Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. The presidential election is underway in some states. Election Day itself, November 5th, is drawing ever closer. In our weekly Monday morning politics segment, we're looking at swing states with guests from those states and inviting your calls if you're in or connected to those states. Today, we'll take a detour from the seven main battleground states that you always hear about and discuss some possible swing states that aren't usually considered swing states. Politico reports that the race is close in Virginia. According to the polls there in recent cycles, Virginia was a fairly comfortable blue state in presidential elections, but in at least three states generally considered deep red, the race is closer than people might have imagined there. Trump's lead in Alaska is down to single digits. That made some news last week. We will focus more closely now on two other states where Harris and some down-ballot democrats might have a surprisingly good chance to win Iowa and Texas.

From Iowa, we welcome J. Ann Selzer, public opinion researcher and president of The Des Moines, Iowa-based polling firm Selzer & Company. From Texas, we welcome Alexandra Samuels, senior editor at Texas Monthly. J. Anne and Alexandra, welcome to WNYC. Hello from New York. Thank you so much for giving us some time from your states.

1. Ann Selzer: Hello.

Alexandra Samuels: Yes. Happy to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Ann Selzer, I saw you on TV last week saying your jaw dropped looking at the difference between your poll results for The Des Moines Register in June compared to just recently. Would you tell us that story?

1. Ann Selzer: That story is-- I don't drop my jaw very often. Let me just say that at the outset, Brian. In June, when we had polled the Iowa electorate, we found an 18-point margin for former President Donald Trump and that you might think 18 points might drop your jaw, but Iowa has been pretty beet red for a few election cycles. In our most recent poll in September. Keep in mind, June, a very different time politically from September. September, Trump's lead had dropped to four points. Only four points. Not just single digits, low single digits.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. We'll talk about why and we'll talk about what voters are thinking about and who the actual swing voters might be compared to who might be turning out. Do you your own results seriously enough to think that Kamala Harris could win in Iowa?

1. Ann Selzer: I can't rule out that she would win. I think anybody would be skeptical that she could win. I do take it seriously because my method, perhaps more than some other pollsters out there, is designed to show me the future that we don't know, that is the future electorate. What do they look like and who are they? We don't do any messing about with past elections and past, whether you voted or not, we let our data show us. That method caught the malaise that people were feeling back in June, and it caught this increased exuberance that people are feeling now.

Brian Lehrer: Alexandra, you have an article on Texas Monthly called Can You Trust the Polls that say Texas could go blue? First of all, can you describe some of those poll results for us?

Alexandra Samuels: Of course. Essentially from Labor Day until now, and I know we've seen a couple before the holiday, two surveys were showing an increasingly close race for the US Senate. We have Senator Ted Cruz, who's going up against Colin Allred, of course, and consistently we're seeing that the race will likely be determined by single digits. Some polls have Cruz ahead by about three to seven percentage points. There was actually a recent poll for Morning Consult that gave Allred a one-point edge. One thing we encourage in our story, however, is not look at individual polling results, because I think it can be tempting to get excited by outliers.

What we encourage instead was actually to look at averages over time and to look at trends and the results over time. Instead of looking at maybe one recent result that shows Allred up by one or Cruz up by 10 in the aggregate, what we found since March is that Cruz actually enjoys probably a six to seven-point edge. The race could still be incredibly close. We know that happened in 2018 in the Senate race, and it's definitely possible that it could happen this year, too.

Brian Lehrer: In Iowa, one of the striking findings from your poll, and it goes with that enthusiasm gap that you see closing with Harris having replaced Biden, is that those voters saying they will definitely vote in the general election was way up. This number made my jaw drop for any state. 81% of all Iowans, I assume that means all registered voters in Iowa say they will definitely vote in the general election. 81%.

1. Ann Selzer: That's right. No, it is not just based on registered voters. We have same-day registration so people can walk into a voting place. We don't define that. Registered voters doesn't mean much to us. That said, a very high proportion of Iowans are registered if they're eligible to vote. Yes, we found that our poll was actually of all Iowa adults across section of all Iowa adults. From that we extract the people who say they will definitely vote. That's our definition of a likely voter, 81%, and it had been 76%, which is still high in June given that the election is a little bit off.

The thing that was so fascinating was that that is not a uniform increase. The subgroups, the demographics more likely to say they would definitely vote in September versus June were women over men. A six-point difference. It was younger people under age 45, a ten-point difference. It was people with a college degree, a nine-point difference. People without a college degree, less likely.

Brian Lehrer: Less likely. That is those numbers you were just citing, that's how many more percent were saying they were likely to vote at all than telling you that a few months ago. Is that correct?

1. Ann Selzer: That's correct. Those subgroups, women, college educated and younger, are the groups most likely to prefer Harris over Trump. They're showing up at their bigger proportions of our likely voter group than they were in June. That's the reason you see this big change in the race.

Brian Lehrer: Alexandra, I'm going to bring you in from Texas and ask you how many of these things apply in your state. I guess to put a pin in the story you were just telling Ann from Iowa, the gender gap that you report in terms of who people say they will vote for, it's not a gender gap. It's a gender Grand Canyon. You have Trump leading with men, 59% to 32%, and Harris leading with women 53% to 36%. Is that unusual historically, in presidential elections in Iowa?

1. Ann Selzer: This is a big gender gap. It's probably equal to some that we've seen before. I think what's interesting about this is that the gap is wider among men. It's 59% of men who say they prefer Trump, 53% of women. That right there tells you that it's men driving this gender gap more so than women.

Brian Lehrer: Right. If you look at the differences there, 59% to 32%, that's Trump's male advantage. That's 27 points. The Harris advantage with women, 53 to 36, well, that's 17 points. As you're saying that gender gap with men is much bigger, how do you explain that, at least in terms of Iowa, or say anything you want to say about that?

1. Ann Selzer: Yes. Well, and it's typically been that its women's gap was wider than men's gap. That's what's interesting about it. How do I explain it? I think that Trump is very definitely targeting men, and particularly young men, and particularly young white men, which in Iowa is predominant. I think that that has had an effect on it, but women are now sort of having issues that matter to them. Between June and September, Iowa's six-week abortion ban went into effect. I would expect there's a chance that these numbers could even out a little bit.

Brian Lehrer: Alexandra Samuels from Texas Monthly, are you seeing the same enthusiasm for voting at all in Texas as Ann was just describing from Iowa, that 81% of adults there, I guess, who would be eligible to vote say that they plan to vote. Do you know the number for Texas? Is it anything as whopping as that?

Alexandra Samuels: I don't have those exact figures for Texas, unfortunately, but we do have polling that shows an increased, specifically Democratic excitement. I think a lot of that, like Ann pointed out, has to do with Kamala Harris being at the top of the ticket. Then the added bonus in Texas is that a lot of voters here say that they simply do not like Senator Cruz. I think that's motivating people to go up to the polls, especially if they're more independent or even Democratic voters.

They really want to make sure that the two people at the top, the tickets, that's Kamala Harris and Colin Allred, are maybe not successful in the state, but come as close as possible because we know that can have coattails down ballot, as we saw in 2018 when Beto O'Rourke was at the top of the ticket. I think what we're seeing from-- Yes, Texas voters is very similar also in terms of who's excited for each candidate, so voters of color, women, younger voters, those tend to be the most excited Democrats, and then older voters, white voters, and voters without a college degree tend to be the most excited base for turning out for Republican candidates.

Brian Lehrer: You said voters of color as one of those groups, but I think Texas voting history shows us that there's very different results in presidential elections, probably in your statewide elections, too, between African Americans and Latinos. No?

Alexandra Samuels: Absolutely, yes. One thing that's been very interesting in the state of Texas is seeing how the Republicans are actually losing the Latino vote in Texas. To be clear, Democrats still have an edge with Latinos, but it is a lot smaller than what it was four to eight years ago. That's a big question mark for Democrats in the state of Texas. It's what are they doing to appeal to Latino voters in the state? If you look at Colin Allred, one thing that he's doing that's interesting and way different from how Beto O'Rourke ran his campaign in 2018 is he's actually taking more hardline stances on immigration in the border.

Notably, he broke from his party in January and supported a resolution condemning Biden's, "open border policies." He was one of a handful of national Democrats who signed on to this Republican resolution. He's told me in interviews that we've also published on Texas Monthly that he's not afraid to break with his party, specifically on issues of immigration and whatever else might come up if he is elected to the Senate. I think that will be a big talking point, is whether Democrats can get back some of the gains that they lost in 2020, especially with the Latino vote, but I think when it comes to Black voters in Texas in particular, what we're seeing nationally definitely coincides with what we're seeing in the state in terms of Black voters being pretty overwhelmingly Democratic.

Brian Lehrer: To what degree do you think Colin Allred, running for Senate against Ted Cruz as a Democrat and polling competitive, is breaking with his party on immigration to take a more Republican like position? To what degree do you think that appeals to, as opposed to alienates Latino voters in particular? I mean, given some of the things that we know Donald Trump and others in his party say about immigrants from Latin America, we don't have to repeat them here. Maybe voters who are not Texas Latinos might be surprised if they hear that that is not-- That the Trump rhetoric is not as alienating and as disqualifying as some other people might assume. How would you describe that dynamic?

Alexandra Samuels: I think one trend that happened after 2020, and a lot of Texas writers like myself were scratching their heads trying to figure out how did democrats lose Latino voters so strongly between 2016 and 2020 and going down to the border and talking to folks there. One sentiment that we heard was that people thought that the Democratic Party was a little too far left on immigration and border rhetoric and that specifically migrants coming in through the southern border were overwhelming these towns and these counties along the Texas-Mexico border.

I think Allred trying to take a more hardline stance on the border and saying, I will break with the national party if they're not doing what I think is best for Texas, is his way of trying to bring Latino voters over to his side and letting them know even if the national party is doing this, I will vote for whatever I think is best for Texas and Texas border communities. Allred has specific ties to the border. His grandfather was an agent down there. His mother grew up in Brownsville. So he's really using that and playing up his personal story as he's trying to appeal to these voters, and recently, he had a swing through the Rio Grande Valley trying to appeal to those voters, too.

It's to be determined, of course, whether this strategy would work, but recent polls actually show Cruz and Allred pre-neck and neck when it comes to Latino voters in Texas. A significant swath of Latino voters in Texas are still undecided. I think that gives both candidates a chance to really pitch their message to this block of voters. Then, of course, on election day, we'll see which message ultimately wins out.

Brian Lehrer: What's that history that you were referring to of Latino voters trending toward the Republicans or toward Trump in the presidential over time? Do you have that at your fingertips? Latino votes for Trump versus Hillary Clinton in 2016, Latino votes in Texas for Trump versus Biden in 2020.

Alexandra Samuels: I would have to pull that up, unfortunately. I was looking at a poll earlier today that was just looking at Latino voters and how they're looking at the 2024 landscape, particularly in Texas. I was looking at that specific polling and where they are on Allred and Cruz. What I'm seeing here is that Hispanic Texans are a little bit more-- Allred definitely has an edge with them in Texas. Again, it's pretty small. It's right about at like that 50% to 60% margin. Maybe 60 40 in Democrats favor, whereas before it would be maybe more 70/30 or even 80/20 in national Democrats favor.

Then another complaint that I heard in 2020, after that election, was that national Democrats didn't campaign in the border. I think Biden made a very last minute stop in the Rio Grande Valley a little bit before election day in 2020, but that was essentially it. You see now national Democrats aren't investing that much into the state of Texas. They aren't really visiting, and that could hurt, especially if voters down there think that Democrats aren't really invested in them. They take their vote for granted. I think if national Democrats invest more time, resources, visits into the state of Texas, that could obviously turn the tide back to where it was in 2016 and 2020.

What we've seen now is an aversion to doing so. I think national Democrats have said that Texas is not necessarily a priority for them. They're more concerned with protecting Senate incumbents. I don't think we're going to see a ton more visits from Kamala Harris or some of her surrogates, at least in the area. I think that's what we're looking at right now.

Brian Lehrer: What about from your vantage point in Iowa, if you have this poll showing just a four-point, which I think is a margin of error difference, which would mean a statistical tie between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in Iowa, do you see the Harris campaign taking that seriously enough to be campaigning in Iowa, or do they think it's too red a state to be worth their time and money? And I guess same question for the Trump campaign, for that matter.

1. Ann Selzer: Well, let me first say something about the margin of error, which is it works both ways. While a four-point difference, you want to say as a statistical tie, it could be equally true that that race is farther apart with a Harris lead. It works both ways. People tend to think about it only as making the race tighter. In terms of what could happen, these numbers were released only about a week ago, and so it's a little too soon to see what the action is on the ground here in terms of they're just putting up yard signs.

It's just starting to happen. I think there's a chance that in the first congressional district that we just released those numbers this morning where we're showing the Democratic candidate with a three point lead over the Republican, the other remaining three congressional districts all tilt Republican, but you've got at least one that has been a Democratic geography historically. From time to time, it swaps in and out, back when Iowa was more of a swing state. I think selectively, there may be some things they put in place in order to at least help on the down-ballot.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we're talking about swing states, let's say potential swing states that aren't supposed to be swing states, in this case, Iowa and Texas. I will ask our two guests, one from Iowa, one from Texas, if they've been looking at some of these other potential swing states that aren't supposed to be swing states that have been reported on in the news a little bit. Can you imagine Alaska voting for a Democratic candidate for president? That's been in the news. Virginia, which has been pretty solidly blue. Now, according to one of the respected polls, they are having Trump with a little bit of a lead. We'll get their takes on other states.

Listeners, as we do in these swing state segments, anybody from or currently in or with any ties to the states, we're primarily talking about here, Texas and Iowa. Want to chime in with a story, a comment or a question for our guests? 212433 WNYC 212-433-9692 and for that matter, what if you're in Virginia? What are you seeing? What if you're in Alaska? What are you seeing? Or any other possible swing state that's not supposed to be a swing state. Call us and give us your experiences, your observations, your stories, or, of course, your questions for our guests. 212433 WNYC 212-433-9692 call or text.

Ann Selzer, who does polling in Iowa for The Des Moines Register, and others. Here's one that's come in for you already in a text message. Actually, I'm having a little trouble pulling this up, so here's what we're going to do. We're going to take a break, then we're going to continue. We'll take that text message question. We'll take some of the calls that are starting to come in, and I want to get both of your takes on what I thought was a very good New York Times analysis this weekend about who the actual undecided voters are. We say there are hardly any undecided voters.

It's so much about turnout for the potential Democratic voters and the potential Republican voters who wouldn't really consider the other party but may not vote at all. They did an analysis of the actual swing voters in the actual swing states, and I thought the result was fascinating. I'm going to ask you both about that as well as we continue on the Brian Lehrer Show, our weekly Monday morning politics segment. Stay with us.

Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we're talking about swing states, let's say possible or potential swing states that aren't supposed to be swing states but might be based on polling either in the presidential race or in some down ballot races, with two guests from two of those states. Ann Selzer, public opinion researcher and president of the Des Moines, Iowa based polling firm Selzer & Company, and Alexandra Samuels, senior editor at Texas Monthly. You, if you have a story, a question or comment, 212433 WNYC 433 9692.

Here's that text. Listener writes, "Hi, Ann, former Grinnell Selzer poll research assistant here. Hope this gets to you on the air." I'm wondering, do you think your Iowa result, meaning Harris, trailing by just four points, says anything about the rest of the midwest? How is Iowa similar to the other midwestern swing states? Maybe more importantly, how is it different and same question about Texas and the other states in the southwest for the other guest, thanks. Writes that listener, who I guess used to work for you, Anne.

It's really a great question because if we don't consider Iowa a swing state, what we do consider crucial swing states are those midwestern states near Iowa, such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

1. Ann Selzer: Right. To be clear, this would be a research assistant who worked with the faculty at Grinnell College. Good to connect to you sort of indirectly here. I was asked the same question back in June when that poll came out. If this race is so uneven in Iowa, what does that say?

Brian Lehrer: Just to be clear for our listeners, when the earlier poll came out showing an 18 point Trump lead over Biden at that time, now it's just four over Harris. Go ahead. Sorry.

1. Ann Selzer: Right. Then I said, I don't know that you can equate what is going on in Iowa with what is going on in Wisconsin. Demographically, these two states are similar, but the way that the political parties have worked each state, I didn't think that they were that similar in that all of the Iowa delegation to Washington is Republican. Now, that the statewide office holders in Iowa, save one, are Republican. So there's been a dramatic move by the Iowa Democratic, I'm sorry, the Republican Party of Iowa, to really up its game. And I did not see that that was the same thing that was happening in Wisconsin. So it's not just demographics that rule, it's the party politics and how effectively they're selecting candidates and supporting them to run for other offices. Now that the gap is narrowed, now, what do I think? Well, I was starting to look a little bit more like Wisconsin, but again, it's not because of the demography necessarily. It's the way that the issues are playing.

Brian Lehrer: The listener asks Alexandra, for your take on how indicative Texas is to other southwest states. I guess the most relevant one would be Arizona, which is one of the major seven swing states and where the latest news I saw this morning showed Trump up a little bit there.

Alexandra Samuels: Yes, I wouldn't say what happens in Texas is necessarily indicative of other southwestern states, even with what's happening in Arizona. Arizona, I'd say, is probably definitely more squarely, not a swing state category, while Texas is definitely a lean Republican state, even though recent polls, of course, suggest that statewide races and presidential races are getting closer and closer as we just from 2000 onward. I think what's happening in Texas this year is pretty unique. Of course, we haven't had a switch at the top of the ballot.

I think that's motivating a lot of Texas Democrats, and I think that's why we're seeing close poll numbers here. I wouldn't put Texas in the same swing state category that I would for Arizona or Georgia or other southern states that I know people will be watching closely on election day.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call from Will in Greenpoint. Actually, Julianna, could you pull up will for me on line three? Will from Greenpoint, who says he's originally from Iowa. Hi, Will.

Will: Hi, Brian. Big fan, regular listener. I'm originally from Fort Dodge, Iowa. And I would say that the Democratic Party basically gave up on Iowa when they took away their first in the nation status for the caucuses. There's been a real brain drain in Iowa the last 20 years or so. When Pete Buttigieg won the 2016 caucuses, he was a candidate who really resonated, really knew how to spoke to the evangelical vein of Iowa voters. He could really talk about religion in a Democratic friendly way that most people could respond to in Iowa. And that was an opportunity for the Democrats, I think, to go with an unexpected candidate, just like Barack Obama in 2008. But instead, the party bosses at the time gave the nomination to Joe Biden, and things played out as they did. And I don't see Iowa going blue anytime soon, sadly.

Brian Lehrer: Well, thank you. So what about Iowa and moving the first in the nation primary for the Democrats from there to South Carolina?

1. Ann Selzer: Right. And that's fairly recent. And the decision making for that, let's keep in mind, was at the national level, and they've been trying to get rid of all of the caucuses. They don't want to have caucuses anymore. Well, the only reason that Iowa is first in the nation and it still is on the Republican side is because they have a caucus, and that allows New Hampshire to be the first in the nation primary. So there's been that battle about it. I perhaps agree that it looks like that the national Party was abandoning Iowa, but they were abandoning other caucus states who had to figure out what to do about it. It was just more consequential for Iowa.

Brian Lehrer: We're getting two interesting questions about polling at all this year. One listener writes in a text. I worry about the flaws of the last two elections not being fixed. In both of the last two elections, Trump has outperformed the polls in the swing states by three to seven points. Is there any reason to believe this won't be the case again? And Marvin in Brooklyn is calling with a similar question, but I think with an opposite premise. Marvin, you're on WNYC.

Will: Hello, thank you for taking my call. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Will: Great. I'm wondering if we're actually seeing a reversal of the situation in 2016 when the polls were showing a lower number of people wanting to vote for Trump because people were hesitant to say that they were going to vote for him, whereas in the current year, if the polls before the primary elections were showing Trump in a much stronger position than what actually happened when people came out to vote. And I'm wondering if there might be a larger number of people in deeply red areas who are reluctant to admit to polars that they're not going to vote for Trump because their neighbors might find out about it or whatever, and that the polls are overestimating Trump's strength.

Brian Lehrer: Very interesting question and the opposite of the premise of the text that I just read. So, Anne, for you, as the pollster in the room, I mean, I don't know what your Iowa polling showed, but certainly the national polls in 2016 and 2020 compared to the outcomes of the presidential races had to be very humbling for people in your business.

1. Ann Selzer: Humbling for many. I think our polls, I don't have that number right in front of me, and you would think I would have ingrained it in my memory for austerity. But our polling has been very accurate. We have an a plus rating from 538, and we always have from the inception of their pollster ratings, meaning we're among the most accurate polls that there are. And I credit my method for that, which is I don't make any assumptions about what the future electorate is going to be. So I hear people saying, well, it's just hard to know who the future electorate is going to be. And so we've made some assumptions about it that turned out to be wrong. And I go, well, why did you make any assumptions whatsoever? Again, I say with all humility that this is a method that has worked for us. But this is the reason why, I think, which is we don't try to make our current group of likely voters look like anything in the past. So therefore, our data can reveal to us what it is that who it is that the likely voters are, and we're seeing these changes in the likely voter makeup.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Alexandra, for you in Texas, and you're not a pollster, you're senior editor of a news organization, Texas Monthly. Do you also ask yourselves that question in your circles about how Trump overperformed the polls? And I think he overperformed the polls even more in 2020 than in 2016 nationally. And correct me if that's wrong, but either even further humbling, or it should have been for pollsters nationally, or those who aggregate national polls, or those who do polls in swing states as they go into 2024. And to Marvin and Brooklyn's question, is there any reason, as far as you can see, that the pattern of the past two election cycles might be flipping and Trump's numbers would be overestimated? Because instead of being afraid to tell posters that they are voting for Trump, they're afraid to tell pollsters that they're nothing?

Alexandra Samuels: Yeah, well, I can mostly speak to how that might play out in Texas. Specifically, polls here show that Kamala Harris is trailing Trump by anywhere between, again, like four to seven percentage points, and that would be on par with where the state has been trending. So I pulled up data from 2020, Trump won the state of Texas by about five points, and that was in 2020. That was the second closest Texas race for the White House in the last quarter of a century. 1996, we had GOP nominee Bob Dole beating Bill Clinton by about five points. But in 2016, Trump had beat Clinton in Texas by nine points. So we see that that margin in Texas is getting smaller and smaller. So is there reason to believe that there are more Trump supporters out there who are telling pollsters or they're not answering pollsters calls, we'll say, and that Trump could have a larger margin over Harris? You know, it's certainly possible. But given the state's electoral history, I would say it's more likely that that margin is going to continue to narrow or will remain the same as it was in 2020. And we're probably going to see a race, at least at the national level, that's decided by low single digits.

Brian Lehrer: That is so fascinating for the state of Texas. And, Alexander, let me stay with you for this next question. I mentioned before the break that I want to ask you about what I saw as a very good article in the New York Times this weekend about how several million, meaning only several million, genuinely undecided voters in swing states might decide this election, and they are focused primarily on the cost of living. I'm curious if you're reporting at Texas Monthly or other things that you see generally bears that out in terms of the actually genuinely undecided people, a minuscule percentage of all american voters, but those who may determine the election yet in these swing states, in addition, of course, to turnout of the bases of each party, but among genuinely undecided swing voters who tend not to be in love with either candidate very much. Not like I have two great options here. Wow. Which one should I choose? It's like Trump or Harris. I don't know that the cost of living is going to drive their ultimate decision more than anything else.

1. Ann Selzer: Yeah.

Alexandra Samuels: So in Texas, I'm not seeing costs of living as being one of the top issues that voters are looking at. It tends to be of course the economy is big for everyone, but in Texas specifically, and really Texas, independents and Republicans, the border and immigration tends to be that issue that rises to the top. And I'm sure that we'll see that in a lot of other southern states as well. The border and immigration has continued to be a large talking point going into this particular election cycle. I haven't seen either Cruz or Allred really address the cost of living in a super meaningful way on the campaign trail, we see them talking more about some of these other bread and butter economic issues that voters say are affecting them. But we are seeing a decent number of undecided voters in the Texas Senate race. And to me, that's interesting because I would think if you are a Trump voter, that you would also be a Cruz voter and that if you're a Harris voter, you would also be an all red voter, especially on the Republican side. I see those two candidates so tied together that it's almost hard for me to comprehend that if somebody is a Trump voter that they maybe wouldn't know who to support for Senate. There is also a third party option on the ballot as well for Senate. So maybe that's why voters are undecided, looking into who that third party person is. But yeah, I think the onus is on both Cruz and Allred, especially since he has not run a statewide race in the state to put his message out there to voters and make sure that voters know who he is beyond just being a Democrat whose name is not Ted Cruz. And so what we're going to see probably in the next 40 plus days is blitz of ads and press conferences. And I know that the two of them are actually going to debate soon, really trying to get their message out there to voters. So I would expect that number of undecided voters in Texas specifically to probably shrink between mid October and election day.

Brian Lehrer: And same question about those undecided voters. And the cost of living inflation is another way to say it as a defining issue going forward to election day.

2020. Ann Selzer: Right. Two things. First of all, in our poll in September, we were showing just 9% of likely voters offering an answer other than they were going to support Trump or Harris. So between RFK junior, who will be on our ballot, Chase Oliver, the libertarian, someone else, or not sure, nine percentage points who are not already aligning with one of the top two candidates, that was 18 in June. So it's gradually eroding. We just don't see a lot of undecideds. We had a separate question in our poll about how people are feeling compared to four years ago financially. And the number for people saying that they feel they are worse off than they were four years ago jumped 31 points to 46%. It had been 15%. The proportion saying better off was cut in half. It was 41%, and now it's 21%. And the last time we measured that was in September of 2020. I think the thing about what does the economy actually mean to voters when you say the economy is important, what is the picture in their head that they want to be communicating about? And the media talk about the economy in terms of macro economics. So they're looking at the stock market, they're looking at the employment rate, they're looking at the rate of inflation going down. And I say, yes, but it's inflation. It just means that things are still getting more expensive. It just means that the rate at which they're getting more expensive has decreased. And I think people don't, don't think about their own economic situation at a macro level. They think about it in terms of when that what they're buying, what they're trying, the bills that they're trying to pay, what's going on with energy, what's going on at the gas pump. That's the part that they feel, and people are feeling that their financial, their ability to manage their own finances has gotten more difficult the last four years.

Brian Lehrer: So last question. And, and Alexandra, you mentioned a third party candidate in the Senate race in Texas, which may wind up scrambling things to an unknown degree between Ted Cruz and the Democrat Colin Allred. I want to ask you both, as we wrap this up, about that third party candidate in the presidential known as RFK Junior. And we know if we've been following this race, what RFK Junior did very recently. He dropped out of the race and supported Donald Trump. But what he did more specifically was he only tried to take his name off the ballot in swing states. He wanted, for whatever reason, people still be able to show their interest in him in states that were not considered competitive. So he only sought to remove his name from the ballot so as not to hurt Trump in the states generally considered swing states. My understanding is RFK junior left his name on the ballot in Texas, and he left his name on the ballot in Iowa. Alexandra, do I have that right? And could RFK junior, in a race that's as close as you're siding between Trump and Harris, actually wind up swinging the election to Harris or contributing to that in the state of Texas?

Alexandra Samuels: Yeah. So the most recent reporting I'm seeing from late August showed that RFK withdrew from the Texas ballot. But even if and even if that's the case RFK did not have a really strong base of support here in the Lone Star state. So recent polling showed Harris again within striking distance of winning Texas. And I polling stronger than when Biden was at the top of the ticket. But in that same poll, Kennedy only had 2% of support from likely Texas voters, and at a certain point, he had 8%. But that has definitely decreased over time. So we're talking about 2% of likely Texas voters who might swing in Trump's favor or who might be more independent. So I don't think that necessarily it could give Trump a small boost, but I don't think it's ultimately going to change what we'll see at the top between the two major candidates. And I think we'll still probably see a single digit race regardless of whether RFK was on the ballot here or not.

Brian Lehrer: Right? So to make sure the listeners know that I got that wrong and you corrected it, RFK junior is not on the ballot in Texas. Did I get it wrong for Iowa, too? Ann?

1. Ann Selzer: He is on the ballot here. And so we tested for him. He got a, just 6% of the, of the likely voters saying they were going to vote for him in June. It had been 9%. I took a look at the 37 people, 36 people in our poll who chose RFK junior to see if I could read the tea leaves a little bit and see if those voters are more likely to tilt toward Harris or toward Trump if, when it comes down to walking into the voting booth or filling out their absentee ballot. And I could see no clear advantage for either one of those candidates. So I think it's, as our current data would say, it's a wash. A.

Brian Lehrer: Look at two potential swing states that are not supposed to be swing states, Texas and Iowa, with Alexandra Samuel, senior editor at Texas Monthly, and J. Ann Selzer, public opinion researcher and president of the Des Moines, Iowa based polling firm Selzer & Company. Thank you both so much for giving us so much time today. We really appreciate it.

1. Ann Selzer: It's been a pleasure. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. The presidential election is underway in some states. Election Day itself, November 5, is drawing ever closer. And in our weekly Monday morning Politics segment, we're looking at swing states with guests from those states and inviting your calls if you're in or connected to those states. Today, we'll take a detour from the seven main battleground states that you always hear about and discuss some possible swing states that aren't usually considered swing states. Politico reports that the race is close in Virginia. According to the polls there in recent cycles, Virginia was a fairly comfortable blue state in presidential elections. But in at least three states generally considered deep red, the races closer than people might have imagined there. Trump's lead in Alaska is down to single digits. That made some news last week. We will focus more closely now on two other states where Harris and some down ballot democrats might have a surprisingly good chance to win Iowa and Texas. From Iowa, we welcome J. Ann Selzer, public opinion researcher and president of the Des Moines, Iowa based polling firm Selzer & Company. From from Texas, we welcome Alexandra Samuels, senior editor at Texas Monthly. Jay. Anne and Alexandra, welcome to WNYC. Hello from New York. Thank you so much for giving us some time from your states.

1. Ann Selzer: Hello.

Alexandra Samuels: Yes. Happy to be here.

Brian Lehrer: And Selzer, I saw you on tv last week saying your jaw dropped looking at the difference between your poll results for The Des Moines Register in June compared to just recently. Would you tell us that story?

1. Ann Selzer: That story is, I don't drop my jaw very often. Let me just say that at the outset, Brian. In June, when we had polled the Iowa electorate, we found an 18 point margin for former President Donald Trump and that you might think 18 points might drop your job, but Iowa has been pretty beat red for a few election cycles. In our most recent poll in September. And keep in mind, June, a very different time politically. From September September, Trump's lead had dropped to four points. Only four points. So not just single digits, low single digits.

Brian Lehrer: Yeah. So do you. We'll talk about why and we'll talk about what voters are thinking about and who the actual swing voters might be compared to who might be turning out. But do you take these own results, your own results, seriously enough to think that Kamala Harris could win in Iowa?

1. Ann Selzer: I can't rule out that she would win. I think anybody would be skeptical that she could win. But I do take it seriously because my method, perhaps more than some other pollsters out there, is designed to show me the future that we don't know that is the future electorate. What do they look like and who are they? And so we don't do any messing about with past elections and past, whether you voted or not, we let our data show us. So that method caught the malaise that people were feeling back in June, and it caught this increased exuberance that people are feeling now.

Brian Lehrer: Alexandra, you have an article on Texas Monthly called can you trust the polls that say Texas could go blue? First of all, can you describe some of those poll results for us?

Alexandra Samuels: Of course. So essentially from Labor Day until now, and I know we've seen a couple before the holiday, two surveys were showing an increasingly close race for the US Senate. We have Senator Ted Cruz, who's going up against Colin Allred, of course, and consistently we're seeing that the race will likely be determined by single digits. You know, some polls have cruise ahead by about three to seven percentage points. And there was actually a recent poll for Morning Consult that gave Allred a one point edge. One thing we encourage in our story, however, is not look at individual polling results, because I think it can be tempting to get excited by outliers. But what we encourage instead was actually to look at averages over time and to look at trends in the results over time. So instead of looking at maybe one recent result that shows allred up by one or cruise up by ten in the aggregate, what we found since March is that Cruz actually enjoys probably a six to seven point edge. But, yeah, the race could still be incredibly close. We know that happened in 2018 in the Senate race, and it's definitely possible that it could happen this year, too.

Brian Lehrer: And in Iowa, one of the striking findings from your poll, and it goes with that enthusiasm gap that you see closing with Harris having replaced Biden, is that those voters saying they will definitely vote in the general election was way up. And this number made my jaw drop for any state. 81% of all Iowans. I assume that means all registered voters in Iowa say they will definitely vote in the general election. 81%.

1. Ann Selzer: That's right. And no, it is not just based on registered voters. We have same day registration so people can walk into a voting place. So we don't define that. Registered voters doesn't mean much to us. That said, a very high proportion of Iowans are registered if they're eligible to vote. But yes, we found that our poll was actually of all Iowa adults across section of all Iowa adults. And from that we extract the people who say they will definitely vote. That's our definition of a likely voter, 81%, and it had been 76%, which is still high in June. Given that the election is a little bit off, the thing that was so fascinating was that that is not a uniform increase. So the subgroups demographics more likely to say they would definitely vote in September versus June were women and over men. A six point difference. It was younger people under age 45, a ten point difference. It was people with a college degree, a nine point difference. People without a college degree, less likely.

Brian Lehrer: Less likely. That is those numbers you were just citing. That's how many more percent were saying they were likely to vote at all than telling you that a few months ago. Is that correct?

1. Ann Selzer: That's correct. But those subgroups, women, college educated and younger, are the groups most likely to prefer Harris over Trump. So they're showing up at their bigger proportions of our likely voter group than they were in June. And that's the reason you see this big change in the race.

Brian Lehrer: And, Alexandra, I'm going to bring you in from Texas and ask you how many of these things apply in your state. But I guess to put a pin in the story you were just telling Ann from Iowa, the gender gap that you report in terms of who people say they will vote for, it's not a gender gap. It's a gender Grand Canyon. You have Trump leading with men 59% to 32%, and Harris leading with women 53% to 36%. Is that unusual? Historically, in presidential elections in Iowa.

1. Ann Selzer: This is a big gender gap. It's probably equal to some that we've seen before. I think what's interesting about this is that the gap is wider among Mendez, that men have a straw. It's 59% of men who say they prefer Trump, 53% of women. So that right there tells you that it's men driving this gender gap more so than women.

Brian Lehrer: Right. So if you look at the differences there, 59% to 32%, that's Trump's male advantage. That's 27 points. So the Harris advantage with women, 53 to 36, well, that's 17 points. So as you're saying that gender gap with men is much bigger, how do you explain that, at least in terms of Iowa, or say anything you want to say about that?

1. Ann Selzer: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and it's typically been that its women's gap was wider than men's gap. So that's what's interesting about it. How do I explain it? I think that Trump is very definitely targeting men, and particularly young men, and particularly young white men, which in Iowa is predominant. So I think that that has had an effect on it, but women are now sort of having issues that matter to them. Between June and September, Iowa's six week abortion ban went into effect. So I would expect there's a chance that these numbers could even out a little bit.

Brian Lehrer: So, Alexandra Samuels from Texas Monthly, are you seeing the same enthusiasm for voting at all in Texas as Ann was just describing from Iowa, that 80%, 81% of adults there, I guess, who would be eligible to vote say that they plan to vote. Do you know the number for Texas? Is it anything as whopping as that?

Alexandra Samuels: I don't have those exact figures for Texas, unfortunately, but we do have polling that shows an increased, specifically Democratic excitement. And I think a lot of that, like Ann pointed out, has to do with Kamala Harris being at the top of the ticket. But then the added bonus in Texas is that a lot of voters here say that they simply do not like Senator Cruz. And I think that's motivating people to go up to the polls, especially if they're more independent or even Democratic voters. They really want to make sure that the two people at the top, the tickets, that's Kamala Harris and Colin Allred, are maybe not successful in the state, but come as close as possible because we know that can have coattails down ballot, as we saw in 2018 when Beto O'Rourke was at the top of the ticket. So I think what, yeah, Texas voters is very similar also in terms of who's excited for each candidate. So voters of color, women, younger voters, those tend to be the most excited Democrats, and then older voters, white voters, and voters without a college degree tend to be the most excited base for turning out for Republican candidates.

Brian Lehrer: You said voters of color as one of those groups. But I think Texas voting history shows us that there's very different results in presidential elections, probably in your statewide elections, too, between African Americans and Latinos.

Alexandra Samuels: No, absolutely, yes. One thing that's been very interesting in the state of Texas is seeing how the Republicans are actually losing the Latino vote in Texas. To be clear, Democrats still have an edge with Latinos, but it is a lot smaller than what it was four to eight years ago. And so that's a big question mark for Democrats in the state of Texas. It's what are they doing to appeal to Latino voters in the state? If you look at Colin Allred, one thing that he's doing that's interesting and way different from how Beto O'Rourke ran his campaign in 2018 is he's actually taking more hardline stances on immigration in the border. So notably, he broke from his party in January and supported a resolution condemning Biden's, quote, open border policies. And he was one of a handful of national Democrats who signed on to this Republican resolution. And he's told me in interviews that we've also published on Texas Monthly that he's not afraid to break with his party, specifically on issues of immigration and whatever else might come up if he is elected to the Senate. So I think that will be a big talking point, is whether Democrats can get back some of the gains that they lost in 2020, especially with the Latino vote. But I think when it comes to Black voters in Texas in particular, what we're seeing nationally definitely coincides with what we're seeing in the state in terms of Black voters being pretty overwhelmingly Democratic.

Brian Lehrer: So to what degree do you think Colin Allred, running for Senate against Ted Cruz as a Democrat and polling competitive, is breaking with his party on immigration to take a more Republican like position? To what degree do you think that appeals to, as opposed to alienates Latino voters in particular? I mean, given some of the things that we know Donald Trump and others in his party say about immigrants from Latin America, we don't have to repeat them here. You know, baby, voters who are not Texas Latinos might be surprised if they hear that that is nothing, that the Trump rhetoric is not as alienating and as disqualifying as some other people might assume. But how would you describe that dynamic?

Alexandra Samuels: Yeah, I think one trend that happened after 2020, and a lot of Texas writers like myself were scratching their heads trying to figure out how did democrats lose Latino voters so strongly between 2016 and 2020 and going down to the border and talking to folks there. One sentiment that we heard was that people thought that the Democratic party was a little too far left on immigration and border rhetoric and that specifically migrants coming in through the southern border were overwhelming these towns and these counties along the Texas Mexico border. So I think Allred trying to take a more hardline stance on the border and saying, I will break with the national party if they're not doing what I think is best for Texas, is his way of trying to bring Latino voters over to his side and letting them know even if the national party is doing this, I will vote for whatever I think is best for Texas and Texas border communities. You know, Allred has specific ties to the border. His grandfather was an agent down there. His mother grew up in Brownsville. So he's really using that and playing up his personal story as he's trying to appeal to these voters, and recently, he had a swing through the Rio Grande Valley trying to appeal to those voters, too. So it's to be determined, of course, whether this strategy would work. But recent polls actually show Cruz and Allred pre neck and neck when it comes to Latino voters in Texas. And a significant swath of Latino voters in Texas are still undecided. So I think that gives both candidates a chance to really pitch their message to this block of voters. And then, of course, on election day, we'll see which message ultimately wins out.

Brian Lehrer: What's that history that you were referring to of Latino voters trending toward the Republicans or toward Trump in the presidential over time? Do you have that at your fingertips? Latino votes for Trump versus Hillary Clinton in 2016, Latino votes in Texas for Trump versus Biden in 2020.

Alexandra Samuels: I would have to pull that up, unfortunately. I was looking at a poll earlier today that was just looking at Latino voters and how they're looking at the 2024 landscape, particularly in Texas. So I was looking at that specific polling and where they are on Allred and Cruz. And what I'm seeing here is that hispanic Texans are a little bit more. Yeah. So Allred definitely has an edge with them in Texas. But again, it's pretty small. It's right about at like that 50% to 60% margin. So maybe 60 40 in Democrats favor, whereas before it would be maybe more 70 30 or even 80 20 in national democrats favor. But then another complaint that I heard in 2020, after that election, was that national Democrats didn't campaign in the border. I think Biden made a very last minute stop in the Rio Grande Valley a little bit before election day in 2020, but that was essentially it. And you see now national Democrats aren't investing that much into the state of Texas. They aren't really visiting, and that could hurt, especially if voters down there think that democrats aren't really invested in them. They take their vote for granted. So I think if national democrats invest more time, resources, visits into the state of Texas, that could obviously turn the tide back to where it was in 2016 and 2020. But what we've seen now is an aversion to doing so. I think national Democrats have said that Texas is not necessarily a priority for them. They're more concerned with protecting Senate incumbents. So I don't think we're going to see a ton more visits from Kamala Harris or some of her surrogates, at least in the area. Yeah, I think that's what we're looking at right now.

Brian Lehrer: And what about from your vantage point in Iowa, if you have this poll showing just a four point, which I think is a margin of error difference, which would mean a statistical tie between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in Iowa, do you see the Harris campaign taking that seriously enough to be campaigning in Iowa, or do they think it's too red a state to be worth their time and money? And I guess same question for the Trump campaign, for that matter.

1. Ann Selzer: Well, let me first say something about the margin of error, which is it works both ways. So while a four point difference, you want to say as a statistical tie, it could be equally true that that race is farther apart with a Harris lead. So it works both ways. People tend to think about it only as making the race tighter in terms of what could happen. You know, these numbers were released only about a week ago, and so it's a little too soon to see what the action is on the ground here in terms of they're just putting up yard signs. It's just starting to happen. But I think there's a chance that in the first congressional district that we just released those numbers this morning where we're showing the Democratic candidate with a three point lead over the Republican, the other remaining three congressional districts all tilt Republican, but you've got at least one that has been a Democratic geography historically. From time to time, it swaps in and out, back when Iowa was more of a swing state. And so I think selectively, there may be some things they put in place in order to at least help on the down ballot.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we're talking about swing states, let's say potential swing states that aren't supposed to be swing states, in this case, Iowa and Texas. I will ask our two guests, one from Iowa, one from Texas, if they've been looking at some of these other potential swing states that aren't supposed to be swing states that have been reported on in the news a little bit. Can you imagine Alaska voting for a Democratic candidate for president? That's been in the news, Virginia, which has been pretty solidly blue. Now, according to one of the respected polls, they are having Trump with a little bit of a lead. So we'll get their takes on other states. But listeners, as we do in these swing state segments, anybody from or currently in or with any ties to the states, we're primarily talking about here, Texas and Iowa. Want to chime in with a story, a comment or a question for our guests? 212433 WNYC 212-433-9692 and for that matter, what if you're in Virginia? What are you seeing? What are you, what if you're in Alaska? What are you seeing? Or any other possible swing state that's not supposed to be a swing state. Call us and give us your experiences, your observations, your stories, or, of course, your questions for our guests. 212433 WNYC 212-433-9692 call or text. And Ann Selzer, who does polling in Iowa for The Des Moines Register, and others. Here's one that's come in for you already in a text message. Actually, I'm having a little trouble pulling this up. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to take a break, then we're going to continue. We'll take that text message question. We'll take some of the calls that are starting to come in, and I want to get both of your takes on what I thought was a very good New York Times analysis this weekend about who the actual undecided voters are. We say there are hardly any undecided voters. It's so much about turnout for the potential Democratic voters and the potential Republican voters who wouldn't really consider the other party but may not vote at all. But they did an analysis of the actual swing voters in the actual swing states, and I thought the result was fascinating. So I'm going to ask you both about that as well as we continue on the Brian Lehrer Show, our weekly Monday morning politics segment. Stay with us. BrYAnt Lehrer on WNYC as we're talking about swing states, let's say possible or potential swing states that aren't supposed to be swing states but might be based on polling either in the presidential race or in some down ballot races, with two guests from two of those states. Ann Selzer, public opinion researcher and president of the Des Moines, Iowa based polling firm Selzer & Company, and Alexandra Samuels, senior editor at Texas Monthly. And you, if you have a story, a question or comment, 212433 WNYC 433 9692. So, and here's that text listener writes, hi, Ann, former Grinnell Selzer poll research assistant here. Hope this gets to you on the air. I'm wondering, do you think your Iowa result, meaning Harris, trailing by just four points, says anything about the rest of the midwest? How is Iowa similar to the other midwestern swing states? And maybe more importantly, how is it different and same question about Texas and the other states in the southwest for the other guest. Thanks, writes that listener, who I guess used to work for you, Anne. So it's really a great question because if we don't consider Iowa a swing state, what we do consider crucial swing states are those midwestern states near Iowa, such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

1. Ann Selzer: Right. And to be clear, this would be a research assistant who worked with the faculty at Grinnell College. So good to connect to you sort of indirectly here. I was asked the same question back in June when that poll came out. If this race is so uneven in Iowa, what does that say?

Brian Lehrer: Just to be clear for our listeners, when the earlier poll came out showing an 18 point Trump lead over Biden at that time, now it's just four over Harris. But go ahead. Sorry.

1. Ann Selzer: Right. Then I said, I don't know that you can equate what is going on in Iowa with what is going on in Wisconsin. Demographically, these two states are similar, but the way that the political parties have worked each state, I didn't think that they were that similar in that all of the Iowa delegation to Washington is Republican. Now. All of the statewide office holders in Iowa, save one, are Republican. So there's been a dramatic move by the Iowa Democratic, I'm sorry, the Republican Party of Iowa, to really up its game. And I did not see that that was the same thing that was happening in Wisconsin. So it's not just demographics that rule, it's the party politics and how effectively they're selecting candidates and supporting them to run for other offices. So now that the gap is narrowed, now, what do I think? Well, I was starting to look a little bit more like Wisconsin, but again, it's not because of the demography necessarily. It's the way that the issues are playing.

Brian Lehrer: And so the listener asks Alexandra, for your take on how indicative Texas is to other swings for other swing, other, sorry, southwest states. And I guess the most relevant one would be Arizona, which is one of the major seven swing states and where the latest news I saw this morning showed Trump up a little bit there.

Alexandra Samuels: Yeah, I wouldn't say what happens in Texas is necessarily indicative of other southwestern states, even with what's happening in Arizona. Arizona, I'd say, is probably definitely more squarely in that swing state category, while Texas is definitely a lean Republican state, even though recent polls, of course, suggest that statewide races and presidential races are getting closer and closer as we just from 2000 onward. So I think what's happening in Texas this year is pretty unique. Of course, we haven't had a switch at the top of the ballot. And I think that's motivating a lot of Texas Democrats, and I think that's why we're seeing close poll numbers here. But I wouldn't put Texas in the same swing state category that I would for Arizona or Georgia or other southern states that I know people will be watching closely on election day.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call from will in Greenpoint. And actually, Julianna, could you pull up will for me on line three? Will from Greenpoint, who says he's originally from Iowa. Hi, Will.

Will: Hi, Brian. Big fan, regular listener. I'm originally from Fort Dodge, Iowa. I would say that the Democratic Party basically gave up on Iowa when they took away their first [unintelligible 00:27:39] status for the caucuses. There's been a real brain drain in Iowa the last 20 years or so. When Pete Buttigieg won the 2016 caucuses, he was a candidate who really resonated, really knew how to spoke to the evangelical vein of Iowa voters. He could really talk about religion in a Democratic friendly way that most people could respond to in Iowa. That was an opportunity for the Democrats, I think, to go with an unexpected candidate, just like Barack Obama in 2008.

Instead, the party bosses at the time gave the nomination to Joe Biden, and things played out as they did. I don't see Iowa going blue anytime soon, sadly.

Brian Lehrer: Will, thank you. What about Iowa and moving the first-in-the-nation primary for the Democrats from there to South Carolina?

1. Ann Selzer: Right. That's fairly recent. The decision-making for that, let's keep in mind, was at the national level, and they've been trying to get rid of all of the caucuses. They don't want to have caucuses anymore. Well, the only reason that Iowa is first in the nation and it still is on the Republican side is because they have a caucus, and that allows New Hampshire to be the first in the nation primary. There's been that battle about it. I perhaps agree that it looks like that the National Party was abandoning Iowa, but they were abandoning other caucus states who had to figure out what to do about it. It was just more consequential for Iowa.

Brian Lehrer: We're getting two interesting questions about polling at all this year. One listener writes in a tex, "I worry about the flaws of the last two elections not being fixed." In both of the last two elections, Trump has outperformed the polls in the swing states by three to seven points. Is there any reason to believe this won't be the case again? Marvin in Brooklyn is calling with a similar question, but I think with an opposite premise. Marvin, you're on WNYC. Hello?

Marvin: Thank you for taking my call. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Marvin: Great. I'm wondering if we're actually seeing a reversal of the situation in 2016 when the polls were showing a lower number of people wanting to vote for Trump because people were hesitant to say that they were going to vote for him, whereas in the current year, if the polls before the primary elections were showing Trump in a much stronger position than what actually happened when people came out to vote. I'm wondering if there might be a larger number of people in deeply red areas who are reluctant to admit to pollers that they're not going to vote for Trump because their neighbors might find out about it or whatever and that the polls are overestimating Trump's strength.

Brian Lehrer: Very interesting question and the opposite of the premise of the text that I just read. Anne, for you, as the pollster in the room, I don't know what your Iowa polling showed, but certainly the national polls in 2016 and 2020 compared to the outcomes of the presidential races had to be very humbling for people in your business.

1. Ann Selzer: Humbling for many. I think our polls, I don't have that number right in front of me, and you would think I would have ingrained it in my memory for austerity. Our polling has been very accurate. We have an A plus rating from 538, and we always have from the inception of their pollster ratings, meaning we're among the most accurate polls that there are. I credit my method for that, which is I don't make any assumptions about what the future electorate is going to be. I hear people saying, well, it's just hard to know who the future electorate is going to be.

We've made some assumptions about it that turned out to be wrong. I go, well, why did you make any assumptions whatsoever? Again, I say with all humility that this is a method that has worked for us, but this is the reason why, I think, which is we don't try to make our current group of likely voters look like anything in the past. Therefore, our data can reveal to us who it is that the likely voters are, and we're seeing these changes in the likely voter makeup.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Alexandra, for you in Texas, and you're not a pollster, you're senior editor of a news organization, Texas Monthly. Do you also ask yourselves that question in your circles about how Trump overperformed the polls? I think he overperformed the polls even more in 2020 than in 2016 nationally. Correct me if that's wrong, but either even further humbling, or it should have been for pollsters nationally, or those who aggregate national polls, or those who do polls in swing states as they go into 2024. To Marvin and Brooklyn's question, is there any reason, as far as you can see, that the pattern of the past two election cycles might be flipping and Trump's numbers would be overestimated? Because instead of being afraid to tell posters that they are voting for Trump, they're afraid to tell pollsters that they're not?

Alexandra Samuels: Yes, well, I can mostly speak to how that might play out in Texas. Specifically, polls here show that Kamala Harris is trailing Trump by anywhere between, again, like four to seven percentage points, and that would be on par with where the state has been trending. I pulled up data from 2020, Trump won the state of Texas by about five points, and that was in 2020. That was the second closest Texas race for the White House in the last quarter of a century. 1996, we had GOP nominee Bob Dole beating Bill Clinton by about five points.

In 2016, Trump had beat Clinton in Texas by nine points. We see that that margin in Texas is getting smaller and smaller. Is there reason to believe that there are more Trump supporters out there who are telling pollsters or they're not answering pollsters calls, we'll say, and that Trump could have a larger margin over Harris? It's certainly possible, but given the state's electoral history, I would say it's more likely that that margin is going to continue to narrow or will remain the same as it was in 2020. We're probably going to see a race, at least at the national level, that's decided by low single digits.

Brian Lehrer: That is so fascinating for the state of Texas. Alexandra, let me stay with you for this next question. I mentioned before the break that I want to ask you about what I saw as a very good article in The New York Times this weekend about how several million, meaning only several million, genuinely undecided voters in swing states might decide this election, and they are focused primarily on the cost of living. I'm curious if you're reporting at Texas Monthly or other things that you see generally bears that out in terms of the actually genuinely undecided people, a minuscule percentage of all american voters, but those who may determine the election yet in these swing states, in addition, of course, to turnout of the bases of each party, but among genuinely undecided swing voters who tend not to be in love with either candidate very much.

Not like I have two great options here. Wow. Which one should I choose? It's like Trump or Harris. I don't know that the cost of living is going to drive their ultimate decision more than anything else.

Alexandra Samuels: In Texas, I'm not seeing costs of living as being one of the top issues that voters are looking at. It tends to be of course the economy is big for everyone, but in Texas specifically, and really Texas, Independents and Republicans, the border and immigration tends to be that issue that rises to the top. I'm sure that we'll see that in a lot of other southern states as well. The border and immigration has continued to be a large talking point going into this particular election cycle.

I haven't seen either Cruz or Allred really address the cost of living in a super meaningful way on the campaign trail, we see them talking more about some of these other bread and butter economic issues that voters say are affecting them, but we are seeing a decent number of undecided voters in the Texas Senate race. To me, that's interesting because I would think if you are a Trump voter, that you would also be a Cruz voter and that if you're a Harris voter, you would also be an all red voter, especially on the Republican side, I see those two candidates so tied together that it's almost hard for me to comprehend that if somebody is a Trump voter that they maybe wouldn't know who to support for Senate.

There is also a third-party option on the ballot as well for Senate. Maybe that's why voters are undecided, looking into who that third-party person is. I think the onus is on both Cruz and Allred, especially since he has not run a statewide race in the state to put his message out there to voters and make sure that voters know who he is beyond just being a Democrat whose name is not Ted Cruz. What we're going to see probably in the next 40-plus days is blitz of ads and press conferences.

I know that the two of them are actually going to debate soon, really trying to get their message out there to voters. So I would expect that number of undecided voters in Texas specifically to probably shrink between mid-October and election day.

Brian Lehrer: Same question about those undecided voters, and the cost of living inflation is another way to say it as a defining issue going forward to election day.

Alexandra Samuels: Right. Two things. First of all, in our poll in September, we were showing just 9% of likely voters offering an answer other than they were going to support Trump or Harris. Between RFK junior, who will be on our ballot, Chase Oliver, the libertarian, someone else, or not sure, nine percentage points who are not already aligning with one of the top two candidates, that was 18 in June. It's gradually eroding. We just don't see a lot of undecideds. We had a separate question in our poll about how people are feeling compared to four years ago financially.

The number for people saying that they feel they are worse off than they were four years ago jumped 31 points to 46%. It had been 15%. The proportion saying better off was cut in half. It was 41%, and now it's 21%. The last time we measured that was in September of 2020. I think the thing about what does the economy actually mean to voters when you say the economy is important, what is the picture in their head that they want to be communicating about? The media talk about the economy in terms of macroeconomics. They're looking at the stock market, they're looking at the employment rate, they're looking at the rate of inflation going down.

I say, yes, but it's inflation. It just means that things are still getting more expensive. It just means that the rate at which they're getting more expensive has decreased. I think people don't think about their own economic situation at a macro level. They think about it in terms of they're buying, the bills that they're trying to pay, what's going on with energy, what's going on at the gas pump. That's the part that they feel, and people are feeling that their financial, their ability to manage their own finances has gotten more difficult the last four years.

Brian Lehrer: Last question. Alexandra, you mentioned a third-party candidate in the Senate race in Texas, which may wind up scrambling things to an unknown degree between Ted Cruz and the Democrat Colin Allred. I want to ask you both, as we wrap this up, about that third-party candidate in the presidential known as RFK Junior. We know if we've been following this race, what RFK Junior did very recently. He dropped out of the race and supported Donald Trump, but what he did more specifically was he only tried to take his name off the ballot in swing states.

He wanted, for whatever reason, people still be able to show their interest in him in states that were not considered competitive. He only sought to remove his name from the ballot so as not to hurt Trump in the states generally considered swing states. My understanding is RFK Junior left his name on the ballot in Texas, and he left his name on the ballot in Iowa. Alexandra, do I have that right? Could RFK junior, in a race that's as close as you're siding between Trump and Harris, actually wind up swinging the election to Harris or contributing to that in the state of Texas?

Alexandra Samuels: Yes. The most recent reporting I'm seeing from late August showed that RFK withdrew from the Texas ballot, but even if that's the case, RFK did not have a really strong base of support here in the Lone Star State. Recent polling showed Harris again within striking distance of winning Texas, and I polling stronger than when Biden was at the top of the ticket. In that same poll, Kennedy only had 2% of support from likely Texas voters, and at a certain point, he had 8%, but that has definitely decreased over time.

We're talking about 2% of likely Texas voters who might swing in Trump's favor or who might be more independent. I don't think that necessarily it could give Trump a small boost, but I don't think it's ultimately going to change what we'll see at the top between the two major candidates. I think we'll still probably see a single-digit race regardless of whether RFK was on the ballot here or not.

Brian Lehrer: Right. To make sure the listeners know that I got that wrong and you corrected it, RFK Junior is not on the ballot in Texas. Did I get it wrong for Iowa, too, Ann?

1. Ann Selzer: He is on the ballot here. We tested for him. He got just 6% of the likely voters saying they were going to vote for him in June. It had been 9%. I took a look at the 36 people in our poll who chose RFK Junior to see if I could read the tea leaves a little bit and see if those voters are more likely to tilt toward Harris or toward Trump when it comes down to walking into the voting booth or filling out their absentee ballot.

I could see no clear advantage for either one of those candidates. I think as our current data would say, it's a wash.

Brian Lehrer: A look at two potential swing states that are not supposed to be swing states, Texas and Iowa, with Alexandra Samuels, senior editor at Texas Monthly, and J. Ann Selzer, public opinion researcher and president of the Des Moines, Iowa based polling firm Selzer & Company. Thank you both so much for giving us so much time today. We really appreciate it.

1. Ann Selzer: It's been a pleasure. Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.