In his latest online column, NBC News’ Chuck Todd noted that the “fundamentals” in the 2024 presidential race continue to favor Donald Trump. A week earlier, New York magazine’s Jon Chait noted that, all things considered, Kamala Harris “ought to be losing.”

I think these assessments are correct, but more importantly, they got me thinking about the degree to which the public considers “fundamentals” when looking at the 2024 contest.

For those watching the White House race closely, there’s obviously an enormous amount of attention on the candidates, their priorities, their visions, their backgrounds and the pitches they’re making to the electorate. It’s tempting to think these are — or at least should be — the only things that matter: Voters are considering appeals from two profoundly different candidates offering two wildly different directions for the nation’s future.

But many political scientists will tell you there’s more to it than that.

For a moment, put aside what you know about Harris, Trump and what they bring to the table. Temporarily disregard the specific personalities and platforms. Forget about the latest ads, the debate performances and the day-to-day developments. Instead, consider the race from 30,000 feet.

What we see is an angry electorate, thoroughly dissatisfied with the status quo. CNN’s Harry Enten had a good piece on this earlier this month:

A minority of Americans have historically said that the country is heading in the right direction, but it’s usually not as bad as the current figures. Only about 28% of Americans believe the country is on the right track these days, according to the latest NBC News poll. That’s well below where things were when Joe Biden took office in 2021, when that percentage was well north of 40%. Indeed, 28% is not where a president’s party wants to be a month before the election — whether the incumbent is running or not. Since 1980, in elections won by the incumbent’s party, an average of 42% of Americans have said that the country was on the right track.

When we talk about “fundamentals,” this is what we’re getting at. In broad strokes, when Americans believe the economy is awful, crime rates are high, and the country is wildly off-track, they tend to vote against the White House’s incumbent party.

To be sure, the economy isn’t awful; crimes rates are down; and the country is not wildly off-track, but for the purposes of understanding what’s likely to happen in an election, impressions — to my great chagrin — offer greater insights than reality.

It’s why, on paper, Harris looks like such an underdog: She’s the vice president working alongside an unpopular incumbent in a year in which much of the electorate wants something very different from what they have.

Recommended

Maddowblog

A year later, Kamala Harris reenters the public conversation, facing an uncertain path

Steve Benen

News

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro announces re-election bid

Sydney Carruth

Joe Biden’s disapproval rating is much higher than his approval rating. When was the last time a political party won a national race when the incumbent president was this far underwater?

Never. Since the dawn of modern polling, it has literally never happened.

Taking this discussion about fundamentals one step further, the aforementioned Enten piece added, “Gallup listed 10 different metrics it looks at heading into an election, ranging from party identification to satisfaction with the economy to presidential approval. Eight of those 10 were deemed to be good for Trump. The other two were neutral. None of the 10 hinted in the direction of a Harris victory.”

So, why is the race so close? In part because Harris is running an excellent campaign with a compelling message, and in part because Trump is an erratic criminal, who has already failed once at being president, running on an unpopular and authoritarian platform.

Or put another way, the fundamentals might benefit the GOP ticket, but there are relevant variables that might yet keep Trump out of the White House.