Inflection Point

 President Biden (praise be!) would typically cite the phrase in speeches in discussion of the US' place in history and of the status of elections in our constitutional republic.  I think that, typically, the phrase was not really getting across to the public in that fashion, and especially to those swing voters he was trying to attract.  

An inflection point can be described as a change in the direction of a graphical curve. In a broader sense, it means a turning point. Biden believes that 2024's election is such a turning point.  I suggested something similar in my rant about the "precipice" at the beginning of the year.  This election can clearly be seen as the climax of something, this battle of our political norms vs. Trumpism. On behalf of all, even the Trumpists, there is a belief that this election will be decisive.  

I can clearly see an inflection point, and it is not on Election Day (at least not yet, it could still happen) but it already happened, on July 21, when Biden chose to announce he would end his campaign for re-election and suggest Vice-President Harris for the party's nomination. Before that, Biden's standing v. Trump was trending downward, slowly, but seemingly without any positive inflection in sight (first derivative negative, second derivative=0).  Since then, a month with a favorable sequence of events, all evidence shows steady improvement in the public's view of the Democrats' ticket.

Where does Kamala's trend go from here?   My estimate of the gain since 7/21 is 3-5%, from down 1-2% (Biden or Harris vs. Trump) to up 2-3%.  One change that contributed to the gain since 7/21 was the collapse of RFKJR's candidacy, which, along with Harris replacing Biden, has made this much more a head-to-head, two-person race. Roughly speaking, the popular vote now looks to be about 48-46 Harris-Walz over Trump, with some 3% insisting on another individual and 3% undecided.

Those 3% are probably more like "don't know", meaning that they don't know anything about it that they will admit to knowing.  Those particular folks may not end up voting, unless something really grabs their attention (like a war threat).  Regardless, some combination of changes will bring the numbers up to 100% total (with the 3% 'other').  There isn't more than that amount (3%) of downside to the current percentages I suggested, for either candidate, if that much.  Trump's popular vote floor I would say is 43%, and Harris' 45%, which is where Biden was when he stopped.  I will say, though, that a 3% downward move for either from the current level would absolutely lead to a landslide.  So, the time is one of vulnerability, avoiding harm, even as Harris may gain even a bit more during her campaign's post-convention afterglow. Another debate looms; another inflection point is likely before November, though that could be an acceleration (less likely), a reversal--let's hope not, a plateauing (most likely). Or maybe not, just a steady increase, all the way. Sounds good.

 

Graph of the Predictit market for Democrats winning Presidential election by 35-64 Electoral Votes, from May 26 to August 25, 2024.

Is National Popular Vote Irrelevant?

Clearly I don't think so, as that's what I've been discussing--using its estimator, the polling averages.

I often see it suggested as being meaningless by Republicans who are on the defensive because they would lose by that measure every time these days.  (2004 the only recent exception)  I would argue that, instead, it is a measure for which there is ample data and one that, broadly speaking, can be used to provide a key measure useful to predict outcome in the critical states. .     

If we look at the percentage vote for one of the parties in the Presidential elections within these states, it is not at all static.  It rises up and down with the relative fortunes of the party.  However, there is less movement relative to the overall popular vote, and even moreso if one looks at the order of these states on that measure.  

To take an example, North Carolina's popular vote percentage margin for Democratic presidential candidates, as compared to the overall US popular vote margin, resulted the following in the last four elections:  -7.0 (2008), -5.9 (2012), -5.8 (2016), and -5.9 (2020).  (Note:  2008, the worst of the four data points, was the one when the Democrats won the state!)  So, you could estimate that the US Democratic margin nationally should be above 6% to favor their chances. 

Let's look at that measure, which also shows some distinctive trends in individual states vs. the national voting, and some conclusions that may be drawn from it: 

 

State	2008	2012	2016	2020	Comment
Nevada	+5.2	+2.8	+0.3	-2.1	Negative trend; projects to -4
Michigan	+9.1	+5.6	-2.3	-1.7	Projects to -2
Pennsylvania	+3.0	+1.5	-3.1	-3.3	Projects to -3
Wisconsin	+6.6	+3.0	-2.9	-3.9	Projects to -3 or -4
Arizona	-15.8	-12.9	-5.6	-4.2	Improved rapidly; projects to -3
Georgia	-12.5	-11.7	-7.2	-4.3	Changing rapidly toward D; projects -3 to -1
Florida	-4.5	-3.0	-3.3	-7.7	Not out of reach if Dems +4; 2020 looks like an outlier

In terms of rank order of this measure, GA, AZ, and NC have consistently been lowest, MI at or near the highest, and PA right in the middle.  With all these swing states below the national average in 2020--a high turnout year like 2008, and like 2024 is likely to be, it is clear that those who say Harris-Walz will need a clear lead in the popular vote, like 3 or 4%, have the recent data on their side.  At the same time, though, a lead of 5-6% might lead to an Electoral Vote "landslide" of 100 EV or more, and much more if FL flips. 

This model doesn't take into account specific variations and their possible causes; I would suggest the outlook in Wisconsin looks more favorable than this because of the Walz effect.  Turnout nationally, and its effect on the US national popular vote, will be up for Democrats because New York and California are so critical for regaining control of the House and will get extra attention, which will boost the Democratic vote margin, without doing much in some of the swing states. 

With a 50-45 popular vote margin, which I think is quite likely, this projects to a 297-219 lead for Harris-Walz, with Nevada and North Carolina too close to call and Georgia, once again, somehow on the Democrats' side.  On the other hand, if it finishes 49-47,by this model Harris would lose Pennsylvania, where Democratic turnout totally matters, and most likely the election as well.  The margins are fine. 

Unfortunately, though exit polls might help, the popular vote takes days to assume its final shape.  So we are left to lean upon the unwieldy support of the polling averages. That is, if we don't want to go by the even more inconsistent measure of polling averages in the several states.

 

 

The Politics of Joy

You will surely hear the phrase more times as journalists try to chronicle the sensational roll-out of the Harris-Walz ticket through the Democratic party convention.  It is accurate, and Walz has presented it to us in his praise of VP Harris' gift of joy in rising to meet her great challenge.  I don't think he's declared the phrase as such, either, so let's get that out of the way. 

We shouldn't take it too far, though:  after all, it is the theme given to the failed candidacy of another VP nominee selected under special circumstances, the "happy warrior" Hubert Horatio Humphrey (HHH).  That itself is a title which both VP Harris and Gov. Walz would gladly assume. 

It's the emotion of the season, and there's plenty of need for it. Wall Street failed to intrude upon it with a sizable single-day drop, Trump and Vance flail ineffectively in the face of it, collapse of the peace initiative in the Mideast cannot break through it, though it may try. 

 We must resolve, in the face of it all, to

 Learn from history and elect Humphrey, not Nixon, this time.

 Do not let the tragedy of '68 become the farce of '24.

There is no better, nor easier, way to express politically this long-awaited euphoria than through the high drama of the summer Olympics we have been able to experience right now. There is almost too much--even if we just limit ourselves to gold medal winners just from Team USA.   There is no reason to limit our excitement just to the winners of gold, nor just those competitors from our country. 

That nationalism--the inevitable need to take our side, to the detriment of the other--is the part of the Olympics I like least, despite my pride and my rooting interest for our team.  At least I can say that they have been so busy on the network they haven't had time to bore us with the national anthem, over and over again. Though I'm glad I have some chance to avoid it,  I have some sympathy for those who have to cover it, anyway.  I would choose to exempt everyone from enduring it until the final day of the meet, in the case of swimming, gymnastics, track and field.   That would be something, hearing all the different national anthems of the various countries of the winners, with all the medal winners present. 

Anyway, Cole Hacker. Katie Ledecky.  LeBron James. Quincy Hall. Leon Marchand. Kenneth Rooks.  Grant Holloway. Noah Lyles. Simone Biles. Mijan Lopez Nunez.  Daniel Roberts. Grant Fisher. Kristen Faulkner. Hampton Morris. Rai Benjamin  Shinnosuke Oka. Matt Anderson. and Roje Stona, of course.  Those were just the ones whose exploits I saw, live (or I thought so:  those network guys are tricky, but nothing in prime time was live). 

To sum up this year's Olympics experience, I would use the words greater depth and breadth.  More sports have more competitive teams or individuals.  Similarly, the USA team broadened the range of events in which they were competitive.  And, of course, Paris.  The Olympics should settle upon a set of 8-10 cities with all the facilities and history of hosting (maybe adding one in Africa, somewhere safe?), and Paris should be one of them. 

What's Missing in this Olympics? 

Well, baseball.  Also softball.  Partly, the problem is that the Olympics event is in the middle of the baseball season, but the Winter Olympics manages it with ice hockey, and  MLB could be induced to allow international players to take a couple weeks off. 

 I watched some of several of the less-celebrated sports:  Archery showed amazing skill, table tennis matches were long but often dramatic, with great audience support. Water polo is a brutal game, like wrestling but underwater, and it is one of the games in which the shooter has the edge over the goalie.  Same is true of team handball, which is a lot like basketball but with a much bigger goal. The other extreme is hockey (also known as field hockey), where the ball hugs the ground and the sticks are great for ball control but not for beating the goalie.Tennis (also known as lawn tennis, though they played on clay in Paris) got a raw deal from the network.  Yes, matches are long, but there were a lot of channels with very little of interest going on.  (The best TV of the Olympics was in these off-channels, where they would use as filler after events some shots from the pool of critical moments in matches, and then with interviews with medal winners, without narration.)

As one who loves the long, lead pass, team handball sometimes has some nice ones, but it seems that mostly it is breaking down defenses in set positions.  Water polo has some nice one-touch cross-pool passes, executed with one hand above the surface, but the long passes just kind of end up sitting on the water.  The sport which would please me most if it were added for the Los Angeles Olympics would be Ultimate Frisbee.  It's a lot like some of the other sports (like soccer) where skllful passing moves the "ball" down the field.  Because of the frisbee's aerodynamic qualities, it lingers in the air longer, allowing some incredible lead passes. Like in football, just as long, but better.

A Little More on Baseball

 About 30% of the regular season remains.  Enough time for a lot to happen, but the scope of possible outcomes is limited by performance year-to-date. 

It's now understood that, in the current expanded playoff format, just making it into the final 12 (six in each league) is the main task.  Any of those teams can make it into the World Series by getting hot and getting some good starting pitching in short playoff series.  The bye and home-field advantage that the top two division winners get don't seem to provide much advantage against a hot wild-card team that has already taken a series. 

Still, it's better to be safely in the playoffs; the teams with their spot booked can experiment with lineup changes and get their pitching rotation exactly as they want.  Not many teams are in that position, though: the Phillies, Brewers and the Dodgers have division leads in the NL which should hold up, while the two  top AL records,  AL East teams the Yankees and Orioles, should have safe berths, though the division title remains a close contest.. That's about it .

Recent weeks have produced some hot teams that may monopolize most of the remaining wild card slots.  In the NL West, the Padres have the team and have emerged as the leading wild-card candidate, with last year's World Series runner-up, the Diamondbacks, close behind.  That would leave one spot, and about seven or eight teams trying to get it.  The Braves should be favored for it, but the Mets could take it.  NL Central also-rans the Cardinals and Pirates are getting attention for rebounding from poor 2023 seasons and playing at least .500 ball (winning half their games), but they will probably need to be 8-10 games above to make it.  In the AL Central, the Royals and Twins are the teams that have emerged as leaders for the second and third wild cards, even challenging the Guardians (nee Indians), who've led the division by a goodly margin most of the season.  In the AL West, surprisingly weak performance means only one team is likely to make it, and that team is surely going to be the Houston Astros, with early leaders the Mariners and last year's World Series champion Rangers left out. 

It's been an exciting season, with two standout slugging performers:  Aaron Judge for the Yanks and Shohei Ohtani for the Dodgers.  Many records are in danger from those two. 

I will close with mention of Billy Bean, a former major leaguer who became a groundbreaking baseball team General Manager.  He helped bring serious statistical approaches to the management of major-league baseball teams.  I will leave the fuller eulogies for Bob Costas, or better, Michael Lewis, who studied his accomplishments more. 

Note:  Some updates added in Comment 8/24....