U.S. political analysts prepare for the most uncertain election of their careers
The presidential race shows a statistical tie across all key battleground states, while the down-ballot landscape remains in disarray.
TroibNews 
Washington’s political elite is facing an uneasy and unprecedented situation: this election is the most unpredictable of their careers.
With the presidential race statistically tied in all seven battleground states, the likelihood of a clear sweep by either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris—or something in between—is nearly equal. Republicans have good chances of flipping the Senate but cannot dismiss the possibility that Democrats may capture some GOP-held seats in states like Texas or Florida. While control of the House often mirrors the presidential election's outcome, strategists from both parties are preparing for unexpected results.
Never before in contemporary political history has there been such significant uncertainty leading up to Election Day, with a vast range of potential outcomes.
“The only intellectually honest answer is to say: I don’t know,” stated Douglas Heye, a seasoned GOP strategist and former communications director for the Republican National Committee. “Everything I see contradicts itself.”
Patti Solis Doyle, a Democratic strategist and former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's 2008 effort, believes that this is the most unpredictable election she’s witnessed in over three decades of presidential campaigning.
“Normally I would say that the House goes where the presidential goes. That’s sort of the standard,” Solis Doyle remarked. “But I don’t think that’s the case here. In some of these battleground states where it’s tied, you see some of the Senate races going either D or R, full on, and it’s befuddling.”
“I don’t think anybody knows how this will turn out, and people who tell you they do know, I think, are lying to you or are drinking the Kool-Aid,” she added.
The uncertainty surrounding Tuesday’s outcomes is largely attributed to a deeply divided electorate, with polls showing little obvious change. Key questions remain: Will Trump attract a few percentage points from young Black men? Will Harris resonate with a small segment of Republican women? How significant will the gender gap be among younger voters? And crucially, how will these variables culminate in the final results?
“Do I think a lot of Republicans are going to vote for Kamala Harris? No way,” Mark Graul, a Republican strategist who managed George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign in Wisconsin, asserted. However, he noted that if Harris secures 2 or 3 percent of Republican support, “that’s going to make a difference” in a closely contested state like Wisconsin, potentially decided by just 10,000 or 20,000 votes.
“Because of how close it is, everything matters. Every demographic matters,” he emphasized.
While some states seem more tilted toward one candidate or the other, polls in the seven battlegrounds are too close to call, with no candidate leading by more than 3 points in The New York Times’ polling average. Because of this, strategists from both parties claim they would not be shocked if either candidate won any of these states—or if one achieved an Electoral College rout.
Conventional wisdom suggests that Trump’s support might be underrepresented in the polls, but many analysts are cautioning against this assumption. If, as noted by the Times’ Nate Cohen, the polling error at the state level mirrors that of 2022, Harris would triumph in every swing state except Georgia, winning North Carolina instead. Conversely, if polling errors replicate those of 2020, Trump would enjoy a clean sweep. That scenario represents a shift of 77 Electoral College votes.
On Saturday, strategists were presented with another unexpected development. A highly regarded poll from The Des Moines Register indicated Harris with a 3-point lead in Iowa—traditionally not a swing state—suggesting surprising strength among older women and independents.
“Let’s be clear that in a very divided country, a small little break of one to two points in either candidate’s wave could equate to a massive Electoral College political tsunami,” explained Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration appointee.
This ambiguity extends down the ballot as well. Republicans appeared to be well-positioned to take the upper chamber, entering this electoral cycle with a strong offensive stance. With the impending retirement of independent Joe Manchin in West Virginia, a guaranteed seat gain for Republicans, the GOP needed only to secure the presidency—or flip one additional seat—to control the Senate.
However, Republicans have found it challenging to secure that final seat. Their best chance lies in defeating Sen. Jon Tester. Republicans have been so confident about their prospects in Montana that they’ve pulled significant ad buys. Yet the FiveThirtyEight polling average shows a competitive race, with Republican Tim Sheehy currently holding a five-point lead, making control of the chamber uncertain.
At one end of the spectrum, Republicans could defeat Tester, potentially achieving a near-swweep in other contested Senate races in Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Arizona—positioning themselves for a majority in the mid-50s. On the flip side, Tester could surprise with a win—a non-negligible possibility in a smaller state—and Democrats could defend their other battlegrounds while potentially flipping a seat in Texas or Florida.
Such a scenario would resemble a more pronounced version of the Democrats’ unexpected success in 2022. Two years prior, they were expected to lose the Senate, especially with an unpopular President Joe Biden at the forefront. However, following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats managed to net a seat by flipping Pennsylvania and defending their challenging electoral landscape—something progressives are hoping to replicate now.
“I think that the 2024 polls are suffering from 2022-itis, meaning they’re yet again not measuring the energy, the undercurrent, of how women feel around reproductive rights,” stated Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist with experience in Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s campaigns. “We have seen that post-Dobbs, the party that has been overperforming has been Democrats, time and again in every single election, special and otherwise, Democrats have overperformed.”
As for the House, the number of competitive seats has generally diminished since the 1990s—from 173 districts within five percentage points of the national presidential vote to just 86 this year, according to a Brennan Center analysis. However, of those, only about two dozen are true tossups.
Any of these House races could swing decisively, granting one party a solid majority or allowing either party to narrowly achieve control, akin to the slim margins Republicans have maintained in the chamber.
Strategists are ready for a complex mosaic of results down the ballot.
In Arizona, for example, Democrats appear to be in a strong position for the Senate seat with Rep. Ruben Gallego leading against Republican Kari Lake, could flip or tie control of the state legislature, and may seize the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for the first time in recent history—even as both sides feel a Trump victory in the state is slightly more probable than a win for Harris.
“I think you’ll get a lot of conflicting signals,” observed Chuck Coughlin, a longtime Republican political consultant in Arizona who has since distanced himself from the party. “Maybe the Democrats take control of the chamber out here too, maybe take over the county board of supervisors, but Trump still wins the state. That’s crazy.”
One thing political operatives are certain of is that the presidency and control of Congress will not be determined on Tuesday night.
“This election is like freshman year of high school, full of anxiety, dreading each and every morning you wake up wondering what indignity and ugliness you were going to face today, and it seemed like it would never end,” remarked Barrett Marson, a GOP strategist in Arizona. “But eventually, as we all know, you come out on the other side. Scarred for life, but you survive.”
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
With the presidential race statistically tied in all seven battleground states, the likelihood of a clear sweep by either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris—or something in between—is nearly equal. Republicans have good chances of flipping the Senate but cannot dismiss the possibility that Democrats may capture some GOP-held seats in states like Texas or Florida. While control of the House often mirrors the presidential election's outcome, strategists from both parties are preparing for unexpected results.
Never before in contemporary political history has there been such significant uncertainty leading up to Election Day, with a vast range of potential outcomes.
“The only intellectually honest answer is to say: I don’t know,” stated Douglas Heye, a seasoned GOP strategist and former communications director for the Republican National Committee. “Everything I see contradicts itself.”
Patti Solis Doyle, a Democratic strategist and former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's 2008 effort, believes that this is the most unpredictable election she’s witnessed in over three decades of presidential campaigning.
“Normally I would say that the House goes where the presidential goes. That’s sort of the standard,” Solis Doyle remarked. “But I don’t think that’s the case here. In some of these battleground states where it’s tied, you see some of the Senate races going either D or R, full on, and it’s befuddling.”
“I don’t think anybody knows how this will turn out, and people who tell you they do know, I think, are lying to you or are drinking the Kool-Aid,” she added.
The uncertainty surrounding Tuesday’s outcomes is largely attributed to a deeply divided electorate, with polls showing little obvious change. Key questions remain: Will Trump attract a few percentage points from young Black men? Will Harris resonate with a small segment of Republican women? How significant will the gender gap be among younger voters? And crucially, how will these variables culminate in the final results?
“Do I think a lot of Republicans are going to vote for Kamala Harris? No way,” Mark Graul, a Republican strategist who managed George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign in Wisconsin, asserted. However, he noted that if Harris secures 2 or 3 percent of Republican support, “that’s going to make a difference” in a closely contested state like Wisconsin, potentially decided by just 10,000 or 20,000 votes.
“Because of how close it is, everything matters. Every demographic matters,” he emphasized.
While some states seem more tilted toward one candidate or the other, polls in the seven battlegrounds are too close to call, with no candidate leading by more than 3 points in The New York Times’ polling average. Because of this, strategists from both parties claim they would not be shocked if either candidate won any of these states—or if one achieved an Electoral College rout.
Conventional wisdom suggests that Trump’s support might be underrepresented in the polls, but many analysts are cautioning against this assumption. If, as noted by the Times’ Nate Cohen, the polling error at the state level mirrors that of 2022, Harris would triumph in every swing state except Georgia, winning North Carolina instead. Conversely, if polling errors replicate those of 2020, Trump would enjoy a clean sweep. That scenario represents a shift of 77 Electoral College votes.
On Saturday, strategists were presented with another unexpected development. A highly regarded poll from The Des Moines Register indicated Harris with a 3-point lead in Iowa—traditionally not a swing state—suggesting surprising strength among older women and independents.
“Let’s be clear that in a very divided country, a small little break of one to two points in either candidate’s wave could equate to a massive Electoral College political tsunami,” explained Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration appointee.
This ambiguity extends down the ballot as well. Republicans appeared to be well-positioned to take the upper chamber, entering this electoral cycle with a strong offensive stance. With the impending retirement of independent Joe Manchin in West Virginia, a guaranteed seat gain for Republicans, the GOP needed only to secure the presidency—or flip one additional seat—to control the Senate.
However, Republicans have found it challenging to secure that final seat. Their best chance lies in defeating Sen. Jon Tester. Republicans have been so confident about their prospects in Montana that they’ve pulled significant ad buys. Yet the FiveThirtyEight polling average shows a competitive race, with Republican Tim Sheehy currently holding a five-point lead, making control of the chamber uncertain.
At one end of the spectrum, Republicans could defeat Tester, potentially achieving a near-swweep in other contested Senate races in Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Arizona—positioning themselves for a majority in the mid-50s. On the flip side, Tester could surprise with a win—a non-negligible possibility in a smaller state—and Democrats could defend their other battlegrounds while potentially flipping a seat in Texas or Florida.
Such a scenario would resemble a more pronounced version of the Democrats’ unexpected success in 2022. Two years prior, they were expected to lose the Senate, especially with an unpopular President Joe Biden at the forefront. However, following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats managed to net a seat by flipping Pennsylvania and defending their challenging electoral landscape—something progressives are hoping to replicate now.
“I think that the 2024 polls are suffering from 2022-itis, meaning they’re yet again not measuring the energy, the undercurrent, of how women feel around reproductive rights,” stated Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist with experience in Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s campaigns. “We have seen that post-Dobbs, the party that has been overperforming has been Democrats, time and again in every single election, special and otherwise, Democrats have overperformed.”
As for the House, the number of competitive seats has generally diminished since the 1990s—from 173 districts within five percentage points of the national presidential vote to just 86 this year, according to a Brennan Center analysis. However, of those, only about two dozen are true tossups.
Any of these House races could swing decisively, granting one party a solid majority or allowing either party to narrowly achieve control, akin to the slim margins Republicans have maintained in the chamber.
Strategists are ready for a complex mosaic of results down the ballot.
In Arizona, for example, Democrats appear to be in a strong position for the Senate seat with Rep. Ruben Gallego leading against Republican Kari Lake, could flip or tie control of the state legislature, and may seize the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for the first time in recent history—even as both sides feel a Trump victory in the state is slightly more probable than a win for Harris.
“I think you’ll get a lot of conflicting signals,” observed Chuck Coughlin, a longtime Republican political consultant in Arizona who has since distanced himself from the party. “Maybe the Democrats take control of the chamber out here too, maybe take over the county board of supervisors, but Trump still wins the state. That’s crazy.”
One thing political operatives are certain of is that the presidency and control of Congress will not be determined on Tuesday night.
“This election is like freshman year of high school, full of anxiety, dreading each and every morning you wake up wondering what indignity and ugliness you were going to face today, and it seemed like it would never end,” remarked Barrett Marson, a GOP strategist in Arizona. “But eventually, as we all know, you come out on the other side. Scarred for life, but you survive.”
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
