This is big. As in, BIG. Harris up by EIGHT POINTS.

Among the 277 polling operations rated for quality by 538, only three score a perfect, Olympic 10: NY Times-Siena College, Washington Post-ABC News, and Marquette Law School. The latter released its latest findings overnight, and they are extraordinary. 

Among likely voters in a head-to-head matchup, Harris leads Trump by 6 points — 53%-47%. 

Among likely voters with all candidates included on the ballot, Harris leads Trump by 8 points — 50%-42%. 

For those interested in how the minor candidates are affecting the race, only one has numbers that could be important in November: independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 6%. The others, Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver, 1%;  Green Party candidate Jill Stein, 1%; independent candidate Cornel West,  0%. 

As is often the case among registered voters, the race is closer but the stats are less meaningful: Harris, 52%; Trump, 48%.

Full findings from Marquette, 24 July to 1 August, are here. Among them are four Q&As I found of particular interest.  

Somehow, 13% of respondents determined that Harris, 59, is too old to serve as president. They undoubtedly were the very crankiest of MAGAites surveyed, who, if Trump were 108 instead of 78, would have said his age is no presidential problem.

As it is, 57% said Trump is too old to serve. Since his camp made such an issue of Joe Biden's age, subtly filtered through attacks on his mental acuity, I should hope Democrats return fire, concerning Trump's age.   

To me, age by itself is not an issue. A competent and reasonably ethical president of 78 years would in no way disquiet me. Most Republicans disagree because most Republicans are dishonorable, but only an incompetent and utterly unethical president at any age should disconcert a voter.

And here, 61% of respondents said Trump fits at least the second category — "Has behaved corruptly." Again we hear from MAGA voices: 35% said the same of Harris — a percentage that just happens to roughly coincide with Trump's core base as a percentage of voters.

Another critical component of presidential suitability is whether a nominee "has the right temperament." Harris does well on this question; 58% said she does. Trump scored much lower, 41%.

Reading that partisanship explains certain polled percentage results becomes tiresome, I know. But it's a necessary reminder. That 41% of respondents said a man who routinely behaves even worse than a sleepless toddler has the right temperament to be president of the United States can be explained only by hyperpartisanship. 

Last, Harris did surprisingly well in the "strong leader" category, scoring 50%. Considering misogynist bias inherent in polling responses, even if unconsciously, and further considering Trump's decade-long propagandizing of his almost superman masculinity, for Harris to trail him by only 6 points in strong leadership is rather remarkable.

Somewhat reassuring, too. Perhaps American voters are beginning to understand that "strength" is shown most keenly in compassion, tolerance and gentleness — not herculean hostility, stentorian threats and easy punchings down.  

Back, momentarily, to the top-line number of Harris by 8 points among likely voters with all candidates included: Such a national lead suggests that she has picked up substantial support in battleground states.

That is, an 8-point national lead is likely possible only because a significant number of voters in swing states — where Harris and Trump were recently tied — have either moved away from Trump, or have settled on the Democrat, or have gone from undecided to likely Harris.

Good news, all the way around — in fact, better than good, it strikes me, after recalling that I speculated only a couple days ago that we might not see any major swings in Harris' direction for maybe another month.

None of this is to say, of course, that there won't be discouraging polls, that every survey from here on out will reflect Marquette's findings. All of this does, however, say that the worm is quite animated, and he is restlessly turning. 

Comments

[Anne J]

Nothing less than a landslide will do in November, but I honestly don't remember the last time there was a landslide election.

[VoiceOfReason]

1964, Anne. Goldwater and the GOP got trounced. And what did they learn from that?

[ren]

The Electoral College is all that matters. Readers here might know that having read his book "The Signal and the Noise", I'm a fan of Nate Silver's forecasting models (the precursor of 538). His website www.natesilver.net is a study in statistical analysis of which I have but a preschoolers' understanding but while Harris currently has the edge on Trump by only one percent in the popular vote (not broken down by "likely, registered, etc.), the bottom line on electoral college battleground states is outlined under the headline "Welcome to the bizarre world of conditional probability" which I believe underlies the so-called "paths to victory" I hear pundits discuss. This can be both intriguing and horrifying but one enlightening statistic is that, per his models, Pennsylvania has a 34% chance of being the pivotal state deciding the election and Trump is currently ahead by 4% there. In fact, if Harris loses any of the so-called "blue wall" - MI, WI, or PA, - her chances of winning drop to less than 10%. Told you it's bizarre. A bright spot: she's catching up in several important Sunbelt swing states where Trump currently has the edge. If you're a fan of brain teasers, spend some time on Nate's website. My brain isn't big enough.

[PM]

Ren, you're right about the EC, but national polls are also important because they can be a harbinger of where the EC might be headed. They're the first sign of major change in battleground states — IF the Dem nominee's national lead is large enough, which Harris' was in the Marquette poll. She can't get to a +8 national lead without picking up a lot of support in the crucial swing states. That support is reflected in the national polling. We can't yet know how those states are performing for her statistically because state polling is so scanty at the moment. But national polling can give us a big clue. And Marquette did. I find it odd that Nate S. doesn't stress this point. He loses sight of the "big picture" because he's so entangled in the weeds.