Recent polls in New Hampshire have indicated a rather surprising lead for Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump, as conducted by the University of New Hampshire and Saint Anselm College. These polls are showing a seven-point difference in favor of Harris. Compared to July’s statistics, Harris’ popularity seems to be on the upswing to some and Trump’s remains largely unchanged. The near-half of New Hampshire voters who expect a Harris victory in November are in for a surprise in this unpredictable political climate.
According to Andrew Smith, the UNH Survey Center’s director, Harris is enjoying a lead somewhat akin to that Biden held over Trump in the 2020 elections. However, public opinion is a fickle thing and can change rapidly, leaving future outcomes uncertain. Smith’s assessments may not reflect the true sentiment among voters, given the fact that the political tides can and do shift unexpectedly.
Interestingly, not long after the first 2020 presidential debate between Trump and Biden, an NHIOP survey demonstrated a Trump lead by a slim margin of two points over Biden in New Hampshire. This was noteworthy for a state known to favor Biden by over seven points the same year. Those keeping a keen eye on poll numbers might ask: what has truly changed and when did this supposed Harris consolidation really happen?
Data from the Saint Anselm poll suggests Harris has firmly cemented her base within the Democratic contingent, with claimed support from 94% of the Democratic vote as opposed to Trump’s 90% of the Republican vote. This sounds impressive on the face of it, however, such statistics can often be misleading, and it remains to be seen how this plays out in real-world ballots.
While some argue that even a marginal increase in Harris’ lead is significant in this nail-biting race, we must remember that these fluctuations are within the margin of error. According to Neil Levesque, the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, this is still noteworthy in a race this close. With the stakes being high, every small shift is subjected to intense scrutiny.
A telling statistic from the Saint Anselm poll shows that 62% of respondents think the United States is going off course. This disillusionment is typically damaging to the party in power and the heightened concerns of voters about issues such as border security ostensibly give an advantage to Trump. Yet Harris, remarkably, appears to maintain a lead.
Neil Levesque presents a peculiar interpretation suggesting that Trump has had difficulty expanding his base, which might be why the current lead for Harris exits. If we are to believe Levesque, the key to a Trump victory lies in dismantling Harris’ numbers with an effective strategy. A strategy he ironically proposes Trump has struggled with, despite his notable successes in the past.
The gubernatorial primary race for Democrats in the state of New Hampshire, according to the UNH poll, is in a heated and tight phase, with CD-2 Democrats also in a closely contested race. Again, it’s important to remember that polling data is a mere preview of the potential outcomes and not the definitive result.
Taking a glance at vice presidential picks, we see Minnesota’s Governor, Tim Walz chosen as Harris’ running mate. His popularity allegedly surpasses Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance in both the polls. While pollsters seem to present this as a clear advantage, the true test of their likability remains at the ballot box.
In the UNH poll, 44% of respondents supposedly had a favorable view of Walz, against 40% who viewed him unfavorably. The Saint Anselm poll painted a slightly rosier picture with a 50%-41% favorability rating for Walz. Parsing these statistics leaves a bit of a head-scratcher as predicting voter behavior is a notoriously tricky enterprise.
Vance, on the other hand, faces apparently unfavorable numbers in both surveys at 34%-53% and 41%-53%, respectively. It’s important to note however that popularity measured through polls is not always an accurate reflection of the electorate’s preferences or the eventual outcome at the ballot box.
Both Smith and Levesque speculate that the popularity, or lack thereof, of vice presidential candidates wouldn’t likely be game-changing. They suggest that the race is more about the appeal and redeeming qualities of the presidential candidates. This seems to brush over the fact that the Vice President plays a crucial role shaping policy and public engagement.
A third-party candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who had received minor support in the UNH and St. Anselm polls, has now suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Trump. The influence or significance of this endorsement is viewed as insubstantial by Smith and Levesque, despite the potential sway it might hold.
Levesque downplays the endorsement by saying that such actions don’t necessarily guarantee the transfer of votes to the endorsed candidate, especially in the case of Kennedy, who had managed a small far-left base. Smith agrees, suggesting that such voters will probably return to the main party they most align with. Both of them overlook the role that unexpected alliances can play in politics—swaying undecided voters or amplifying existing narratives.
In what appears to be a dismissive stance, Smith stated that Kennedy was never much popular, and his small support base in the state was probably comprised of those disenchanted with both Biden and Trump. He suggests those voters will either return to their primary party affiliations or seek out other third-party candidates. However, such assumptions may not effectively reflect how the electoral landscape can be unpredictably altered by the wind of change.