The 4%’s, The Post Debate Signs & THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE! – Top 3 Takeaways – September 13th, 2024
- The 4%. Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs...that the potential impact of the presidential debate may not have been as cut and dried as the majority of viewers and pundits originally perceived it to be. That’s mostly because the debate wasn’t about you or me or the Swifties, because we already knew how we were going to vote. The debate was about the 4%. That’s roughly the percentage of people who went into Tuesday night’s debate without a preferred presidential candidate. Yesterday I highlighted a story by Reuters that said... Reuters interviewed 10 people who were still unsure how they were going to vote in the Nov. 5 election before they watched the debate. Six said afterward they would now either vote for Trump or were leaning toward backing him. Three said they would now back Harris and one was still unsure how he would vote. The Trump converts said they trusted him more on the economy, even though all said they did not like him as a person. They said their personal financial situation had been better when he was president between 2017-2021. The bottom line was that they were waiting to see if Kamala could convince them that she’s got better policies, and she didn’t so back to Trump they go. Now the New York Times, with their panel, has weighed in. In their story entitled: Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure they offered this: For weeks, undecided voters have been asking for more substance. Some Americans might need more convincing. Immediate reaction from political analysts favored Ms. Harris, whose attacks appeared to rattle Mr. Trump. But not all voters, especially those undecided few who could sway the election, were effusive about the vice president’s performance. In interviews with undecided voters, many of whom The Times has interviewed regularly over the last several months, they acknowledged that Ms. Harris seemed more presidential than Mr. Trump. And they said she laid out a sweeping vision to fix some of the country’s most stubborn problems. But they also said she did not seem much different from Mr. Biden, and they wanted change. And most of all, what they wanted to hear — and didn’t — was the fine print. Going into the debate, Ms. Harris faced a challenge that Mr. Trump did not: Telling the country what they should expect from her presidency. And here are the reactions from a couple of the panelists cited in the Times story: Keilah Miller, 34, who lives in Milwaukee, grew intrigued by Ms. Harris too. Ms. Miller said she had voted Democratic in past presidential elections but decided to stop voting altogether about a year ago. Her own situation, and that of other Black women in Milwaukee, had not improved, she said. On Tuesday, she felt nudged unexpectedly toward Mr. Trump. “Trump’s pitch was a little more convincing than hers I guess I’m leaning more on his facts than her vision. When Trump was in office — not going to lie — I was living way better. I’ve never been so down as in the past four years. It’s been so hard for me”. In Southern Arizona, Jason Henderson, a defense contractor and retired soldier, had been resigned to skipping the election, unable to stomach either candidate. Like Ms. Miller, though, he came away from the debate leaning, tenuously, toward the Republican nominee. “Trump had the more commanding presentation. There was nothing done by Harris that made me think she’s better. In any way”. So, about the 4% ers... In total the New York Times had one panelist, only one, a nurse in Charlotte, North Carolina, who was won over by Harris during the debate. What we’re seeing, as the potential impact from Tuesday night’s historic debate begins to be seen...
- Is a trend that the debate did not necessarily bend the race the way it may have immediately seemed. For 96% of voters the debate was political theater with people routing for their respective teams. For 4% of voters, it was something quite different. The debate was like a preseason audition to be the starting quarterback. Trump, the established veteran and former Super Bowl winner, may have fumbled a snap or two, he may have had an interception along the way and there may have been wide-open wide receivers he didn’t spot from the pocket. But you know that when it’s game time he can reliably put points on the board and knows how to win – even if it’s ugly getting there. The more important audition was that of the challenger. How would Kamala perform in her quarterback audition? Was there more upside to be found by starting her? The consensus perception, as more focus group feedback from undecided voters rolls in, is that rather than demonstrating her skills, and illustrating how she would use her playbook to win...she instead spent her time talking about how good her playbook is and how bad her competition for quarterback is. Who would you start in that scenario? The quarterback you’ve already won with or the one that talks about how bad the quarterback you’ve already won with is? That seems to effectively be what we’re hearing from those in the 4%, for which the debate mattered. And now we turn from the focus group panelist polls to...the first post-debate swing state poll. InsiderAdvantage is out with the first accredited poll of swing state voters with a sample that was taken after the debate and the survey says...
- Trump gained 3-points in Michigan. The new InsiderAdvantage poll of likely voters with samples taken on Wednesday and Thursday shows Donald Trump leading Michigan by 1. The sample poll a month ago had Kamala Harris up 2. Prior to the presidential debate we’d talked about how Harris appeared to have peaked in the polls. Now, there were two other national pollsters who came out with completely post-debate sampled polls that showed Kamala could be seeing a kiss from the debate. The Reuters/Ipsos and Morning Consult polls both had Harris up five on Thursday. That’s a two percent boost in one of the polls and a one percent gain in the other poll over what they had her at prior to the debate. Even if those both proved true, Trump would still be polling ahead of where he was nationally four years ago and of course it’s what happens in the swing states that matters most. And at this point what happens with the 4% er’s in the swing states that will decide this election. What we’re seeing in the immediate aftermath of the debate this week is that the perception of the debate and the political reality of the debate may be in two different places. And as for anyone still wondering if there would be another debate. Trump put an end to that speculation when he posted on Truth: When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH.” KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!