I think Trump is going to win.

However…

It is still an extraordinarily close race, and I think the final tally will reflect that. I wouldn’t be surprised if Harris wins, although it appears to me to be the less probable outcome. But I didn’t start this blog to hedge my bets or hide my hot takes, so I’m going to give the people what they want. Welcome to the Hot Take Zone.

Presidential Forecast

First, let’s get the topline model numbers out of the way.

I am projecting a Trump/Vance victory with 278 Electoral Votes, winning the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Harris is projected to win Michigan and Pennsylvania. See below for all projected state outcomes and vote shares.

Forecast Commentary

While everyone else is looking at Pennsylvania, I’m looking at Wisconsin and North Carolina.

Most analysts think Pennsylvania will be the “tipping point state” as they believe it will be the closest race of the blue wall states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin) — Harris’ most conventional path to victory. However, I have her projected to win Pennsylvania (+0.5pp) and still lose the electoral college. This is because I think Wisconsin will be the hardest blue wall state for Harris, a conjecture in which I am alone.

If my model is successful, Harris doesn’t actually need to outperform by much to win. Her easiest path is through North Carolina (Harris is projected to lose by only –0.5pp). The final Times/Siena poll has Harris +2pp in North Carolina, so victory there is entirely possible. The next easiest path is through Wisconsin, where past polling error is significantly diminishing Harris’ projected vote share in my model (a methodological decision I have absolutely no care to litigate at this time). I stand by my projected loss for her in the Badger State (–1.9pp) and think Democrats have not taken things seriously enough there. Either way, all Harris would need to do to pass 270 is outperform my model in either North Carolina or Wisconsin, assuming all other state projections remain accurate.

Why Harris Lost

Next, I’d like to transition to my vibes-based analysis of the election.

As the de facto incumbent, Harris was faced with many significant challenges this cycle, few of which were named Trump. As I’ve described before, Trump was an entirely beatable candidate who ran an absurd, unfocused, and incendiary campaign. I have no doubt that if Nikki Haley had won the nomination, Democrats would have no hope tonight.

Instead, Harris was faced with other challenges — the primary of which was her intrinsic ties to an unpopular president and an administration that she played no substantive role in. A double bind: she couldn’t take credit for any wins but was also seen as liable for the most salient issues of the last 4 years, including immigration and the affordability crisis.

Assuming my forecast model is correct, the Harris campaign insufficiently met these challenges. So, before the political pundits get a chance to write the obituary of the Harris campaign, I want to briefly outline what I saw as the top 5 failures of the campaign:

1. Harris didn’t know how to strategically distance herself from Biden. When asked in a friendly interview how she would have been different than Biden as president, her first words were “There is not a thing that comes to mind.” I’m not saying this is an easy task — it is a very hard line to walk, but you can’t claim to represent a new generation of leadership without having anything to say about how you would be different from the last. She should have known this question was coming and she needed a much better answer. Additionally, there were countless missed opportunities to at least signal a distancing from Biden whether that was moving campaign headquarters or shaking up the campaign leadership, but instead, she stayed in Wilmington and kept all of Biden’s people.
2. Harris’ theory of Trump was that he needed to be laughed at, but he needed to be berated. This is again a very difficult thing to do right, but I think the Harris campaign needed to do a better job of stirring up anger at Trump. Instead, at times they painted him as addled and unserious (both of which are legitimate attacks, just not as effective as I think they thought). There needed to be more direct litigation of his rhetoric, policies, and administrative record. Side note: I also don’t think Project 2025 was as effective a tool here. There’s a lot more I could say on this but I’ll save that for later. If I’m right and Trump wins, the Democratic party will have an identity crisis over how to address Trump.
3. Tactically, Harris was too reactive and not proactive. As I wrote in a previous model update, I think Harris’ trip to the border in Arizona was a mistake. It was a very reactive move with the wrong idea that Harris could win or even mitigate a loss on immigration. By far, the most salient issue that Democrats win on is abortion and so much more could have been done to proactively keep that in the headlines. The campaign did not control the narrative.
4. The Harris campaign failed to communicate a positive vision. I definitely don’t think endless policy papers are the most effective way to communicate to voters your administrative and legislative priorities, nor do I think they should be used as a crutch in the stump speech as Harris did. The Harris campaign clearly couldn’t decide whether to fully lean into policy papers or not. I personally think policy papers should only be used to stop reporters from writing that you have no plans, while the priority signaling should come more organically in speeches and interviews. But in the end, what was Harris’ overarching positive vision or philosophy for the future? I still don’t really have a clear answer on that. Instead, I got a loose web of policy proposals and impressively vague taglines like “a new way forward” and “we’re not going back.” 
5. Harris’ audience-specific messaging was weak. I think the most egregious of Harris’ targeting failures was the lackluster outreach to men. This is less a Harris-specific issue and more a failure of the Democratic party in recent years. Democrats have a really successful message for women, focused on issues I too think Democrats should focus on. The problem is when Democrats convey this message in a way that leaves men behind, which is what happened here. Harris didn’t even try to message to men while the Obamas opted to shame and lecture — both losing strategies.

Final Thoughts

Ann Selzer’s Iowa poll was bonkers. If Harris wins, I’ll believe in canvassing. I think the House will go blue and the Senate will go red. Pete Buttigieg is totally running for governor of Michigan in 2026 and I called it in July.