| Enjoying this newsletter? Get it in your inbox every weekend, as well as our daily round-up of The Economist’s best journalism, by signing up for free here. Hello from London, History doesn’t repeat itself. But could the election, a month from now, be a re-run of 2016? It’s not a mad idea. Donald Trump looks more likely than not to lose the popular vote. Despite that, a viable path exists for him to get enough electoral-college votes. And everyone knows that some crotchety voters, even today, doubt that a woman should be president and commander-in-chief. The election, in some ways, is a battle of the sexes. Gender plays a role in the election. Kamala Harris is taking care not to talk up the historic nature of electing the first female president. For as many people who are inspired by that, some are put off. On the plus side for Democrats, women tend to vote at a higher rate than men (and are likelier to back their party). That might explain why Mr Trump, in turn, is working to get more men to the polls. Older ones, especially, are more likely to back him. Our article on the ways that gender plays out among the electorate makes for fascinating reading. Much coverage of politics, inevitably, is on polls and prospects for the candidates. We launch the congressional part of our election-forecast model in the next few days, to go with the existing presidential one. This matters. If one party gets control of the House and the Senate as well as the White House, the next few ye... |
