Democrats had a rude awakening with Biden’s poor debate performance against Trump in June. Biden’s candidacy was in trouble, but the debate’s relatively modest effect on polls kept him in the race for weeks. When he finally did withdraw, Kamala Harris immediately validated his decision, with Democrats having a surge of hope.
Would Harris be better positioned now if she had had to win a “blitz primary” where voters could have learned more about her and her priorities? We’ll never know — polls showing she was the front-runner justified her appointment.
By September, the combination of polls and relentless attacks had reduced potential independent and minor party candidates to the margins. The most reliably brutal effect of polling is to sideline minor parties except for their “spoiler impact.”
Now, it’s all about polls in the dully familiar swing states. Polls justify why the candidates spend nearly all their time there and why billions will be spent on the relatively few swing voters who will decide who wins them.
In winner-take-all elections, campaigning only matters when results are in doubt. In Senate elections, Republicans seek an upset in Maryland, Democrats in Texas and Florida, and independents in Nebraska. But polls make them underdogs, and polls report that Senate control will likely hinge on whether Democratic incumbents can carry Ohio and Montana.
Of 435 House seats, only about 40 might change parties — and far fewer will. Polls again drive where resources go, depressing debate, competition and turnout everywhere.
