Following their defeat in the 2014 midterms and losing their grip on Congress, the Democratic Party was left in a state of disarray. In the House, Republicans increased their margin over the Democrats. In the Senate, Republicans seized control of the chamber from their political counterparts. By the time that the results were finalized, one thing was glaringly obvious: Democrats did not just lose—they lost handily.

The GOP had won 247 seats in the House, gained 13 seats over the Democrats, and achieved their largest majority in the lower chamber since 1928. The bounties in the Senate were even more dramatic, with Republicans winning nine races and claiming 54 seats in total—an unthinkable change by today’s standards, where only a handful of seats tend to flip each election cycle.

This outcome becomes even more jarring when comparing it to the makeup of Congress in 2009, just a mere five years prior. When Barack Obama first assumed the presidency, he was welcomed by Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Legislative Branch, with a filibuster-proof 60 members in the Senate, and 247 members in the House.

So, what changed between 2009 and 2014? How did Obama, whose feats included steering the nation through the Great Recession and signing the Affordable Care Act into law, end up with a Congress that had overwhelming Republican influence? Don’t incumbents typically have an advantage in elections?

Not necessarily.

While incumbents do share some inherent advantages in elections, such as increased name recognition and deeper coffers for funding campaigns, the party that controls the levers of power in the government at the time—the “in-party”—usually faces strong headwinds during midterm elections. This, in turn, provides the opportunity for the minority party—the “out-party”—to usurp control.

But what exactly causes the in-party to be in jeopardy in the first place? For the out-party to win elections, a few key factors are usually present, with them often overlapping:

1. The out-party is fielding strong candidates: High-profile individuals that have broad name recognition to match their incumbent opponents, such as governors, state representatives, and community leaders.

2. The in-party’s incumbents are weak: Candidates that are either already unpopular or becoming unpopular within their own state or district. Perhaps they were caught in a scandal or they voted wrongly on a critical piece of legislation.

3. Voters are unhappy with the status quo: Voters often engage with politics like a knob on a thermostat. When the government takes an action in one direction, their policy preferences gradually change and they increasingly want to dial the thermostat the other way. In other words, the become dissatisfied with how the government is being run, and look to replace them with candidates that reflect the changes they desire.

In the case of the 2014 midterms, these criteria can be readily applied.

President Obama’s approval rating was consistently poor during that time, with polls showing it as low as 40% in the weeks leading up to the election. Upon closer inspection, voters were particularly disgruntled with things such as the state of the economy, the administration’s handling of immigration, and the failed rollout of the Obamacare website.

The GOP took advantage of this national sentiment by offering voters a strong slate of candidates while tying the Democratic incumbents to the unpopular administration in the White House. In Colorado, for example, Democratic incumbent Mark Udall was ousted by then-Representative Cory Gardner, who won by almost two points. In Iowa, then-state Senator Joni Ernst swiftly beat the Democratic nominee, Representative Bruce Braley, by just over eight points in a contest to replace Democratic Senator Tom Harkin. While Ernst entered the race strongly by showing up to NRSC training sessions and sending strong messages about her service in Iraq, Braley’s campaign was marred by controversies such as airing a sexist ad and deriding Republican Senator Chuck Grassley as “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” In this instance, Ernst demonstrated to an upset electorate that she was a sensible choice over an irresponsible candidate from the lackluster party that was already in control.

Revisiting the 2014 midterms is not just a trip down memory lane—it is meant to be both a cautionary tale for Republicans and a sign of hope for Democrats by highlighting one thing: that the same forces that put Republicans on the map in 2014 are the same forces that can wipe them from it in 2026.

Key Senate Races in 2026

While the Democratic Party, currently considered the “out-party,” is widely considered to have a strong chance of reclaiming the House, there are a lot of hurdles for them to clear if they want to extend their victory into the Senate. The stars are aligning, however, for them to take back Congress despite those challenges.

First and foremost, voters widely disapprove of Donald Trump and his handling of important policy issues. As of January 24, 2026, the Silver Bulletin has President Trump at the lowest approval rating of his second term: 41.3%. Moreover, they disapprove of his approach to issues ranging from immigration (-11.7%), the economy (-18.1%), and inflation (-28.7%)—all of which were fundamental issues that he campaigned on in 2024. It is this type of national environment that leaves voters desiring a change in leadership, with hints of that being demonstrated in the 2025 election cycle, where Democrats won elections across the nation with significant margins.

In addition to voters’ dissatisfaction bubbling to the surface, the Democratic Party is making otherwise noncompetitive races attainable by supporting powerful candidates:

• North Carolina: Republican incumbent Thom Tillis is retiring, leaving Michael Whatley, the former chair of the Republican National Committee, to run in his stead. However, former Governor Roy Cooper has stepped up on behalf of the Democrats. Cooper, who has widespread name recognition within the state, has consistently led Whatley in the polls, with the Carolina Journal reporting his most recent lead being eight points.

• Ohio: When J.D. Vance became vice president, then-Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted was appointed to replace him until a special election is held to determine who will fill the remainder of his term. Democrats are poised to make this race competitive, with former Senator Sherrod Brown looking to reclaim the seat he previously held for 18 years before he lost it to Republican Bernie Moreno in 2024 by about 3.6 points. Recent polling shows Husted ahead of Brown by anywhere from 3 to 6 points, but given Brown’s broad popularity and name recognition, this race is sure to tighten.

• Alaska: Democratic challenger and moderate Mary Peltola is hoping to remove Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan. Prior to her bid for the Senate, she won a special election to represent Alaska’s sole seat in the House by a 55% - 45% margin over Sarah Palin, John McCain’s pick for vice president during his 2008 presidential campaign. While Peltola lost her campaign for reelection to the House in 2024, her ability to win any race in Alaska—a solid Republican state—in combination with polls showing that she leads Sullivan by two points, gives Democrats a reason to believe that the seat can be claimed.

• Maine: While the Democratic front-runner, Janet Mills, is a solid candidate due to her name recognition as governor of the state, she has struggled to take a definitive lead over her opponent in the primary, Graham Platner, who faced several controversies surrounding questionable comments online and having a tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol. In fact, some polls show Platner ahead of Mills by considerable margins. The reason that Maine is more competitive than usual, however, is less about the quality of the Democratic candidates and more about the quality of the Republican candidate, Susan Collins. Collins is an unpopular incumbent, with some polls showing only 38% of voters showing support for her.

These races are still in their early stages (there are still plenty of primaries to get through), but there they all hint at the same factors that led to the Democrats losing control in 2014. President Trump and his policies are overwhelmingly unpopular, and with a Republican Party that moves in lockstep with him, it will be nearly impossible for voters to view the Republican incumbents as anything but an extension of the president.

That opposing current, in combination with the fact that Democratic Party is laying the foundation for candidates with strong name recognition, popularity, and moderate platforms, might just cause the GOP to suffer the same fate as their Democratic colleagues did just over a decade ago.

On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter addressed a nation that was being battered by record inflation, an energy crisis, and a deep distrust in the government following Watergate, to instead speak about a deeper issue: a crisis of confidence.

During his speech, which would later discuss more specific solutions, President Carter changed the framing of these issues to something more abstract, asserting:

“The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and political fabric of America.”1

If any of this sounds familiar, that’s because it is.

In the 2024 election, the economy continued to be a top issue on voters’ minds, specifically concerning inflation. Not only that, but there has been a growing sentiment to dismantle the establishment within the government — which comes off the heels of fraudulent claims of a stolen election and even greater levels of distrust among the electorate.

What distinguishes the past from today aren't the issues, but rather the messages that political parties are giving.

While Republicans have effectively addressed these worries by both pinning them to the Biden administration and federal bureaucrats, as well as expanding their outreach by appearing on numerous alternative media outlets, the Democrats find themselves in disarray.

In a time when Americans felt abandoned by their government, President Carter — a Democrat — offered them humility and honesty rather than more empty platitudes and unfulfilled promises, and it was well-received by the public! The Democrats of today, on the other hand, are having an extremely difficult time finding a coherent, unified position following their defeat to Donald Trump.

“Malaise” Today

As the dust continues to settle from the whirlwind that was the 2024 election, many political pundits, news outlets, and experts are still scrambling to find out what exactly happened — and, more importantly, what needs to change. From calls to embrace populism, to arguing that the Democrats failed in their media outreach, everyone seems to be on the same page: there needs to be a fundamental shift within the Democratic Party.

Upon closer inspection, however, this reaction appears to be more of a knee-jerk than one that’s calculated.

While it’s true that President-elect Trump was ahead of Vice President Harris by 5 million votes in the popular vote just after Election Day, his lead has since shrunk by over half of that — just under 2.4 million votes. While that still sounds like a large difference, it’s actually a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton had over Trump in 2016 (1.55% in 2024, compared to 2.1% in 2016). Additionally, this result was always considered to be a possibility. Nate Silver’s model, for instance, considered this to be the most likely outcome, and as I had mentioned before, polling before the election demonstrated that either candidate could’ve had a sizable victory in the Electoral College.

Although something must change for the Democrats to win, the closeness of this race indicates that it doesn’t necessarily have to be a tectonic shift. Instead of changing the foundational values of the Party, there should be more of a focus on delivering the most authentic and effective messages to voters. Meet them where they’re at. Speak to their concerns directly.

Both the Biden and Harris campaigns made good efforts to do just that, but ultimately fell short. The Biden campaign attempted to temper economic distress by showcasing the various accomplishments throughout his administration, and the Harris campaign catered to the overwhelming sentiment for a change in leadership. But the voters just weren’t buying what they were selling. For one reason or another, their messages just weren’t sticking.

But what if they took a page from President Carter? What if they had a message that was more tailored to the underlying “malaise” of Americans?

In Biden’s case, instead of constantly talking about what he had done, he could have mentioned more of what he was going to do. As for Harris, she could have been more vocal on policy instead of just relying on being a fresh face. More than that, both candidates could have benefited from speaking to the deep divisions within the American electorate beyond political partisanship. By speaking directly about the work left to be done, such as addressing high grocery prices, perhaps voters would have been more supportive. But it’s difficult for them to support a candidate that’s either downplaying their struggles or seemingly offering nothing of substance.2

President Carter was faced with largely similar challenges, and yet his "Malaise Speech” was met with an outpouring of support. His failure to win reelection in 1980 wasn’t due to voters not resonating with what he was saying. Rather, it was his inability to live up to that message that led to his defeat.

Maybe it’s time that Democrats dust off that old playbook and combine policy with passion to not just turn out votes, but to inspire Americans about a bright future.

Election Day is finally here — and as results continue to pour in over the coming days, the end draws near for the most stressful wonderful time of the year. At this point, both those incredibly invested in politics and those who barely pay attention are basically on the same page: it’s unclear which candidate will win.

No matter where you look — whether it be Silver Bulletin, FiveThirtyEight, or Split Ticket — the odds of either a Kamala Harris or Donald Trump victory are at the mercy of a mere coin flip. These organizations (among others) each took their own approach, employed their own strategies, and used whichever data they felt was best, and yet they all ended up at a similar conclusion. While there are theories for why this may be the case, such as herding among pollsters, it’s not as though there aren’t valid reasons for the election to be so contentious.

Political polarization, which is the shift between both parties from the center to their ideological extremes, is certainly heightened in today’s political climate. There is little common ground between Democrats and Republicans these days, and members of both parties feel increasingly negative about their colleagues across the aisle. It’s only natural that, given such a divided environment, elections would be so close.

The same rule seems to also apply to cases in which pollsters produce outliers. In just the past couple of days, two pollsters that are lauded for their quality, Selzer & Co. and New York Times/Siena, released their final results for this election cycle, but had different results. While the Selzer poll had Harris ahead of Trump 47% to 44% in Iowa — a state that Trump beat Biden by in 2020 by over 8 points — the NYT/Siena poll reflected the opposite: that Blue Wall states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, which share similar voter demographics to Iowa, were in a dead heat (48% to 48% and 47% to 47%, respectively).

But even with the race being a toss-up, that doesn’t exactly mean that the outcome is guaranteed to be close. When factoring in the margin of error, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have a reasonable chance of winning with a comfortable lead. Take the New York Times polling averages for the seven battleground states, for example:

With even a standard margin of error, which typically ranges anywhere from 3 to 5 percentage points, either candidate could handily win any of those states. In Pennsylvania, arguably the most important state of the bunch, both Harris and Trump could win by as low as less than 1 percentage point, or as high as 5 percentage points. For a bit of perspective, that would be a bigger margin than what Trump beat Biden by in Florida back in 2020 (3.4 percentage points).

Given that polls seem to provide little insight as to a candidate’s advantage and can be incredibly volatile, can anything be learned from them?

Are Polls Just Bad?

Not necessarily. While it’s both true that there are misleading pollsters that claim to be non-partisan, but actually are (e.g., Rasmussen Reports), and that the polls underestimated Trump in both 2016 and 2020, it’s also true that they are the still the best tool that we have to gauge public sentiment. For all their flaws, pollsters take great care in their decision making, as even the slightest alterations can lead to dramatic changes in their results. When you’re measuring so many unknowns, such as the turnout of tens of millions of voters, with such little data (sample sizes of ~1,000 people), it’s remarkable that pollsters are even as accurate as they currently are.

While pollsters work endlessly to address their shortcomings, the public should also do its best to understand what polls and forecast models are actually trying to track: probabilities. In other words, we need to embrace the idea of uncertainty.

Even a candidate with a predicted 70% chance of winning still has a 30% chance of losing. If they end up losing, does that mean that the polls were off? Probably. Does that also mean that the probability of them losing wasn’t there? Absolutely not.

If this sounds similar at all, it’s because it actually happened in 2016 —FiveThirtyEight’s election model put Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at basically those same odds (71.4% to 28.6%), and she ended up losing! Despite Nate Silver’s warning that Hillary’s lead wasn’t as safe as people had imagined, the outcome of the election still caused significant backlash against both him and FiveThirtyEight.

Instead of treating polls and models as if they are gospel, we should try to understand them for what they are: the momentary sentiments of the public. They are fleeting and can change at a moment’s notice, but they can provide incredible insight into the issues that voters care about and what they look for in candidates.

So, as you watch the results of this election with anticipation tonight and in the coming days, try not to blame the polls for being “wrong” about predicting a tie if one candidate ends up winning by a lot. Rather, try to understand that the outcome was already factored in: you just had to squint a bit to see it.

Within the past few years, the question of who would lead the next generation of both the Democratic and Republican Parties became increasingly glaring. In fact, it wasn’t too long ago that it was quite difficult to imagine either party without both Joe Biden and Donald Trump at the helm, even if they were both extremely unpopular.

This fog of uncertainty seemed to have clouded the minds of everyone: from the average American that gathers news in bits and pieces, to the most immersed political junkies. Given what happened during what was a tumultuous summer and a fierce couple of debates, however, it seems that the fog has a break in it— a glimpse of light that points towards the future.

So, what exactly is the light shining on? What is it showing us about the futures of our two major political parties?

Subscribe now

The “Bridge” Candidate

Let’s start where the cracks first began to show: the first presidential debate between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

After what might be considered one of the most consequential debates in American history, Biden eventually caved into the mounting pressure of calls for him to drop his bid for a second term in the Oval Office. But he wasn’t necessarily even supposed to be running again.1 More specifically, he had previously referred to himself as a transitional candidate at a Michigan rally in 2020, stating:

This remark resurfaced shortly before Biden announced his departure from the campaign trail, but it still left a large question unanswered: who would replace him?

His Vice President, Kamala Harris, wasn’t exactly the clear choice— after all, she was polling at around a 36% favorability rating at the time. Moreover, there were talks of having a second open primary process to select the next candidate as a way to put concerns about party elites overriding the will of the voters to rest.2

So, at least for a short while, it was considered fairly touch and go whether Harris would end up being Biden’s replacement or not, regardless of the fact that he had endorsed her. Harris’ ability to clinch the nomination even came as a surprise to some of the most veteran political actors. As Jim Messina, the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations under President Obama, put it:

Putting the uncertainty of Harris’ nomination and general electability aside, however, Biden’s choice to step down was the first domino that led to voters seeing a whole slate of quality candidates for the future. Had he decided to stay in the race, most voters would not have had the opportunity to hear from the likes of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro; Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear; and even Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who was a dark horse during Harris’ VP selection process before eventually being picked. At this point in the race, Walz is boasting favorability ratings as high as 60%, which is unprecedented in a political climate where the favorability of candidates is typically underwater.

Something similar can be said for Harris, who is sitting at a comfortable 3.5-point lead ahead of Trump in the polls (49.4% to 45.9%), per the Silver Bulletin.

From this, it can be argued that Biden fulfilling his role as the “bridge” candidate was invaluable to the future of the Democratic Party, because if he was still in the race today, it’s likely that both: 1) Harris’ favorability would’ve remained quite low; and 2) that the other figureheads of the party would’ve remained hidden from the general public.

But the Democrats weren’t the only ones facing a power vacuum.

Keeping the MAGA Momentum

Donald Trump selected his runningmate, J.D. Vance, largely in part because of the fact that he would represent the future of the Republican Party. Despite being designated at the heir apparent to the MAGA movement, however, the best-selling author of “Hillbilly Elegy” wasn’t well-received on the national stage— at least not until the vice presidential debate that took place earlier this week.

Prior to the debate, Vance was polling quite poorly among the electorate, initially being at roughly 25% aggregate favorability when he made his debut, to just under 35% today. That being said, he is beginning to show signs of life since the debate. David Wright, a writer and editor for CNN, shared an internal poll that put Vance in a much better position, albeit still a bit in the negative overall:

What this signifies isn’t necessarily that Vance is still unpopular, but rather that the Trump campaign’s decision to bring him on board still has a solid chance to pay off in the long run in terms of solidifying the MAGA movement in a post-Trump era. It provided the perfect opportunity for Vance to share his background, and present Trumpism in a much more eloquent and palatable fashion.

But it’s not as though the Republicans are in the clear just yet.

Unlike the vast sea of Democratic leadership that emerged in the wake of Biden’s withdrawal, there isn’t that much of a selection among Republicans aside from Vance. Sure, there are candidates like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, but they either lack the necessary charisma to motivate the MAGA base (such as in DeSantis’ case), or are more moderate than they would like (such as in Haley’s case). What’s more is that the die-hard Trump loyalists, such as Kari Lake and Mark Robinson, tend to perform extremely poorly in general elections where both moderates and independents are turned off by their extremism. For example, 33 Trump-endorsed candidates lost in the 2022 midterms, with 32 of them openly sharing that they believed the 2020 election was stolen.

Given this drought of potential candidates that can carry on the full spirit of the MAGA movement, it continues to be somewhat difficult to imagine a Republican Party that can move forward without Trump at the forefront. Regardless, it’s still fair to say that both the Democrats and Repbulicans have improved (at least somewhat) in terms of showing Americans what’s in store for the leadership of their parties.

Later tonight, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will finally come face-to-face on the debate stage. The event, which is going to be streamed on ABC News, is not just going to be the first time that the two candidates ever meet personally, but could also serve as a pivotal moment for both of their campaigns.

In this election’s first presidential debate, which was held when President Joe Biden was still expected to be at the top of the Democratic ticket, Biden’s lackluster performance ultimately led to him stepping down and endorsing Harris. This almost assuredly puts a lot of pressure on Harris and her campaign, as even the slightest misstep could put them in jeopardy.

Do Presidential Debates Matter?

It has long been understood that presidential debates have a minimal impact on viewers and the way they vote on Election Day.

Even the first televised debate in 1960, which was between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, gives insight into just how shallow debates can be. In its aftermath, there was a divide between who viewers believed had won— not because of partisan division, but because of the how they tuned into the event. For those who had watched it on T.V., Kennedy was the clear winner as his complexion looked better than Nixon’s, who wasn’t wearing makeup and was sweating. However, to those who listened to the debate over the radio, Nixon was the winner based on substance alone.

Though tens-of-millions of people now watch the presidential debates on television instead of listening to them via radio, the dynamics of the debates aren’t all that different from 1960.

For better or for worse, the American political environment is in a heightened state of polarization, leaving less common ground between Democrats and Republicans as they become increasingly distant from one another. Even among those who identify themselves as “independents,” an overwhelming majority (81%) of them still ultimately lean toward one of the two major parties.

Most people already know who they’re going to vote for, so a presidential debate that is proven time and again to cater to vibes is unlikely to sway any of them. That being said, both Harris and Trump need to court the few true independents to their side.

How to Win Undecided Voters

Trump and his team have the easy part: ragging on the current administration. Most Americans already express dissatisfaction with the federal government, and Trump is still running as an “outsider,” meaning he is still seen as a breath of fresh air from the ill-favored establishment.

As for Harris, even though incumbents tend to have an advantage in elections, she can only loosely claim it for herself. Unlike Biden, whether fair or not, she can’t fully own the accomplishments of their administration. At the same time, she is still subject to the same scrutiny of the administration’s shortcomings, such as its inability to pass a comprehensive border bill— even if it was blocked by Republicans.

That being said, Harris can still use tonight’s debate as a platform to pave a new way forward. Her campaign has already been doing this with its messaging (i.e., “we’re not going back”), but it has been lacking in substance. While she has made proposals on both housing and capital gains tax rates, these are hardly issues that the typical voter is paying attention to.

Vibes Aren’t Everything

Vibes aren’t a new phenomenon in elections — the idea of the “low-information voter” has always been a thing — but it was never to this degree.

Samuel Popkin, a political scientist from the University of California, San Diego, grappled with this concept in his book, The Reasoning Voter. In it, he states that voters typically employ “low-information rationality,” and rather than disregarding candidates and their respective policies, they truncate information into easy-to-understand chunks, making them well-informed when it comes time to vote.

Popkin states that voters gather their information through various outlets: 1) daily life; 2) government programs; and 3) the news. This could be something as simple as recognizing that groceries cost more than they used to, finding out about a government loan program, or watching a debate on television (see what I did there?).

Even if debates are used for theatrics and to produce memorable clips, it’s still a setting where both candidates are being asked questions on policy. Harris began her bid for the Oval Office nearly two months ago, and is only just beginning to get to the brass tacks.

If she wants to keep her momentum, which seems to be waning, she will not just use tonight as a time to distance herself from Trump, but also as an opportunity to show voters what her presidency and vision for America looks like.

Today kicks off the beginning of the four-day long Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, Illinois. While political conventions are often devoid of policy talk in favor of energetic messaging, there are still key insights that can be learned from them insofar as the strategies that campaigns attempt to use.

Eyeing the Youth Vote

Headlining the event for tonight is President Joe Biden, who stepped down as the presumptive nominee about a month ago and paved the way for his Vice President, Kamala Harris, to take the reins as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate. His prime time speech, which will likely have millions of viewers, will be yet another opportunity for him to “pass the torch” over to her.

As attendees gather into the stadium, they’ll be welcomed by signage that says “history is in your hands,” further emphasizing the transition.

In fact, focusing on the next generation of political actors is a major focus for the Democratic Party this election, further proven by the fact that they will also be streaming the event on apps such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube— all of which are heavily used by Americans from ages 18 to 29. Despite the fact that the younger age groups tend to vote less often than their elders, this strategy could prove promising. Within the last few election cycles, the youth vote (ages 18 to 29) has grown, with turnout going from 39% in 2016 to roughly 50% in 2020.

Re-introducing Tim Walz

The DNC is also another opportunity for more Americans to become familiar with Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz.

Even though Walz hit the ground running since his debut just under two weeks ago, with his polling numbers showing that he’s more favorable than Donald Trump’s VP pick, J.D. Vance, there is still one problem: people don’t know much about him.

When Walz was first introduced, an astounding 71% of Americans reported that they had never heard of him; and while that number has improved since then, nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) still don’t know who he is. This could be problematic, as name recognition is an important factor among candidates (albeit, more so for the presidential candidate than the VP candidate), especially when VP picks are often used to bring new demographics into the fold.

To be sure, when Walz accepts the nomination for Vice President on Wednesday night, he will be telling all of America about his background and his beliefs. Only from there can we see a more accurate representation of how the American electorate views him.

Keeping the Momentum

As mentioned at the top, political conventions are chock-full of powerful and vibrant messaging in lieu of in-depth discussions on policy. Having these types of events allows political parties to both reach out to millions of Americans — many of which might be undecided — as well as mobilize their bases.

Both of these are critical for Harris, as she looks to keep her lead over Donald Trump. Per Nate Silver’s election forecast model, she’s currently ahead in the polls at 47.1% to Trump’s 44.6%. While she seems to have a solid lead over the 45th President, Harris’ gains seemed to not only be stagnating, but even declining slightly. While Silver’s model predicts Harris to have a 53.5% chance of winning the election with Trump only 45.9%, her chances were higher just five days ago when it was estimated to be a 56.7% chance. It is imperative for Harris to continue to capitalize on the momentum she gained following Biden’s departure so that she can ensure victory in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Assuming Harris has a strong performance during her acceptance speech on Thursday, it’s likely that she will command such a lead as candidates typically receive roughly a four-point boost in the polls following their party’s convention— and in a political landscape where elections are determined along the margins, each candidate needs every point they can get their hands on.

Earlier this week, Vice President Kamala Harris announced her running mate for the 2024 election: Tim Walz.

Walz, the sitting Governor of Minnesota, hit the ground running in his bid for the position after his viral interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, where he referred to Republicans as “just weird.” This narrative exploded within the Democratic Party, with Harris herself and other contenders for the VP pick such as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear latching onto it basically overnight.

This, coupled with his extremely decorated background as an Army National Guard veteran, schoolteacher, football coach, and member of the U.S. House of Representatives, makes Harris’s choice seem like a no-brainer - at least at first glance.

It’s Unclear if Walz Brings Any Advantages

In terms of being a Vice Presidential nominee, Walz’s strength comes not just from his background or his contributions to the Democratic Party, but due to the fact that he is a relatively uncontroversial candidate. The “Golden Rule” of VP picks, so to speak, is to “do no harm,” meaning that the choice should only improve the ticket’s chances of winning, not hurt it. This can be accomplished in one of two of ways: 1) by bringing certain demographics into your coalition; or 2) getting the electoral edge in key swing states.

Despite Walz’s lack of controversy, however, he doesn’t seem to bring much else to the table.

For starters, Walz isn’t showing any meaningful gains with the demographics that the Harris campaign needs: blue-collar workers and small-town residents. NBC’s Steve Kornacki highlighted this problem, emphasizing that, of the 49 “Trump surge” counties in Minnesota, Walz won the same amount as President Biden did in 2020: one. This lack of improvement is problematic given that these counties are demographically similar to large portions of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - the swing states that everyone is eyeing this election.

Harry Enten, CNN’s Senior Political Data Reporter, also touched upon Walz’s shortcomings by pointing out that a Republican candidate hasn’t won in Minnesota since 1972, and that there were no signs of that streak being broken. Since Minnesota isn’t necessarily a make or break state for the Democrats, Walz’s selection doesn’t really give an advantage in the Electoral College.

It’s also worth noting that, even though Walz was a popular pick among left-leaning voters that cast their ballots as “uncommitted” during the Democratic primaries, they still voiced their dissatisfaction even after he was chosen and Harris had met with them to hear their concerns. In other words, if Walz was chosen to appease this voting bloc, it would seem to have been ineffecitve.

There May Have Been Better Picks

Given that Walz has neither brought new demographics under the Democratic Party’s tent, nor raises the chances of winning in a narrowly-decided state, the mere fact that he “does no harm” begins to look more like a missed opportunity.

Josh Shapiro, the sitting Governor of Pennsylvania and the candidate that was considered the front-runner throughout most of Harris’s VP selection process, might have been a better fit for the position since he is widely popular within his state (61% approval). Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that VP picks tend to gain campaigns anywhere from 1 to 2 points within their home states. In an election where outcomes are determined along the margins, the lack of this advantage in Pennsylvania - the most important swing state of them all - could prove fatal for Harris’s campaign.

The Governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear, also might have been a superior pick to Walz. As an even more popular Democrat than Shapiro (at 65% approval) in a solid Republican state, Beshear offered the prospect of winning over independents and moderates not just within the Midwestern swing states, but also in other Southern states like Georgia. This isn’t an impossibility, especially given that the Cook Political Report just rated Georgia as a “toss up” today, and with recent polls showing Kamala Harris being virtually tied with Donald Trump in the state.

Walz Isn’t a Bad Choice

Even if Walz is a safe pick, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a bad one. After all, it’s not like either Shapiro or Beshear were without their shortcomings, with Shapiro being marred by his pro-Israel stance on the war in Gaza and the controversy of a sexual harassment case within his staff; and the chance that Beshear’s potential is overestimated given that his father, Steve Beshear, was also a popular Governor in the state.

Tim Walz is a fine pick. His track record of popular policies, such as providing free college tuition for low-income students and free meals for schoolchildren, is difficult for his opponents to argue against. He also has the Midwestern charm that makes him feel authentic and likable (shown in his 55% approval rating), meaning it’s entirely possible for him to gain traction within Minnesota’s neighboring swing states - something that Trump’s VP pick, J.D. Vance, is struggling with.

The only reason that Tim Walz is under any form of scrutiny at all isn’t for his background, his policies, or his character - all of which are perfectly fine. Instead, it’s for wondering the efficacy of his pick. In such a consequential and close election, is the safe choice enough to get the Democrats over the finish line in November?