Edward Tufte, the graphics guru and political scientist, was one of my graduate school professors. He seemed to enjoy employing his wicked sense of humor to skewer fellow academics for faulty or banal conclusions.
One of his favorite objects of derision was an historian whose central conclusion about the period and place he was studying stated simply “it was a time of continuity and a time of change.” Dismissing it as “all-purpose history,” Tufte rightly claimed it could describe any place at any time.
I tell this story because my analysis of the presidential race at this point features exactly that banal theme — a combination of continuity and change.
Start with continuities. Inspired by Colonial Penn pitchman Jonathan Lawson, who regularly takes to CNN to describe the three P’s of life insurance, I have written here about my own 3 P’s of contemporary politics:
Partisanship: Most Americans harbor a core political identity as a Democrat or a Republican, which does more than anything else to structure their view of the political world.
Polarization: Partisan differences are not confined to thinking differently about issues. Democrats and Republicans harbor much greater antipathy toward each other than in the past.
Parity: Support for these two antithetical parties is roughly at parity, with the country evenly split on indicators such as party identification and the generic vote for the House of Representatives.
Those continuities play a dominant role in this year’s race for the White House.
Parity is evident in the fact that, on average, for the last two years, the race between President Biden and Donald Trump was somewhere between tied and a 3-point margin for one candidate or the other.
Today, the margin is less than 2 points.
Partisanship and polarization are evident in the tiny movement produced by seemingly huge events. Transfixed by Biden’s debate performance, reporters searched for every possible synonym for “disastrous.” You’d think such a major event would have a substantial impact on how people would vote. It didn’t.
On average, surveys just after the debate showed movement of less than 1-point away from Biden.
Somewhat greater movement was produced by the relentless media focus on Biden’s performance and by Democrats publicly expressing disaffection and doubts about his physical and mental abilities. But all that moved the race just another point and a half.
Then there was the truly earthshaking news that the president was withdrawing from the race and being replaced at the top of the ticket by Vice President Kamala Harris. Surely this truly historic development would change things.
Barely. Less than one and a half points of movement toward the vice president.
Continuity: The three P’s are exercising more power than world historical events.
Contrast that stability with the polling volatility of earlier cycles. In June 1968, Hubert Humphrey was 5 points ahead. By August, Richard Nixon led by 11 — a 16-point shift.
In May of 1980, Jimmy Carter posted an average 7-point lead over Ronald Reagan, but by June it was Reagan ahead by 5 — a 12-point swing.
Going into the party conventions of 1988, Mike Dukakis averaged a 7-point lead over George H. W. Bush. After the conventions, Bush held a 7-point advantage, for a swing of 14-points.
Replacing Joe Biden with Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket weeks before the convention — a shift of less than a point and a half.
The three P’s lock voters in, allowing for precious little movement.
Despite the powerful continuities, though there are also major changes.
Most significant, the Trump Biden contest was importantly defined by the fact that, even before the debate, large majorities of Americans believed Joe Biden was too impaired to serve as president. I believe those assessments are unfair and inaccurate, but majorities felt that way and even more did after the debate.
Yet, in less than five minutes, that central fact was gone, eliminated from the political landscape. Now, questions about advanced age and mental infirmity are directed at Trump.
Second, while Joe Biden owned all the actions of his administration — whether perceived positively or negatively — his vice president has a bit more latitude to escape from some of the perceived failings.
Third, less than two weeks ago, the press was abuzz with reports of donor boycotts, sagging volunteer numbers and low morale.
Now hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into the Harris campaign. Tens of thousands of volunteers are flooding into campaign offices to knock on doors and make phone calls, while Trump world is reeling from the failing and flailing vice presidential campaign launch of Trump’s chosen successor, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).
The change in the mood is palpable.
Important changes. Enduring continuities. All-purpose history in the midst of truly unique events.
Mark Mellman is a pollster and president of The Mellman Group, a political consultancy. He is also president of Democratic Majority for Israel.