In the days leading up to President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race, he trailed former President Donald Trump in the betting markets by up to 48 points. By August 9, however, less than three weeks after Vice President Kamala Harris had replaced Biden at the top of the ticket, Trump’s advantage had been completely erased.
In the week before the Sept. 10 debate, Trump briefly led the betting markets. However, following his disappointing performance, Harris regained the upper hand.
On Oct. 6, one day after Trump’s triumphant return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site of the first assassination attempt, he reclaimed the top spot. Over the past ten days, his lead has increased to 14% in the RealClearPolitics average of betting odds.
According to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, “the betting markets seem to anticipate polling shifts by somewhere between a few days and a week or so. This data would indicate that Harris can expect more erosion in her standing in the final three weeks before Election Day.”
Given that the election is only three weeks away, the ability to anticipate shifts in voter sentiment up to a week out takes on far greater significance.
Morrissey continued:
What could explain this sudden shift? First off, the U.S. electorate usually has some sort of late preference cascade as voters lock in on their choices. It’s not unusual to see this, although betting markets may make it easier to spot as it happens; sometimes polling only shows it in retrospect. In an environment where net disapproval of the incumbent administration is -14.7 and the net wrong-direction sentiment is as large as -32.9 (the current RCP aggregate scores), a late collapse in the incumbent’s position is scarcely surprising.
Although the changes in presidential polls have not been dramatic over the past couple of weeks, Trump has clearly gained ground in both national and battleground state surveys, while Harris has lost ground. Hence her desperation.
In a weekend panel discussion with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, former Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cited Harris’s remarkable statement on “The View” last week as one of the leading catalysts. Asked if there was anything she would have done differently than Biden over the past four years, Harris replied, “there is not a thing that comes to mind.”
This was an extraordinary utterance from an incumbent candidate trying to sell herself as an agent of change.
Priebus also pointed to the fact that the Harris campaign’s “feeling of joy in the air” that had helped her (with women especially) is “gone.” It has run its course.
“It’s obvious that there is a leak in the balloon here in the Kamala Harris campaign,” he said.
Raddatz was not amused.
American Thinker writer Monica Showalter weighed in on Trump’s recent strength in the betting odds on Sunday. Among the explanations she provides for Harris’s recent weakness are her “word salads.” According to Showalter:
[T]here were the word salads — Kamala’s handlers could see the momentum falling, and decided to get her out into the public a bit more, with friendly and jejune interviewers and television appearances — all of which she blew. … She was suddenly doing a lot of them.I suspect these sank her betting odds more than anything. Young black and Latino voters have told pollsters they want to know more about her and what she plans for the country. All they get in reply is gibberish, or ‘joy,’ like she’s trying to sell them a can of Pepsi. It’s not real joy, see, it’s just what the ad promises — life, love, good health, the works. Been there, done that — and not even young people who weren’t born before those Coke and Pepsi ads promising world peace were around were fooled.
As I wrote on Monday, her refusal (or her inability) to answer questions directly during last week’s “media blitz,” which included the Univision town hall and her disastrous interview with CBS News’ Bill Whitaker, contributed to her loss of support.
The mere act of scheduling a media blitz in the first place signaled the campaign’s desperation. Recognizing that her momentum had stalled, Team Harris hoped a series of media appearances would reset the race. The strategy backfired.
Morrissey agrees. “The only reason to send Harris out on this media blitz would have been to shore up an already eroding position. The betting markets may not even be a leading indicator in that sense, but they have caught the whiff of desperation nonetheless. And as Morrissey’s First Axiom of Dating and Politics states, desperation is not an aphrodisiac.”
Many of us were surprised that Harris had committed to Wednesday evening interview with Fox News chief political anchor Brett Baier, something she would never have agreed to had she been in a stronger position. Although Baier is known for his journalistic integrity, he will nevertheless press Harris for honest answers. If he doesn’t get them, he will at least make it obvious she is dodging/lying.
To be sure, it is a risky venture, particularly so close to the election. But she needs something big to jumpstart her momentum. Her interview with Baier will either put her back in the game or end her chance at victory. Let’s hope it’s the latter.
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY