat of 2022 polling, which was pretty accurate and in some cases, even underestimated democrats instead of republicans, thus potentially making a Harris victory still possible. While the chance of this is not nonexistent, a closer look at the 2022 midterms quickly reveal that it isn’t a fair comparison to 2024. While Republicans did underperform in lots of states, one look at the electoral shift of the states that ended up in a huge disappointment of the night will make it apparent that republican candidates ended up notably underperforming in the rural regions of the state, and not the suburban or urban population centers that is commonly thought to have been their downfall. The reason is that many of these voters that didn’t show up are those same voters mentioned earlier; White, working class rural voters who generally only show up in presidential years to vote for a special candidate such as Donald Trump. Without these groups coming out to vote, polling has generally nailed the higher propensity electorate that normally turns up in a midterm. As such, the difference of the electorate between midterm years and presidential ones make it nothing short of folly in extrapolating the accuracy of 2022 polling to a precise predictive result in 2024. After all, 2018 polls were mostly accurate and 2020 polling had turned out to be as big of a trainwreck for polling firms as 2016, if not by a larger magnitude.

The second optimistic sign is that pollsters often struggle to predict the makeup of the electorate during presidential years. The 2020 polling was skewed heavily in favor of President Biden largely because many pollsters modeled their numbers after the 2016 electorate, leading to an overestimation of Democratic turnout. In reality, registered Republicans increased their margins in both statewide and federal contests, as evidenced by national exit polls indicating a shift from a D+3-4 electorate in 2016 to a D+1 in 2020. Similar errors appear to be emerging in 2024 polls, with firms like Morning Consult, Marist, and The Economist predicting a Democratic-friendly electorate by up to D+8, thus giving the illusion that Kamala Harris has a lead due to her strong margins among Democrats, which make up a hefty majority in the samples. However, new Republican registrations between 2020 and 2024 have surged, suggesting a likely increase in registered Republican voters in 2024 compared to 2020. When polling from the New York Times and AtlasIntel had factored in the possibility of an R+1 to R+2 electorate, they showed a tied race or even a Trump lead in the popular vote, which would translate to a comfortable victory for Trump given that he can afford to lose the national vote by 2-3 and still retain a favorable chance at winning the presidency.

The third reason for optimism is that reputable and accurate pollsters from 2020 and 2022 are producing results that favor Trump’s chances of victory. AtlasIntel, recognized as the most accurate poll in the nation for 2020 and 2022, predicts a 3-point Trump lead nationally and his victory in 5 out of the 7 crucial swing states. Emerson, which accurately predicted Biden’s 4-point victory in 2020, currently shows Harris leading by just over a point in the national popular vote while trailing in key swing states. Furthermore, even lower-quality polls indicate a close race: Quinnipiac, which once predicted a double-digit lead for Biden, now shows a tied popular vote in 2024 with substantial Trump polling leads in both the swing states of Michigan (+4) and Georgia (+5); Reuters/Ipsos, which at its peak had Harris ahead by 8, now shows a Harris lead of just 2 nationally; and Activote has shifted from a Harris +6 to a Trump +2 lead within a month.

The fourth sign for confidence is that the crosstabs among certain demographics present a promising picture for Donald Trump. While demographic data should not be the sole determinant of a pollster’s accuracy, it can reveal trends and potential reasons for polling misses. Even polls showing Trump trailing Kamala Harris indicate that he is outperforming Biden and Clinton among various groups.

One notable example is Trump’s gains with African American voters. Morning Consult, a pollster that has consistently missed in favor of Democrats by up to 8 points, has shown Trump garnering support in the upper teens among African Americans. If accurate, this represents a significant 5-10 point shift to the right from 2020. Some polls, like Rasmussen, even indicate that Trump has crossed the 20 percent threshold among Black voters. If these numbers hold true, it could pose serious consequences for Kamala Harris, especially in states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, where a sizable Black population played a crucial role in delivering victory for Biden in 2020. A lower turnout among Black voters could significantly tip the scales in favor of Trump in a close election.

Another area of potential growth for Trump is among Hispanic voters. The GOP has long sought to make inroads with this demographic, and recent results suggest those efforts are bearing fruit. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Marco Rubio achieved near 20-point victories, bolstered by support from Cuban Americans. Even the scandal-plagued Ken Paxton won his race by double digits, thanks to significant swings among Tejanos and other Hispanic groups in southern Texas. For the 2024 election cycle, polls indicate that Kamala Harris may perform worse among Hispanics than any Democratic presidential candidate has in over 30 years. For instance, an NBC/Telemundo joint poll showed her support collapsing from Biden’s 30-point lead to just 14 points. These margins could allow the GOP to overcome recent declines among suburban voters in swing states like Arizona.

Additionally, Trump has made substantial gains with union voters. The Teamsters, the largest union in the country, have refrained from endorsing a presidential candidate due to internal disagreements. However, an internal survey which showed Biden leading Trump by 10-20 points in a head-to-head matchup had flipped to a Trump lead of 2-to-1 when facing against Harris. This trend appears consistent, as recent polls in key counties with large white working-class populations show Trump with a narrow lead in Erie and Northampton—areas he narrowly lost in 2020 but is expected to win back in 2024. These polling numbers are favorable for Trump, as he only needs to increase his vote share by 2-3 points among white working-class voters to secure Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by a convincing 1-2 percent margin.

The only major demographic where Trump appears to struggle in some polls is among men and voters aged 65 and older. On the surface, this shift might seem concerning, but a closer examination reveals similar patterns of error as seen in 2020 and 2016. This reappearance suggests issues with polling methodology, particularly the under-sampling of rural, older, and white voters compared to their urban and liberal counterparts. For instance, a recent New York Times poll shows Harris winning seniors by 1-2 points, despite trailing them by nearly 9 points in a similar poll just last month. Such a double-digit shift over four years in such a large demographic is statistically improbable and likely indicates response bias, especially considering that the same poll showed younger voters now making up the majority of Trump’s base.

Lastly, internal polls and data give reason for tremendous optimism for the Trump campaign due to a markedly different story that they are catching onto as opposed to public polling. For those unfamiliar, an internal poll is a campaign-sponsored survey that tends to be more accurate than public polling due to its necessity for precise results, which inform a candidate’s messaging and strategic decisions. Although internal polling is often kept private, recent leaks suggest that the outlook for Democrats is not promising.

For starters, both internal polls for Harris and Trump have been confirmed to show Harris trailing by 3-4 points in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Democratic Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin expressed concerns about Kamala Harris's deficits in Michigan during a private donor call. Michael Whatley, chair of the RNC, confirmed that their internal polls indicate Trump leading in 5 out of the 7 swing states with Arizona beyond the margin of error, while Minnesota is shown as a statistical tie between the two candidates. Just this week, the Wall Street Journal and Axios raised alarms about Wisconsin, revealing that Harris is down by 3 points in her internal data, largely due to significant deficits among men and white voters.

These private numbers have already begun to create quiet turmoil within the campaign. A desperate push from advisors has led Kamala Harris to stop avoiding the press and conduct extended interviews, even as she struggles to connect with voters due to her robotic answers and charisma that rivals a dead fish. As these polls continue to crater against her, the finishing blow this week came from NewsMax contributor Mark Halperin, who previously confirmed that Joe Biden would drop out of the presidential race just after that fateful weekend due to inside sources. He claimed that a “not insignificant” number of Republicans believe the race is effectively over in Trump’s favor, citing absentee ballot drops, voting data, and more.

Overall, the current polls present a more favorable picture for Trump than those seen in 2016 and 2020, and many of the same polling errors appear to be resurfacing. However, the key difference is that Trump doesn’t need a polling error of similar magnitude to secure a victory this time. A polling error of just half a point in his favor in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania or Michigan could be sufficient for him to win the election convincingly, assuming other poll numbers hold true. This highlights just how close Donald Trump is to winning a second term and the importance of every single voter to show up at the polls and do the bare minimum of a duty to the country that they live in.

A Gallup Poll of Americans and their identification to the Democrat or Republican Party was commissioned in September, and Republicans held a 3 point advantage of 48 to 45 percent for the first time in a presidential cycle for more than a decade. These numbers have accurately predicted the popular vote margins for the winner in 2020, 2016 and 2012, so even if they are off in favor of the Democrats by 3-5 points, Republicans would still likely hold an advantage in the Electoral College due to the Democrat heavy states such as New York and California heavily contributing to their bias in the popular vote.

Republicans are currently gaining ground in every state compared to 2020, particularly among absentee voters and early voting, thanks to the concerted efforts of the RNC and its new leadership to reduce the stigma around remote voting. This is significant, because Democrats commonly have enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in mail-in ballots during the 2020 election that sometimes ranged up to a lead of 40-50 points, thus making it very difficult for Republicans - who vote mostly on Election day - to overcome that firewall. In Florida, Republicans have narrowed the mail-in voting margins by nearly 7 points relative to 2020, with ballot requests still trending red. In Pennsylvania, overall absentee ballot requests have decreased by a third compared to 2020, but Republicans are projected to close the gap by a similar 8-10 points if current trends persist. North Carolina presents even more striking results, with absentee ballots expected to drop by a staggering 70-80 percent from 2020, while Republicans have closed the gap with Democrats by an impressive 12 points. Notably, demographic data of those requesting ballots suggests a whiter electorate and decreased Black turnout compared to 2022, when the North Carolina Senate race ended in a 3-point victory for Republicans.

Now some of these numbers don’t look that significant, particularly when there is an absence of COVID this time. However, if the previous midterm elections were indicators of anything, the proportions of the mail-ins can be a pretty major sign of which party would likely dominate the election. During the election cycle of 2022, Democrats increased their margins in absentee ballot requests by up to 9 points in Pennsylvania relative to 2020. The result? A 5-point victory for John Fetterman (3.2 points greater than Trump’s 2020 defeat in PA) and a landslide 15-point victory for Governor Josh Shapiro. With a reflection of that same margin now looking to be in favor of the GOP, it is likely the GOP would be making major gains in Pennsylvania if the current trend continues.

Turning to early voting, Virginia's top ten counties in turnout predominantly favor Republicans. Despite substantial mail-in dumps benefiting Democrats, Republicans are reportedly outvoting Democrats by a margin of 2-1 among low-propensity voters—those who participated in zero or one of the last four election cycles—a promising sign for Trump’s campaign in mobilizing their base. Currently, Democrats hold a 20-point lead (60-40), and while Republicans are still likely to lose the state, this margin aligns with the 2023 returns, where the state generic ballot had a Democratic lead by 1-2 percent, thus showing that it doesn’t exclude the possibility of Trump winning the state yet. And with its proximity to a state like North Carolina as well as the fact that Virginia had long been thought to have been lost since 2016, these margins can be a precursor for the large turnout that might deliver Trump another liberating overperformance as it begs a critical question: If voters are so motivated to support Trump in a state long considered liberal with minimal chances of flipping, how much more could this enthusiasm translate in competitive or even leaning-red states?

Despite Allan Lichtman predicting that Kamala Harris would become the next president of the United States, his system actually overwhelmingly proves the opposite. But before we delve into that, let’s briefly explore his renowned forecast system.

Overall, the 13 keys to the white house have been used (as claimed) by Professor Allan Lichtman as having predicted the winner to every past election except for 2000. Should 8 keys be declared True, the incumbent party’s nominee (Kamala Harris) would win the presidency. The keys component include

1. The Party Mandate Key. Defined as False if the Incumbent party loses the house of Representatives in the midterm. Declared False by Allan Lichtman and myself.

2. The Primary Challenge Key. Defined as False if the Incumbent party nominee for president fails to get at least two thirds of delegates in the primary. Declared True by Lichtman, Unsure by myself.

3. The Incumbent key. Defined as False if the incumbent president is not running for reelection. Declared False by both Lichtman and myself.

4. The Third Party Key. Defined as False if third parties poll at a combined 10 percent or above. Declared True by both Lichtman and myself.

5. Strong Short Term Economy. Defined as False if there is a recession by the government’s definition of negative economic growth of two consecutive quarters. Declared True by Allan Lichtman, Unsure/Leaning False in my opinion.

6. Strong Long Term Economy. Defined as False if Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Declared True by Lichtman and myself.

7. Major Policy Change. Defined as False if the Incumbent party didn’t install major changes to national policy. Declared as True by Lichtman and myself.

8. No social Unrest. Defined as False if the incumbent party experiences reports of sustained social unrest during its term. Declared as True by Lichtman and myself.

9. No Scandal. Declared False if the Incumbent party is tainted by major scandals that require bipartisan recognition. Declared True by Lichtman, False by myself.

10. No Foreign or Military Failure. Defined as False if the Incumbent party suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Defined as Open by Allan Lichtman, False by myself.

11. No Foreign or Military Success. Defined as False if the Incumbent party does not achieve any major success in foreign or military affairs. Defined as leaning False by Lichtman, Certainly False in my understanding.

12. Charismatic Incumbent. Defined False as having no bipartisan appeal. Defined as False by both Lichtman and myself.

13. Uncharismatic Challenger. Defined as False if the challenger has bipartisan appeal or is a national hero. Defined as True by both Lichtman and Myself.

With the total tallies, Lichtman gives Kamala 3 confirmed False Keys, while an unbiased onlooker would come to the basis that the system gives her 6 confirmed False Keys, thus making Donald Trump the favorable candidate. The reason for the contested keys is as follows:

The no primary contest key is fairly dubious since Kamala Harris was the only presidential nominee in history that received zero actual votes for the primary, thus this key was essentially true because of a rarely exploited loophole. But sure, let’s give her the key since as VP she could probably consolidate Democrats to vote for her in a primary anyways.

The Short term economic progress is a dubious key too. The federal government hasn’t declared a recession but the majority of Americans believe we are in a recession due to the skyrocketing price increases and cost of living. Lichtman changed the definition of this key in 1992 by theorizing that voters believed that there is a recession still ongoing, hence giving the key to the challenger (Bill Clinton). By the same logic, the key should be false if he went off the same logic, but let’s again give him the benefit of the doubt and give Kamala Harris this key as True.

The Scandal Key is a key that is in my opinion, surely False. The only way it is true is because of Lichtman’s extreme bias and partisanship. He justifies it as having bipartisan recognition, but that is exactly what happened in Joe Biden’s case. His debate performance was so abysmal in revealing his mental decline that dozens of democrats, senators, and party leaders coerced him out from the race. It confirmed the public suspicion that the party was hiding this decline all the time, hence solidifying it as a scandal that held bi-partisan appeal, and thus making this key solidly False to an unbiased observer.

The military failure and success keys are also leaning False in Lichtman’s view, but with there still being a time period before the election, he is still leaving them blank. However, with it being a month till election day, it is clear that the Biden Administration had failed in multiple aspects in foreign policy. Lichtman considers the turning of the key due to the Israel/Gaza conflict, but the Afghanistan Withdrawal and Ukraine War can easily be also considered failures. As for successes, Lichtman is hopeful that Biden or Harris can get a peace deal in the Middle East, but at this point of time with a new development in the war between Israel and Hezbollah, it seems extremely unlikely and thus the keys would be solidly false in both cases.

Overall, Harris loses 6 keys out of 13, and Trump is favored to win the presidency. The model is of credible means given Lichtman’s record, but his increasing partisanship this time will sink his prediction.