Why Kamala Harris’ New Polling Edge in Favorability Is Such a Big Deal

I think there's two main reasons this keeps coming up every time a poll shows that Harris has even a chance at winning:

1. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was way ahead in the polls, only to lose. This was due to many factors, but one that gets a fair amount of blame is that a lot of people hated her and didn't want to hold their nose and vote for her. Staying home was a lot easier when she was supposed to win by a wide margin.

2. While a lot of people pushing third party candidates were never going to support Harris, there are also those who think that it's ok to vote third party in states that aren't seen as in play in order to "send a message" without risking a Trump win. But if the polls are off and that state is closer than expected, those votes could still cost the election.

Historically, being ahead in the polls helps a candidate. The bandwagon effect is real, and can help drive up turnout and shift how people perceive an election or issue. That's why partisan polls designed to skew the numbers have been around for so long.

Either way, it doesn't hurt to remind people that no matter what they expect the outcome to be, we need as many votes as we can get. Bigger margins can help fight off conspiracy theories and legal challenges, and more turnout in down-ballot races can make the difference between gridlock and real progress.

Some think that if a candidate is doing well or poor enough they won't bother to vote because it won't matter. Kind of like when everyone assumes someone else called 911 when there's an emergency.

This was 538's prediction before the 2016 election.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look as good in the battlegrounds that will decide the election: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/politics/times-siena-polls-arizona-georgia-north-carolina.html?smid=url-share

If Time is considered left-of-center than the scale is absurdly tilted to the right
@MediaBiasFactChecker