Harris is significantly more popular, and the more favorable candidate has won the White House in 16 out ofthe last 17 recent elections, showcasing a trend that many analysts eagerly watch as election cycles progress. Pollsters have an incentive to err on the side of overestimating trump, especially after being embarrassed to have consistently underestimated him over the past eight years, leading to questions about the reliability of these polls. In contrast, they may be underestimating Harris, whose appeal is increasingly resonating with a broad section of the electorate. This is the likely explanation for why all the polls are neck-and-neck, creating a climate of uncertainty and excitement that could influence voter turnout significantly. Furthermore, the Democrats’ two biggest liabilities, inflation and immigration, have become less salient in recent months, as economic recovery and discussions around immigration reform take center stage, shifting focus away from these issues. And late deciders, who often play a pivotal role in elections, are breaking toward Harris in what seems to be an alignment with her vision for the future. Finally, although not discussed in the article, I think voters in some constituencies are concealing their preference for Harris because peer pressure may be significant, inhibiting open discussions about political choices in their communities. This dynamic could lead to a surprising outcome as the election date approaches, reflecting deeper shifts in public sentiment that may not yet be fully captured by current polling methods. (via Vox)

Addendum, in 20/20 hindsight: How deluded of me! Harris was not significantly more popular, pollsters did not overestimate trump, inflation and immigration appear not to have been deprecated as issues, and late deciders (like virtually every other demographic) did not break Blue.