“If the election were held today” is how questions for polls are framed. It’s used to get a snapshot of where things are now. There is sleight of hand involved to then use the results to project what will happen later.  The chasm in between makes a huge difference. 

Let’s first differentiate between two kinds of polls.  There are those done mostly for media purposes. Some are done by news outlets themselves, while others are done by groups who wish to generate news coverage. Some of the latter are by supporters of a candidate, often laundered through “independent, nonpartisan” organizations.  Others are from interest groups that want to influence a particular issue by injecting it into a campaign.  

These are usually the cheapest to perform, and are thus often shallow or superficial to the point that they should be ignored.  Instead, they are amplified as was the intent of their design, to reinforce today’s snapshot as the foundation for what the sponsors wish the future to be.

Other polls, often commissioned by candidates or some of those same interest organizations for internal use, are much more complex and dive into subject matters more deeply.  They cost several times more to produce than the others, because the data actually matters.  While those who construct and conduct them fully understand the fleeting nature of asking how someone feels today, they also understand the purpose is to figure out what they must do to get the results they need much later.

This isn’t about whether or not you can or should believe polls. It’s about understanding what they are and are not.  

Polls when properly constructed and executed remain fairly accurate in representing where things stand with public opinion on an issue or candidate on the day the questions are asked.  The problem comes when we try to either assume that opinions are locked in stone, that others aren’t actively trying to change those opinions, or that someone will motivate or de-motivate some respondents.  That’s before we consider that most people forget that in any statistical sample there is a “margin for error” which often can totally change the results if pushed to the extreme.

Let’s ignore the math and just focus on the concept and construct. Polls do not predict the future. They only tell you where things stand right now.

One of the most profound examples of this was the re-election campaign of President George H. W. Bush. In the spring the prior year, he had an 89% approval rating. Bill Clinton was fighting just to remain relevant while mired in multiple scandals. Even in the following June, Bush still led Clinton by 5 points.  

Voters are fickle. More importantly, they vote with self-interest – in private. Too many candidates and campaigns forget that while many recite the approved party lines and clap on command, what actually happens when it is time to make a decision in private can be a very different thing. Just ask a lot of skilled union members.

So now we approach the midterms, and the polls aren’t looking great for many Republicans. Many from the MAGA wing are still celebrating their achievements from 2024’s election, as if it were a permanent victory. Many voters are looking at promises that not only said that the rate of inflation would decrease, but that actual prices would come down. 

The voters were angry in 2024. Inflation was too high. Our borders weren’t just open, but the Administration was flying immigrants in as asylum seekers by the tens of thousands. Americans who had just endured forced lockdowns and closed schools suddenly saw a new class of non-citizens at the front of the line for essential services.  

President Trump’s initial approval ratings were higher than his first term. But as illustrated in the example above, that was a snapshot in time. 

Some Republican candidates chose to make their primaries about fealty to the President. They’re having a hard time now, as circumstances have changed. 

Others, while not distancing themselves from the President, charted their own path and message. They were better suited for this stage of the cycle. 

Chief among them here at home is Rick Jackson. While a self-made billionaire who has tailored his narrative as an outsider to mirror President Trump, he wasn’t the President’s endorsed candidate in the GOP primary.  He’s thus had a wider birth to position where voters’ minds will be next month, as opposed to where they were a year ago.

Which brings us to a brief post on Twitter/X, from Washington pundit and UGA Alum Mary Katherine Ham. Sharing the campaigns most recent ad, she noted “Rick Jackson’s is the only campaign that has figured out how to effectively remind people how 2020 felt and that Dem leadership from that time will take you back there (because) they have never reckoned with mistakes. “Woke 1 was crazy” doesn’t answer this critique.”

The decision on who will lead Georgia will be made based on how voters feel between October 13^th, the beginning of early voting, and November 3^rd.  The next month will be a battle between current grocery and gas prices versus memories of Covid shutdowns, protests, and unchecked lawlessness.  Georgians will choose their future based on which days they remember the least fondly or more profoundly.