Which is sort of odd, since the strategy that the GOP used to effectively wound Hillary was just mashing the same Benghazi button over and over and over again, which takes a kind of noxious messaging discipline that I'm almost nostalgic for.

Emhoff isn't running for President, though.  Besides, to some segments of Fox viewership, the idea of slapping around a woman is probably viewed as a net positive.  I don't think Baier will dwell overmuch on that, since he likes to present a persona of "serious journalist."  He's simply going to hammer her on the usual stuff:  "flip flopping" on fracking, failure at the border, causing inflation, etc. 

Polls are... whatever they are, margins of error, etc. But (ignoring Oregon) if this paints a realistic picture, it doesn't look good for Kamala at all.

National: Harris 48.6% / Trump 46.0% 

Wisconsin: Harris 48.1% / Trump 47.5%

Pennsylvania: Harris 48.1% / Trump 47.4%

North Carolina: Harris 47.6% / Trump 48.0%

Nevada: Harris 47.8% / Trump 47.0%

Michigan: Harris 47.7% / Trump 46.9%

Georgia: Harris 47.0% / Trump 48.7%

Arizona: Harris 46.8% / Trump 47.4%

Maine's second district seems to be too under-polled to consider statistically, with the pendulum swinging from Harris up by five points in mid-August to Trump up by seven in mid-September.  These are two different pollsters, but a swing of twelve points inside of a month seems more likely to be pollster methodology than an actual change in the electorate.

This does get at the biggest issue, which is that polling in the last two Presidential elections missed a lot of support for Trump, and so there are now a couple of different camps of how to properly weigh polling to account for that.  The most recent episode of the 538 Politics Podcast does a pretty good job of running through how those different methods work.

538 is, as Peter notes, a polling aggregate and analysis platform.  It was founded by Nate Silver and gained traction in affiliation with the New YorkTimes during the 2012 election. They’re now part of ABC News, and Silver has parted ways. They’re very up front about their methodology and their ranking of pollsters, and their podcast is a good wonky listen.

Note that the results I cited above were current as of the time of my post. They update several times a day and it’s an addictive thing.

It's cheap politics for low-information voters and I detest it.  The Clinton campaign wanted to face the worst candidate in the GOP field because they thought it'd be a slam dunk - meanwhile I'm voting for Cruz in the Illinois primary to keep him out.

My parents did, too.  They knew Trump was a walking diaper fire - until he won the nom and FOX told them different.  Infuriating.

I don't believe the polling is really factoring in new voters. And there appears to be a rather large number of them this cycle. Based on new registrations.  Most polls are focusing on those who voted in the 2022 and 2020 elections. So the margins may be far less tight than depicted. We shall see.

I don't think this year is 2016 or 2020. So I 'd say we're all in for a very different set of circumstances after.

One thing's for sure. After nearly a decade in the political spotlight voters know who/what Trump is. If they want four more years of that it isn't based on ignorance.