Yikes, we are now well under a month to go until we learn whether former President Donald Trump or pro-abortion Vice President Kamala Harris will be our 47^th President. I’m going to take a slightly different tact today—I will look at seven data points—as I talk about what both sides see as one of the most consequential elections in our history.

First, one thing I haven’t emphasized enough is Harris’s inferior position relative to where fellow Democrats [Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden] were polling at this point in time the last two elections. Andrew Sullivan summarized it this way:

At this point in 2020, Joe Biden, with far fewer resources than Harris, was 10 points ahead of Trump, and finished around 8.4 points ahead in the polling. Biden won the actual election by 4.5 percent, almost half the margin the polls predicted. At this point in 2016, Hillary Clinton was 6 points ahead, finished 3.6 points ahead in the polls, and ended up 2.1 percent ahead in the popular vote.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Run the numbers on Harris and you can begin to realize why smart Democrats are browning their whites. Today, Harris has a lead of just 2.6 percent nationally —much  weaker than Clinton and Biden at this point. It’s the same in the swing states. [Chris] Cillizza notes that in Pennsylvania at this point, Biden was +7 and Harris is barely +1; in Michigan, Biden was + 8, and Harris is tied. If the polls underestimated Trump’s national support by 2.5 points in 2016 and by 4 points in 2020, and the skew continues, then we could well be looking at the first victory in the popular vote that Trump has ever won. More to the point, nothing is really shifting. If anything, there’s a slight drift back toward Trump right now.

#2. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is all in for Trump. He is concentrating on Pennsylvania. And understandable so, since whoever wins that state has an awfully good chance of being our next President.

To show you how nervous that makes The New York Times, it ran a story today [written collectively by four reporters, no less] under the headline “Musk Is Going All In to Elect Trump.”

Ironically, Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman, Ryan Mac, and Jonathan Swan  talk about how Musk as early as February “was speaking apocalyptically.” But get a load of their loaded—you might say apocalyptic—language.

Musk has “involved himself in the U.S. election in a manner unparalleled in modern history.”

In “private conversations,” Musk is “obsessive, almost manic, about the stakes of the election.”

“Mr. Musk has deemed this an all-hands-on-deck moment.”

“Mr. Musk’s frenzied engagement reflects his view of this moment in American history.”

You get the drift. Musk is a loose cannon [meaning he is not the Times’s preferred candidate] with billions in his coffers.

#3. There are seven major betting odds sites. Averaging them out, right now Trump’s chances of winning are at 53.9%, Harris is at 44.7%.

#4. Some pundits took shots (figurately) at Trump for “wasting precious time” by “flirting” with solidly Blue states. However, as  W. James Antle III reports for the Washington Examiner

[T]here are at least 10 competitive House races in California and New York. The path to the current razor- thin Republican House majority two years ago ran through these two blue states. Trump wants Republicans to retain control of the House. Not only would this help him govern if elected, but it is possible a Democratic majority in the House would try to impeach him as early as Inauguration Day.

#5. Democrats are plenty worried. CNN’s Stephen Collinson writes,

But Democratic concerns about Harris’ campaign are palpable. There is no clear leader in CNN’s average of recent national polls, swing state polling shows dead heats, and several surveys this week have suggested that the Democratic nominee’s vital Blue Wall in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania could be wobbling.

That’s why “basing her campaign on generational change” seems so odd when she pulls in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to gin up Democrat voters.

#6. Antle had another  particularly astute insight:

Another element that [Fox News’s Dave] Marcus and [journalist Salena] Zito noted should raise red flags for those who want Vice President Kamala Harris to win in November. Butler, like many of Trump’s rallies, was organic.

Marcus described how “Harris is always busing people in with matching T-shirts” to her events, There was a conspicuous lack of buses in Butler. Zito said that Harris’s rallies are “invite-only” — meaning there’s no way to gauge spontaneous support, or win over new supporters and convince undecideds.

#7.  Finally, Trump is making inroads into demographics hardly anyone would have predicted. Steve Kornacki of NBC tweeted this out this morning about NBC/CNBC/Telemundo poll of Latino voters:

Harris 54%

Trump 40%

How about pre-election polling of Latino voters in the 3 previous races?

2020: Biden +36; 2016: Clinton +50; 2012: Obama +39

Harris’s anemic 14-point advantage is a huge warning sign.

Steve Krakauer of The Hill wrote about Trump’s return to Butler, Pennsylvania, and noted that Marcus

has been on the trail for months, reporting and talking to voters. He saw in Butler many of the same things he’s seen for months. He wrote about the rise of the Gen Z Trump supporter — even more so than the millennial Trump supporter — and the large number of young people in the crowd on Saturday.

Krakauer added this:

Butler was about more than winning votes. It was about celebrating the survival of a literal near- death experience. It was a fist-pumping show of defiance. In that sense, Trump’s Butler revival could serve not only as   one of the most iconic moments of 2024, but also as the lasting memory of the MAGA movement as a whole.

Win or lose on Nov. 5, Trump and his supporters will always have Butler — the miracle they witnessed in July, and the brave return in October.

And, while the advantage is small, Trump leads in six of the seven battleground states.