Let’s take stock two weeks before the big Election Day

Election Day is exactly two weeks from today. Voting is already underway. We’re coming down to the wire.

Kamala Harris is out campaigning with Liz Cheney, while Donald Trump serves up fries at McDonald’s and talks about Arnold Palmer’s … well, you’ve heard by now.

Meanwhile, supporters of both look for any tick in the polls, any shift of the needle, any clue that their candidate will be the next president of the United States.

That appears to be a waste of time.

Polling and horse-race coverage have taken a beating over the past two elections — pretty much ever since it looked like Hillary Clinton was a lock to beat Trump in 2016.

In the most recent episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast,” NBC News and MSNBC national political correspondent Steve Kornacki explained how there were “big state-specific” polling misses in both 2016 and 2020 and that is what is casting serious questions over this year’s polls.

But the smartest thing I read about polling this week — and in a really long time — came from New York Times chief political analyst Nate Cohn, who wrote on Monday that the race is too tight to draw any conclusions. So don’t.

Cohn writes, “In North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan, neither candidate even ‘leads’ by more than two-tenths of a percentage point. Neither can realistically win the presidency without winning at least one of these states. With the polls so tight, the term ‘leads’ really does need to be in quotation marks. Yes, the difference between ‘leading’ or ‘trailing’ by 0.2 points might feel very significant. After all, it looks like the difference between whether a candidate is winning or losing. The election, however, is not decided by the polls; it’s decided by the voters. As a consequence, a lead or deficit of 0.2 points in a polling average is not the difference between whether a candidate is winning or losing, even though it may feel like it.”

Here’s the part that really stood out to me. Cohn writes, “The polls simply are not precise enough for a 0.2-point edge to convey any meaningful information. For all purposes, the race is tied; don’t feel any sorrow or take any solace in whether your candidate is on the right or wrong side of that 0.2-point gap.”

In the end, maybe polling has gotten better or maybe it hasn’t.

But you would hope that what we take from polls has become smarter and more grounded. Cohn’s remarks give us some optimism that is true.

A NOTE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Don’t miss the 71st Scripps Howard Journalism Awards!

The winners are in! Celebrate the best in American journalism during the 71st Scripps Howard Journalism Awards. From groundbreaking investigative work to cutting-edge storytelling, the awards spotlight the news organizations and journalists who go the extra mile to uncover the truth and drive change. With $170,000 in prize money, the Scripps Howard Journalism Awards honor high-impact journalism across television, newspapers, podcasts and more. Don’t miss this showcase of excellence and impact!

Watch now.

There he goes again

One of the most viral moments in a presidential debate (although he didn’t know what “viral moment” meant at the time) came when Ronald Reagan said to President Jimmy Carter in 1980, “There you go again.”

That actually became a line Reagan used more than once to throw off his opponents. It also helped impressionists do a good imitation of Reagan.

I bring that up now because that’s what someone could say to Donald Trump quite often: “There you go again.”

For instance, Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” aired Trump at a barbershop on Monday repeating the same debunked line about kids getting sex changes at schools without parental permission.

In answering a question in the Bronx about the “failing school system,” Trump eventually got around to one of his favorite talking points: “No transgender, no operations. You know they take your kid. There are some places your boy leaves the school, comes back a girl. OK. Without parental consent. What is that all about? That’s like. That’s — when they talk about a threat to democracy. They’re a threat. Could you imagine without parental consent? At first, what I was told was actually happening, I said, you know, it’s an exaggeration. No. It happens!”

No, it doesn’t.

Fox News’ Lawrence Jones, who was hosting, didn’t bother to step in and question Trump.

This isn’t the first time Trump has said this.

At a Moms for Liberty conference in late August, Trump said, “The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”

Poynter’s PolitiFact rated that claim as “Pants on Fire.” PolitiFact’s Grace Abels wrote, “If a surgical procedure at school sounds far-fetched, that’s because it is. Schools generally do not provide students with medical care without parental consent, let alone offer surgery. Parents, guardians and doctors, not schools, are the decision makers for health decisions involving minors.”

CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale wrote at the time, “Trump’s claim is false. There is no evidence that US schools have sent children into gender-affirming surgeries without their parents knowing or performed gender-affirming surgeries on site; Trump’s own presidential campaign could not provide a single example of this ever happening. Even in states where gender-affirming surgery is legal for people under age 18, parental consent is required before a minor can undergo such a procedure.”

A double standard

Many folks are still shaking their heads over Donald Trump’s comments about Arnold Palmer over the weekend at a rally in the late golfer’s hometown of Latrobe, Pennsylvania. In case you missed it, Trump said, “Arnold Palmer was all man. And I say that in all due respect to women, and I love women. But this guy, this guy, this is a guy that was all man. This man was strong and tough. And I refused to say it, but when he took showers with the other pros, they came out of there, they said, ‘Oh my God, that’s unbelievable.’ I had to say it.”

On air Monday, CNN national politics correspondent Eva McKend said, “There is a real double standard at work that I think is worth amplifying. If the vice president got on stage for two hours and was waxing poetic about a sports star's genitalia, people would not characterize her as a credible candidate for president.”

McKend noted that this a strategy of Trump, who she called more of an “entertainer” than a politician. However, Harris is using this kind of stuff as “fuel for her argument to voters that he is, at his core, unserious.”

Kicking and screaming

This is interesting. New York Times conservative columnist Bret Stephens says he’ll do it while “kicking and screaming,” but he’s voting for Kamala Harris.

In “The Conversation” column opinion piece with the Times’ Gail Collins, Stephens says, “It’s a 99.999 percent vote against Trump and a 0.001 percent vote for Harris.”

Stephens said he would have voted for Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Doug Burgum and probably even Tim Scott if they were running against Harris. But it’s Trump.

Stephens said, “I’d rather take my chances with a president whose competence I doubt and whose policies I dislike than one whose character I detest.”

Olivia Nuzzi and New York Magazine part ways

New York magazine star reporter Olivia Nuzzi was recently caught up in a scandal when she was placed on leave while the publication investigated a personal relationship she had with a subject she reported on — former presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr.

The two apparently had an intimate, although not physical relationship.

New York magazine put out a statement on Monday saying an independent investigation found “no inaccuracies nor evidence of bias” in Nuzzi’s work, but that Nuzzi would no longer be working at the magazine.

The statement said in full, “Last month, the magazine enlisted the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine to review Olivia Nuzzi’s work during the 2024 campaign. They reached the same conclusion as the magazine’s initial internal review of her published work, finding no inaccuracies nor evidence of bias. Nevertheless, the magazine and Nuzzi agreed that the best course forward is to part ways. Nuzzi is a uniquely talented writer and we have been proud to publish her work over her nearly eight years as our Washington Correspondent. We wish her the best.”

Even if the investigation found Nuzzi’s work had not been compromised, the appearance of impropriety and the ensuing scandal — which includes allegations made by her ex-fiance, Politico reporter Ryan Lizza, about Nuzzi and Kennedy’s relationship — probably made it wise for both Nuzzi and the magazine to part ways.

The Washington Post’s Elahe Izadi and Maura Judkis noted, “​​On Oct. 1, Nuzzi was granted a protective order against Lizza, alleging that he had blackmailed and harassed her, including threatening her with violence. Lizza has since taken a leave of absence while Politico conducts its own investigation of his behavior. He recused himself from coverage of Kennedy.”

Nuzzi’s attorney said in a statement, “Ms. Nuzzi is gratified though not surprised that two different investigations have determined that her reporting on the 2024 campaign was sound and that she did nothing wrong. For nearly eight years, she consistently produced critically celebrated and hugely popular journalism in her capacity as the Washington Correspondent for New York Magazine. She is grateful for the editors, fact checkers, and artists with whom she worked and to the readers who have supported her with their time, subscriptions, and engagement. She looks forward to the next chapter of her career.”

Disney’s next CEO

Disney is expected to name a successor to CEO Bob Iger in early 2026, the company announced Monday. Meanwhile, James Gorman will replace Mark Parker as the company’s next chairman, effective in January. Gorman, executive chair of Morgan Stanley, has been on Disney’s board since February. In August, he was put in charge of overseeing the succession plan for Iger’s replacement.

CNBC’s Alex Sherman reported, “Disney had initially targeted 2025 to announce a successor, as CNBC reported last year. Pushing the date back to early 2026 will give the board more time to conduct due diligence on both internal and external candidates, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private.”

Iger, 73, was the longtime Disney boss before retiring in 2020. But he came out of retirement in 2022 after his hand-picked successor, Bob Chapek, was fired.

The New York Times’ Brooks Barnes wrote, “Mr. Iger has publicly said he is ‘definitely’ leaving when his contract expires on Dec. 31, 2026, a vow some people inside and outside of Disney have viewed with skepticism. During his earlier, 15-year stint as Disney’s chief executive, Mr. Iger delayed his retirement four times and seemed reluctant to leave when he did.”

Who replaces Iger is anybody’s guess, but the four names that come up most often are ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro, Disney Experiences Chairman Josh D’Amaro, and Disney Entertainment Co-Chairmen Dana Walden and Alan Bergman.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

Elevate your newsroom, accelerate your career

Designed to reinvigorate the often-unsung heroes of the TV newsroom, Peak Producing, a seminar for TV producers, will empower journalists with the practical and tactical skills to create compelling, engaging and informative newscasts, programs, and content while managing the complexities of local journalism.

Read more and apply now.

Media tidbits

• New York magazine and media writer Charlotte Klein with a really impressive issue that focuses on the 57 most powerful people in media: “Can the Media Survive?” (The print version, including some awesome photos of the 57 media types, is superb.)
• CNN’s Brian Fung with “How Republicans pushed social media companies to stop fighting election misinformation.”
• Recent interviews conducted by CBS News’ Tony Dokoupil (of Ta-Nehisi Coates) and Fox News’ Bret Baier (of Kamala Harris) have stirred up plenty of conversation and controversy. My Poynter colleague, Kelly McBride, weighs in with a really insightful column on how journalists should ask hard and fair questions, but notes that both were case studies on how not to do tough interviews. Read McBride’s critiques and suggestions.
• Major League Baseball and Fox, which will televise the upcoming World Series, must be absolutely thrilled that the Fall Classic will feature the two most famous teams in baseball from the two biggest markets as the New York Yankees take on the Los Angeles Dodgers. And not only does that series have regional interest, but it will have a massive national following. Depending on how the series plays out, this could be the most-watched World Series in years. Although Front Office Sports’ Eric Fisher points out, “There is a low base for the event, as last year’s meeting between the Rangers and Diamondbacks set a record for the least-watched World Series, with an average of 9.1 million.” The series starts Friday in Los Angeles.

Hot type

• Major sports project from The Washington Post’s Albert Samaha, Emily Giambalvo, Jesse Dougherty and Artur Galocha about college sports’ new rules to pay athletes: “The hidden NIL economy of college sports.”

More resources for journalists

• It’s time to apply for the Leadership Academy for Women in Media.
• Peak Producing: Elevate Your Newsroom, Accelerate Your Career,
• Manage big responsibilities without direct reports? Try Lead With Influence.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].