Ask most party strategists, US pollsters or pundits and they’ll tell you the 2024 presidential election could be the closest in decades, if not a century.
Given Joe Biden’s 2020 win was decided by fewer than 45,000 votes in just three battleground states, that’s quite the claim.
However, it is what the polls suggest. The contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is super tight, both nationally and in the key states.
So, how much can we trust the polls?
It’s a question many are raising after they famously got it so wrong four years ago.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research called it the biggest polling miss in 40 years, showing Mr Biden’s lead over Mr Trump in the final two weeks of the campaign twice as large as it was when the votes were counted.
In 2012, pollsters significantly under-estimated Barack Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney. But, while Mr Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton shocked many people, the error on the national polls was relatively small by comparison.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Of course, all polls come with uncertainty, some inbuilt error, and they are only a snapshot of the current situation, not a prediction of the outcome on polling day.
Crucially, though, there is evidence they also become a more reliable predictor of the outcome the closer we get to the election. It may seem obvious, but a year out from voting the polls are on average seven points different from the final tally for each candidate. By the last week of the campaign, this falls to less than three points.
Advertisement
Every day the polls tell us a little bit more about the result.
So, how should we read them?
One key thing to remember is the uncertainty around the estimated support for the candidates.
Uncertainty: ‘Margin of error’
While pollsters publish a percentage figure for each, they also report a ‘margin of error’ to indicate the amount that support might vary.
For example, if a poll puts Mr Trump on 46% with a three-percentage point margin of error, it means that his support among the voting public should lie between 43% and 49%. If the same poll has Ms Harris on 49%, then her support should lie between 46% and 52%.
All this tells us is that the contest is close and either candidate could be leading.
Similar caution is required when looking at trackers using polling averages.
You might think that averaging the polls would reduce uncertainty, since random errors should cancel out. But some pollsters are consistently more accurate than others, while some may be systematically wrong in one direction. Adding them all together can reinforce those biases.
Image: Trump in Wisconsin at the start of the month. Pic: AP
Predicting the turnout: Context matters
Who votes in an election is also critical to the outcome but predicting that is a tough ask for pollsters. Roughly a third of eligible Americans do not cast a ballot in presidential elections, and it isn’t all the same people each time.
Context matters. It can make people more or less likely to vote. For example, potential changes to abortion laws seems to have mobilised many Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections.
The policies and performance of a candidate can also change the likelihood of more partisan voters to turnout.
The Electoral College: Why state contests can be crucial
The same considerations are needed when looking at state polls and arguably they are more crucial to determining which candidate is most likely to win the election.
The outcome of a presidential race is decided state by state, by the Electoral College, and the difference between that and the national vote has been growing.
Image: Harris discusses abortion rights in Arizona in June. Pic: Reuters/Rebecca Noble
In 2000 and in 2016, the candidate with the most votes nationally lost the election because they didn’t win a combination of states that delivered the highest tally in the Electoral College.
This is why battleground state polls get so much attention and they are factored into the models of statisticians trying to forecast the outcome.
Of course, they have the same uncertainty and potential flaws as national polls. And the bad news is their recent performance hasn’t been great.
In 2016 they suggested Ms Clinton would sweep the key states needed for a comfortable win in the Electoral College. In 2020, they fared even worse.
Some states have proven particularly difficult to poll accurately. In 2016 and 2020, the biggest misses were in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
These, especially Pennsylvania, which of the group carries the most Electoral College votes, are all potentially decisive in 2024.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The answer is plenty if you are looking for a steer on how people feel about a certain candidate or policy.
But, if you’re trying to work out who’s ahead in the race to be president, then all you can confidently say is the contest is really close and could come down to a small number of votes in a few states.
A 16-year-old transgender athlete who is the focus of a US sports row has won two golds and a silver at the California high school track and field championship.
AB Hernandez was born a boy but has transitioned and now competes against girls.
And the teenager’s inclusion in the girls category in the high jump, long jump and triple jump became a national conversation.
Critics, including parents, conservative activists and President Trump, had called for Hernandez to be barred from competing.
Image: AB Hernandez poses with her medals. Pic: AP
In the city of Clovis on Saturday, she took part under a new rule change brought in by the state’s interscholastic federation, under which an extra student was allowed to compete and win a medal in the events where Hernandez qualified.
And it meant there were two winners when she finished first.
Hernandez shared first place in the high jump with Jillene Wetteland and Lelani Laruelle.
All three cleared a height of 5ft 7in (1.7m), but Hernandez had no failed attempts, while the other two had each logged one failure.
Hernandez also had a first-place finish in the triple jump, sharing the top spot with Kira Gant Hatcher, who trailed her by more than half a metre.
Image: AB Hernandez shares the first-place spot on the podium with Kira Gant Hatcher during the triple jump medal ceremony. Pic: AP
Also, Hernandez came second in the long jump with Brooke White.
“Sharing the podium was nothing but an honour,” White said. “As a part of the queer community I want AB Hernandez to know we all have her back.”
Plane protest
During Hernandez’s qualifying events on Friday, a plane flew over the stadium trailing a banner, which read: “No boys in girls’ sports.” It was organised and paid for by two women’s advocacy groups.
A small protest also took place on the road outside. “Save girls’ sports,” one poster read. “XX does not equal XY,” read another.
Image: A plane, paid for by women’s advocacy groups, flew a banner over the stadium that read: ‘No boys in girls’ sports’
Transgender inclusion is a thorny issue but a vote winner for Donald Trump, who campaigned last year with a promise to “kick out men from women’s sport”.
And Mr Trump has threatened to withdraw federal funding from California over Hernandez’s participation in this weekend’s athletics event.
Image: Pic: AP
‘Pilot entry process’
The California Interscholastic Federation had earlier said it was launching a “pilot entry process” to allow more girls to participate in the championship.
It only applied to the three events in which Hernandez competed.
The rule change may be the first attempt nationally by a high school sports governing body to expand competition when trans athletes are participating.
If a transgender athlete wins a medal, their ranking would not displace a “biological female” student from also medalling, the federation confirmed, and it will be reflected in the records.
Follow the World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Donald Trump said he plans to double tariffs on steel imports from next week, deepening his trade war which has hit global markets.
The US president told a rally of steel workers in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, on Friday that tariffswould be raised from 25% to 50%, “which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States”.
Mr Trump later said on Truth Social that the new levy – also affecting aluminium imports – would be in effect from Wednesday and that American “industries are coming back like never before”.
“This will be yet another BIG jolt of great news for our wonderful steel and aluminum (sic) workers,” he added. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
He then said: “We don’t want America’s future to be built with shoddy steel from Shanghai – we want it built with the strength and the pride of Pittsburgh!”
Image: The new levy will come into effect on Wednesday, the US president says. Pic: Reuters
Sky News understands that British steel exports are exempt from this rise after a UK-US trade agreementwas signed earlier this month.
The agreement said at the time that the US “will promptly construct a quota at most favoured nation (MFN) rates” for British steel, aluminium and derivative products.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:45
How good is the UK-US deal?
Earlier, the US president claimed China had “totally violated” an agreement to mutually roll back tariffs and trade restrictions for critical minerals.
“So much for being Mr Nice Guy,” he said in a post on his social media platform.
The rates threaten to make the cost of products using steel and aluminium – such as cars or soft drink cans – more expensive for Americans.
He also previously threatened Canada with 50% levies on imports, while the provincial government of Ontario, in turn, threatened to charge 25% more for the electricity it supplies to the US.
Canada’smost populous province provides electricity to more than 1.5 million American homes and businesses in Minnesota, New York and Michigan.
At the time, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called the proposed 50% tariffs an “attack” on Canadian workers, families and businesses.
There was one on whether the president had any marital advice for his French counterpart – who appeared to be shoved by his wife the other day.
Another was about whether Mr Musk thought it was harder to colonise to Mars or reform government.
There were one or two about the pressing issues of the day, like Gaza, but nothing that could be described as probing or doing what we are supposed to be there to do – hold power to account.
And Musk, under Trump, has without question wielded immense power over the past few months; unprecedented for an unelected official.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
From February: Elon Musk shows off ‘chainsaw for bureaucracy’
There is little debate in America about the need to cut government bureaucracy or cut the debt.
America, more than any country I have lived in, is a place full of bloat and waste. Yet it was Mr Musk’s methods which caused so much unease among his many critics.
They argued that where a scalpel was definitely needed, Musk instead deployed a sledgehammer.
At times, his flamboyant style was a neat distraction from the substance of Trump’s sweeping policy changes.
But none of that was interrogated in this ‘press conference’.
Instead, the inane questions went on.
Image: Pic: Reuters
Trump was asked if he would pardon Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs should he be convicted – he didn’t say ‘no’, but there was no follow up to examine why.
There was a moment when irony appeared to have died altogether.
In the same breath as trumpeting his success in cutting government waste – when he has, in fact, achieved a fraction of the $2 trillion savings he promised – Musk congratulated Trump for deploying so much gold around the Oval Office.
The presidential office has had an extensive, gaudy gold makeover costing undisclosed sums.
Image: Pic: Reuters
One reporter did ask about Musk’s alleged drug use. But by attributing the story to the New York Times – who have made the allegations – Musk had an easy out.
“Why believe that fake news,” he essentially said.
Surely the obvious question was “Mr Musk, when was the last time you took ketamine or ecstasy?”