The US presidential election is now a toss-up

  • The US presidential race has become extremely close, with the contest between the Democratic vice-president, Kamala Harris, and the Republican former president, Donald Trump, having settled into a statistical tie.
  • We now believe that the election will be a toss-up, marking a shift from our previous (high-risk) forecast that Mr Trump would win. The final result will be extremely close, and vote-counting delays mean that a winner will probably not be clear right after Election Day. 
  • Undecided voters and the composition of turnout in the battleground states will ultimately decide the election, with the US economy, women’s healthcare rights and the Middle East conflict among the most likely factors to shape voter behaviour. 
  • A divided Congress remains most likely, regardless of the presidential election result. This would present greater obstacles to Ms Harris than to Mr Trump if Republicans retake the Senate (the upper house), as we assume.

With about two weeks left until Election Day on November 5th, the races that will decide which party controls the US presidency and Congress remain extremely close. This article outlines our latest forecasts on these elections, noting any updates from our previous election calls and our reasoning for making those changes.

Ms Harris and Mr Trump now have equal chances of winning

We now believe that the presidential election will be a toss-up between Ms Harris and Mr Trump. This marks a shift from our previous forecast of a Trump win, which we had set just before Ms Harris entered the race in late July, although we had always qualified our election call as high risk. Since launching her campaign, Ms Harris has erased the wide and stable polling leads that Mr Trump had developed against the Democratic incumbent and previous presidential candidate, Joe Biden. However, her meteoric rise has hit a ceiling in recent weeks, with polls between her and Mr Trump having settled into a statistical tie.

Ms Harris continues to hold her months-long lead in the national polls, although by a thin 1-3-point margin, which may actually be narrower given that polls have tended to undercount votes for Mr Trump. Meanwhile, she and Mr Trump each hold leads in about half of the seven battleground states that will decide the Electoral College vote and hence the election’s ultimate winner. Those leads vary across polls but consistently sit well within the margin of error, meaning that most (if not all) of these states remain in play for both candidates, including absolutely critical states like Pennsylvania. With no further presidential debates scheduled (Mr Trump has refused) and most voters already set in their voting intentions, we expect that the race will remain in deadlock right up until Election Day.  

What factors could determine the outcome?

The outcome of the presidential election will be determined by a small number of undecided voters and turnout in the battleground states. Decisions about who to vote for and who shows up will have the greatest impact on the Electoral College results. The election’s trajectory will remain vulnerable to many factors, including unexpected events, that could shape the opinions of these voters between now and Election Day. We feature below three such factors that we are watching most closely, and how we believe each will favour either candidate.

  • The US economy (neutral): The economy has long topped the list of voter concerns, with the cost of living and jobs attracting the most interest. This benefited Mr Trump for most of the campaign, particularly when Mr Biden was the Democratic candidate and inflation remained stubbornly high. However, Ms Harris has managed to erode this advantage, even pulling ahead of Mr Trump in some recent polls on the economy. Strong economic growth and labour market data published over the past month have worked to her advantage, as has the recent decision by the Federal Reserve (Fed, the central bank) to begin cutting interest rates as inflation continues to ease–the next Fed meeting is right after the election. The release of additional growth and employment data in the next few days could further shape voter opinion, and our expectation of solid GDP growth in the third quarter is likely to give Ms Harris a boost. Meanwhile, Mr Trump will have to contend with growing voter scepticism towards his economic policies, which we believe would be inflationary and would slow growth. The often surprising jobs data due out the Friday prior to the election could sway voter opinion. However, early voting in key states such as Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, and in some counties in Pennsylvania, suggests that substantial votes may already have been cast by the time the data are released.
  • Women’s healthcare rights (favours Ms Harris): Reproductive health remains a top voter concern. The issue has expanded beyond abortion rights to encompass healthcare access for women, including treatment for miscarriages, as well as obtaining contraceptives and fertility treatments. The issue has proven to be an asset to Democrats, having helped to generate surprise victories at the 2022 midterms and the 2023 state elections, particularly by mobilising young, female and independent voters and encouraging voter turnout. We expect Ms Harris to benefit similarly, given her unwavering support for women’s healthcare rights, her plans to restore federal abortion protections (although this would face obstacles in Congress) and her likely efforts to appoint liberal judges, potentially to the Supreme Court. Mr Trump’s own muddled approach to the issue (his stance on a proposed federal abortion ban remains unclear) will only help Ms Harris further. Ballot measures on abortion access, which several states will vote on during the election, should give her with an additional boost by increasing voter turnout among likely Harris voters in some key toss-up states. Arizona, Florida and Nevada are among the states that will be holding these referendums. If the measures help to generate turnout for the Democrats, particularly on the back of a large campaign spending push, Ms Harris’s performance in these states could end up stronger than current polls suggest.
  • Middle East conflict (favours Mr Trump): Now in its second year, the Israel-Hamas war continues to weigh on Democrats’ electoral chances, working to Mr Trump’s advantage. The continuation of the conflict and its recent expansion into Lebanon have allowed Mr Trump to sharpen his attacks against the Biden administration’s (and Ms Harris’s) handling of US foreign policy. (The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, which has divided voter opinion, has had a similar effect.) Meanwhile, Ms Harris’s continued alignment with Mr Biden’s support for Israel, despite her strong emphasis on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has compromised her standing with Arab/Muslim voters, who traditionally vote Democrat as a bloc. This is particularly a liability in the battleground state of Michigan, which Mr Biden won in the 2020 election and houses the country’s largest Arab-American population. The state’s “uncommitted” movement, which protested Mr Biden’s candidacy over his approach to the war, has refused to endorse Ms Harris, although it also opposes Mr Trump. We assume that some Arab/Muslim voters will still vote for Ms Harris, owing to Mr Trump’s more staunchly pro-Israel stance and his anti-Muslim rhetoric. However, Ms Harris’s inability to rely fully on this voting group will complicate her path to an election victory. If the conflict in the Middle East intensifies, which we view as a moderate risk scenario, her chances could dim even further.

Regardless of whether Ms Harris or Mr Trump wins the election, we expect the result to be extremely close. With some states, including Georgia and Pennsylvania, not reporting their full results on Election Day owing to rules around when and how votes are counted, it could take several days before the final winner is clear. Mr Trump in particular has refused to confirm that he would accept an election loss. With two key states not reporting full results until after Election Day, Mr Trump will have a window to declare victory if he so chooses. This is because Ms Harris is unlikely to have a sufficient number of Electoral College votes to win without Georgia or Pennsylvania in the mix. Such a scenario would generate political instability, and the risk of a negative market response would be high.

A divided Congress remains most likely

We continue to believe that neither Democrats nor Republicans will win commanding majorities in the next Congress, regardless of the presidential election results. Intense voter polarisation and a small number of competitive races mean that the parties will have little opportunity to expand their current wafer-thin margins; Democrats now control the Senate, while Republicans hold the House of Representatives (the lower house), both by a handful of seats. The next president will therefore be unable to translate their full policy agenda into legislation. However, the exact party split between the two chambers will matter (even if majorities remain slim), creating distinct scenarios for whichever party controls the presidency. We believe that two scenarios are most likely. 

  • Majorities flip—Democrats take the House and Republicans take the Senate (55% probability): The 2024 electoral map favours the current minority parties in both chambers. Republicans are certain to gain a Senate seat in West Virginia, a deeply conservative state, now that Joe Manchin, a Democrat-turned-independent, is retiring. That puts Republicans just one seat away from retaking the chamber, and this will probably come via a win in Montana, where the Democratic incumbent, John Tester, faces an uphill battle. Meanwhile, Democrats appear well positioned to flip the few seats needed to control the House; the importance of races in California, a blue state where Ms Harris was senator, and a likely rally effect around issues like abortion, as occurred during the 2022 midterms, will work in the party’s favour. Another divided government will mean that even basic legislation, including to fund the federal government and avoid a disruptive default, will face partisan gridlock and delays. Neither Ms Harris nor Mr Trump would have much prospect for implementing their legislative agendas. However, Ms Harris would face the bigger burden, given that a Republican Senate would block any cabinet or judicial appointments that it deems too progressive; conversely, Mr Trump’s appointments would face little obstruction. This would carry important implications for the ideological balance of the Supreme Court if a vacancy emerges before the 2026 midterms.
  • Trifecta sweep—single party takes the presidency, House and Senate (45% probability): Although less likely, it remains very possible that the winning party in the presidential election will also take full control of Congress. This has been the norm since 1989, and the potential for upsets (particularly in the Florida, Nebraska and Texas Senate races, or in some California House contests) will keep this possibility alive. We believe that Ms Harris and Mr Trump would have equal chances of such an outcome. The absence of large congressional majorities would prevent either candidate from enacting the more partisan elements of their agendas, for example a rise in the corporate tax rate by Ms Harris, or a repeal of the Affordable Care Act under Mr Trump. However, the more moderate elements of their platforms would have an easier time passing, particularly if bipartisan agreement is possible. This could include Ms Harris’s proposed cost-of-living controls or extensions to some of Mr Trump’s previous tax cuts.
Democrats are defending more Senate seats (20) than Republicans (11) in the November 2024 congressional elections.
A small number of competitive elections (for 26 out of a total of 435 seats) will decide control over the House of Representatives in the November 2024 congressional elections.

The analysis featured in this article can be found in EIU’s Country Analysis service. This integrated solution provides unmatched global insights covering the political and economic outlook for nearly 200 countries, enabling organisations to identify prospective opportunities and potential risks.