Polling and the Weather Forecast: A Lesson in Uncertainty

Polling is like the weather forecast: it offers a range of outcomes. It may seem unlikely to rain where you are, but it’s still possible, just as somewhere nearby could stay completely dry. Polling models work the same way, providing a range of possibilities, with the most likely outcome somewhere in the middle. However, journalists often don’t report or explain this range, and some polling companies don’t fully address it either.

When the herd (the electorate) moves, it usually moves together—yet occasionally, it splinters, adding layers of uncertainty. This unpredictability is what allows people to sometimes defy the odds and come out on top. The margin of error means the actual result could land on either side of the median outcome or even on the outer edges of what’s possible. Think of it as science fiction: in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, when travelling across space, you might theoretically turn into an apple. Highly unlikely, but technically possible!

What Do the Current US Election Models Tell Us?

So, how does this translate to the current U.S. election landscape?

The current model from FiveThirtyEight has Harris at 268 electoral votes and Trump at 270. Just a few days ago, it was the other way around. It’s a remarkably close race, one we haven’t seen for decades. In practice, this means the herd is taking different paths, with some states following separate trajectories from others. Why? This could be due to local issues or unique demographics at play, which are often difficult to model accurately.

Certain demographic and local factors influence swing states differently, adding complexity to polling models. For example, Arizona’s growing Latino voter base leans conservative in some areas, potentially benefiting Trump. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s situation is unique, with its declining manufacturing jobs and large Arab population possibly making it more competitive. In other states, recent events or changing demographics play a big role; a hurricane’s impact on voters or a high Black population could sway support towards Harris, especially given her profile as a Black female candidate. Each of these factors highlights why swing states can defy broader polling expectations and swing differently depending on local issues.

The Swing State Landscape and Possible Outcomes

Based on current numbers, swing states could align—or they might diverge entirely. Swing voters typically follow similar trends, but today’s models suggest they’re all over the place. The final result could be a landslide, a narrow victory, or a razor-thin margin. The most unlikely outcome is a tie, which would be decided by Congress. The only time this happened was in 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

In practical terms, we could see anything between 320 and 270 electoral votes for either side, making predictions a toss-up due to how close it is. And despite the possible range of outcomes, most commentary doesn’t explore these diverse possibilities in-depth, though they should.

Swing states, which often switch between the two main parties, are pivotal in deciding elections. These states can shift as demographics evolve—much like music tastes changing over time. Currently, there are seven key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nevada. Pennsylvania holds the biggest prize in terms of electoral college votes, which is why it’s often rated the most crucial.

At the moment, Harris has more paths to the White House than Trump. In fact, nine out of twenty-one possible routes for Harris don’t require Pennsylvania, whereas only five out of twenty-one for Trump don’t need Pennsylvania. Care to guess the tipping point state?

Current polls suggest a 51-56% chance of Trump winning and a 49-45% chance for Harris. This modelling assumes only seven states are in play. I’d say Harris has the advantage based on the seven swing states, yet betting on either side winning is difficult due to the close margins. The only thing we know for certain is that results may not be known for days if trends follow recent averages. The final outcome will either take one candidate to the White House or the jailhouse—but we’re likely heading to the courtroom first.

In a race this close, every voice truly counts. So, whatever the forecast, cast your vote—because, in the end, even a small shift in the herd can tip the balance.

America and British politics what the differences?

American politics feels rather alien to me, with extreme levels of partisanship. Cooperation is dying, replaced by a desire to vote only along party lines. Why is that? I’ll come back to that later. The total control of two parties over the political system makes it nearly impossible for anyone else to break in. Political appointments cover every level of the executive, including the courts. The Supreme Court now has a Christian conservative supermajority, and courts overall lean conservative, shaping the justice system in profound ways. Not only that, but the parties also control the writing of election rules and, by design, make it difficult for anyone outside the two main parties to get on the ballot. This level of control lets them game the system in their favour, using gerrymandering to manipulate district boundaries. It’s all about packing voters who don’t support you into one district while splitting others to maximise your own chances. Urban and city areas, which should have more representation due to larger populations, are ignored. As a result, more attention is given to the small minority who could deselect you rather than the loyal base who will vote for you anyway.

Given the size of America, the amount of money spent on election cycles is staggering. Both Harris and Trump combined are projected to spend somewhere around $15.9 billion. Then there’s the religious influence, which holds considerable power in what’s supposed to be a secular country. Christian conservatives on the Supreme Court are pushing their ideological views, particularly on issues like abortion. Christian nationalism has gone mainstream on the right side of American politics. Some are pushing to change that, linking the church to the state and dismantling the secular order. Briefly, these are some of the things that make the system feel strange and distant to me.

Compared to British politics, while the two main parties hold sway, it’s not total control. The number of voters with strong partisan views is declining rapidly. Cooperation still exists, even in a winner-takes-all system, and people don’t always vote along party lines. Other parties have a real shot—currently, the UK has four major political parties. The last election saw a range of parties perform well across the country. There are far fewer barriers stopping new parties or individuals from standing. In the last hundred years, we’ve gone from two major parties to three, then four, and arguably five if you count certain regional parties. You could even say we have five and a half major players now. These include the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Reform, and the Greens, plus regional parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The last two are nationalist parties with significant regional influence. After the 2024 election, independent candidates have risen due to the cynicism embedded in politics. While smaller parties still struggle with funding, local campaigns have been successful.

The newest party on the block runs in as many constituencies as possible to maximise funding and target winnable seats. Speaking of funding, the UK has strict limits—you can only spend around £34 million ($44 million). Political appointments are often cross-party, and the courts maintain their independence. Privately educated individuals do make up the majority in certain professions like the courts or media. Certain areas remain separate from the executive altogether. When it comes to writing the rules for elections, parties actually talk to each other and reach an agreement. And on that note, electoral boundaries are out of politicians’ hands, managed by independent bodies. Boundaries are based on population size and are equalised across the board.

We Brits have a sense of fair play, though I’ll admit there have been recent attempts to undermine that, with tactics like voter ID. Voters will remember rule-breaking and breaching that spirit of fair play. As for religious influence, the only real presence left is in the House of Lords, and even that’s weakening. Some on the right have tried to push a Christian viewpoint, but that largely goes against public opinion. The UK is largely secular these days, with the number of people identifying with religion in steady decline. Bishops in the Lords act as a moral voice, but in practice, they don’t have enough votes to swing decisions.

We may share the same language (sort of), but the differences in how we approach politics even show in how we run elections. In the US, elections seem like an unending cycle. Campaigning starts years in advance, dominating political life. Debates, attack ads, constant rallies, and endless streams of fundraising—it’s like a political marathon that never ends. In contrast, here in the UK, elections are much more condensed and far less consuming. Campaigns last about six weeks from the moment Parliament is dissolved to election day. None of this dragging it out for two years or more. It’s a sprint, not a marathon, and frankly, I think most of us prefer it that way.

And then there’s how we count votes. In the US, it’s like a patchwork quilt—some states use electronic voting, others rely on paper ballots, and each state seems to have its own rules on how and when to count them. Here, it’s much simpler. Everyone follows the same rules: paper ballots, counted on the night, with results typically announced by the next morning. None of this drawn-out waiting, recounts, or legal battles that drag on for weeks. We’ve streamlined it to the point that the system, while not flawless, works efficiently. Results are declared on the night, with no provisional votes hanging over our heads for days.

There’s even a sense of theatre when it comes to declaring results. Unlike in the US, where numbers trickle in and results are announced gradually, here, all the candidates stand together on stage as the result is read out. It makes for some pretty unforgettable moments in British political history—triumph and defeat all wrapped up in a single scene. You’d be hard-pressed to find an American election night with quite that much drama in one room.

I know one American friend will be reading this and spilling their coffee! But honestly, the differences are staggering. Small, minor differences add up pretty quickly to a completely different climate. That leaves us with two final differences: first, the timing of elections in the UK is in the hands of the prime minister, compared to the US presidential election being locked in place and unable to be changed. The final point is how centralised the UK system is—local government is far weaker compared to America. They lack the ability to raise revenue and so many other powers. In America, even cities can borrow money and raise taxes. After decades of weak local government, this is slowly starting to change in the UK.

So why did I write this blog? Well, I wanted to expand on a conversation I had with a friend and reflect on the nuanced differences between both systems. Often, these differences are missing in American and British media analysis. It comes from a point of view that ignores the contrasts, trying to make the systems mirror images of one another. That’s what I would consider lazy journalism and uninformed. Like in America, it’s still a rich man’s game in politics, but we’re just less flashy with the cash.

US Presidential Election 2024

The US presidential election is only 17 days away. Polls show the race is neck and neck, but it could go either way within the margin of error. It’s shaping up to be one of the closest elections in history, with just seven swing states — the lowest number in recent memory — determining the outcome.

Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

AZ, GA, and NC lean towards Republicans, while MN, NV, PA, and WI lean towards Democrats.

America is deeply polarised between the two major parties, which hold an unbreakable majority. The result has been a dysfunctional executive, with Congress deadlocked and unable to fulfil its role. Other parts of the executive branch have become increasingly important.

Why is the race so close?

The aftereffects of the COVID pandemic have made Biden unpopular. The economic impact has resulted in higher inflation due to pent-up demand, and the Federal Reserve’s response has been to raise interest rates in an effort to curb inflation. Money given to people during the pandemic helped boost demand, further driving inflation. The economy was booming, with employment near record highs, when these factors began to take effect.

Biden has become unpopular due to the rise in inflation and interest rates, both of which are being blamed on him. Harris, as his vice president, is also being held accountable. She is positioning herself as the candidate for change, and with good reason. Trump, on the other hand, is benefiting from voters’ frustration and anger. However, he faces challenges regarding his age, his felony charges, and his continued claims that the 2020 election was stolen. His behaviour and mental capacity are causing him difficulties when compared to a much younger Harris.

In the background, demographic changes across various states are having an impact. People are moving to red states and turning them blue, and the opposite is happening elsewhere. Certain ethnic groups of voters have shifted their voting patterns. These small changes in polarised American politics are enough to create significant waves. It’s worth briefly noting that polarised politics means less crossover voting, which causes huge problems for control of the Senate and Congress, especially when combined with gerrymandering to favour one party. Who controls the executive at state levels has become hugely significant. The result is that American politics has become deeply dysfunctional, and major problems remain unsolved. As it stands right now, the race is too close to call.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. So far, Europe and the rest of the world are not preparing, instead choosing to ignore the situation. A few of Trump’s comments should be raising alarm bells, particularly his unwillingness to commit to defending NATO countries — a serious concern. European security is at genuine risk, and that’s just the beginning of the problems. His comments about starting a trade war with Europe should be ringing alarm bells as well. Everything he’s been saying should be cause for concern. Not just concern but making him unfit to be president.

The world waits for the outcome of the November election, and the result will be historic: the first female Black president or a felon entering the White House.

Israel and Palestine Conflict Revisited: One Year After October 7th

The Israel and Palestine conflict rages on without a solution. The war against Hamas, in response to the October 7th attacks, has devastated Gaza, while violence in the West Bank remains underreported. The Palestinian people have suffered greatly, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Gaza is under a blockade, with 60% of its buildings destroyed or damaged. Core infrastructure, including water supplies, has been severely affected, further restricting essential services. The risk of famine in Gaza remains high. The situation in the West Bank, while less severe, is still alarming. Jewish settlers have been attacking defenseless villagers, sabotaging farms, engaging in harassment and violence, and attempting to displace people from their homes. This violence includes the murder of civilians and the demolition of homes with state approval. Despite these issues, global attention has largely focused on Gaza, leaving the West Bank’s struggles unnoticed.

The humanitarian impact breaks my heart. Hearing stories of people unable to feed themselves, lacking shelter, or of how people were injured is devastating. Children playing in the streets have been hit by sniper fire. Entire families have been wiped out by airstrikes. The reports are horrifying, and I’ve started to grow numb to them. Journalists and aid workers have been murdered for reporting on the war. The conflict remains largely closed off, with very few granted free access.

Gaza

The aim to destroy Hamas has failed, as Israel has leveled Gaza, yet Hamas remains. Its leadership has hidden within a vast tunnel network, making them moving targets that can’t easily be found. It’s a game of cat and mouse, with guerrilla warfare being waged against Israeli troops trying to clear the tunnels. It has been clear for some time that hostages are no longer the primary concern, and the threshold for acceptable civilian damage has shifted. Hostages are now leverage, not to be given away without something significant in return. A two-state solution seems impossible when everyone is moving the goalposts, and trust is at an all-time low. After so much blood has been spilled, no one is willing to make a deal.

The only bit of good news is that a regional war has been avoided so far. Hamas leadership hoped that, after October 7th, Hezbollah and other allies would launch a full-scale war against Israel, yet only minor escalations have occurred. Everyone seems to be responding in some way but avoiding an all-out war. The situation feels like a powder keg, with everyone lighting matches and setting off fireworks at each other. While the state of Israel is unlikely to be destroyed, it has become increasingly isolated on the global stage.

Hezbollah and the North

Attention has now shifted north toward Hezbollah, another Iranian-backed group in Lebanon. Unable to fully defeat Hamas, Israel has degraded them enough that its next focus appears to be Hezbollah. Rocket strikes into northern Israel have caused people to flee border areas. Despite Lebanon’s status as a failed state, Hezbollah is considered the strongest and most well-armed threat. Israel has targeted Hezbollah leadership by sabotaging their communication network and following up with airstrikes. The aim is to escalate in order to de-escalate, forcing Hezbollah into a deal. The goal seems to be dismantling Iran’s “axis of resistance” one group at a time. It’s unclear whether Iran itself will be the next target, possibly with Trump’s return to influence. Israel’s actions have left it isolated, as international opinion continues to turn against it.

Arab states have refused to work on normalizing relations until the war is over. European allies have strongly condemned Israel, and in some cases, voted to recognize the state of Palestine. Only the Americans have remained firmly on Israel’s side, though even they are questioning and growing frustrated. Some, including the British, have blocked arms exports to Israel. All sides are increasingly concerned about post-war plans, with ideas floated such as displacing people into the Egyptian desert.

Iran

Iran’s long-term goal is to reduce or remove American influence from the region. Over the last couple of decades, Iran has targeted American allies, and it also wants to destroy the state of Israel, which has aggressively pushed back. For now, Iran has kept its distance from the conflict. Both are powerful actors, but neither has the ability to destroy the other outright. They are trading blows using proxy forces under the united banner of the “axis of resistance.” However, the groups within this axis have different goals and ideas.

If tensions with Iran escalate further, we could see Israel and Iran engaging in more direct attacks. The risk of a war between the two sides looms, with the possibility of a single miscalculation setting off a conflict. It’s hard to predict what that would look like. A war would put the U.S. in a tricky position, especially since Trump has unfinished business with Iran. Trump, entangled in legal battles, has revealed Pentagon plans to attack Iran, and Iranian hackers have targeted his campaign as an act of vengeance for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, which Trump ordered.

When you consider the geopolitical complexities, the situation becomes even more tangled. Powers in the Middle East—America, Russia, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar—all have different views and goals. Arab states are divided on how to act, especially those allied with the U.S., who fear Iran’s growing influence.

The interconnected conflicts of the Middle East have added yet another chapter to this war. A year after October 7th, we have seen one deadly gamble after another. The conflict in Gaza has turned into a stalemate, while in the West Bank, Israel has the upper hand with settlers driving people out. Peace is a distant dream, and the Palestinian people are being forgotten. Now, as attention shifts toward Hezbollah, the biggest threat to Israel may lie within, as extremist settlers appear to have gained control of the nation’s future. This paints a bleak picture for both Israel and the Middle East, leaving me feeling uncomfortable and deeply sad.