The assassination attempt against Donald Trump at his July 6 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania resulted in support from prominent Democrats and Republicans. But since the shooting, polls have reported both that Biden gained and Trump gained in the polls following the shooting.
In reality, the shooting has not led to a change in national polls.
Morning Consult polls saw no change from the weeks before the shooting to the ones after:
| Dates of Survey | Biden Poll | Trump Poll | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 30 – July 2 | 42% | 44% | Trump +2 |
| July 3 – 5 | 43% | 44% | Trump +1 |
| July 6 – 8 | 42% | 44% | Trump +2 |
| July 12 – 14 | 42% | 44% | Trump +2 |
National polls have changed so little, because so few voters changed their minds based on the assassination attempt. A CBS/YouGov poll found that 67% of registered voters’ choice of candidate was unaffected by Trump’s handling of his assassination attempt. Only 26% of voters were more likely to consider Trump as a candidate because of how he handled his assassination attempt.
Polls in the swing states show similar trends.
Trump Polls Vary in Closest Swing States
Before the Pennsylvania shooting, Trump led Biden in most of the swing states. (Some polls show Biden leading by one to three points in Wisconsin, but Emerson College polls show Trump ahead by three to four points.)
Emerson College conducted surveys in each swing state from June 30 to July 2 and after the shooting from July 15 to 16. In each survey, Emerson College recorded responses from 1,000 registered voters. Each of the changes were within the margin of error:
| State | Biden Pre/Post-Shooting | Trump Pre/Post-Shooting | Net Movement Post-Shooting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 42% / 40% | 46% / 47% | Trump +3 |
| Georgia | 42% / 41% | 47% / 47% | Trump +1 |
| Michigan | 44% / 42% | 45% / 45% | Trump +2 |
| Nevada | 41% / 41% | 47% / 46% | Trump -1 |
| Pennsylvania | 43% / 43% | 48% / 48% | No Change |
| Wisconsin | 44% / 43% | 47% / 48% | Trump +2 |
A poll’s reported margin for error is the estimated difference the sample from the whole population. The 1,000 people surveyed in Arizona could be different from the state overall, but Emerson College is confident that it’s within about 3% of the correct poll figures for the entire state.
Because the changes are within the margin of error, the poll movements are what would be expected from running the survey again.
Prediction Markets Didn’t Change, Either
There may have been speculation that Trump surviving a shooting would lead to an easier victory, but prediction markets didn’t change in response the shooting, either.
Polymarket’s price of Trump winning oscillated between 61 and 63 cents at the time of the shooting. Its price spiked from 60 cents to 68 cents on July 13, the Saturday before the Republican National Convention. The Republican Party uniting behind its former president did more to prices than the July 6 shooting. Polymarket’s peak may have been a sell-off where traders sold their contracts for guaranteed returns, but there was no “shooting bump” on the platform.
PredictIt also saw no change in Trump’s chances of winning. On the day after the shooting, his price held steady at 58 cents. The price of his victory peaked at 69 cents on the first night of the convention, but it fell as Kamala Harris became more likely to be – and then became – the Democratic presidential nominee.
Even before Harris entered the presidential race, Trump’s lead couldn’t be attributed to the assassination attempt alone. The perceptions of Biden’s mental acuity and Democratic calls to replace Biden on the 2024 presidential ticket boosted Trump’s chances. Third-party defections also impacted Trump and Biden’s chances.
Trump’s lead in state and national polls had been consistent leading up to Pennsylvania’s shooting. Post-shooting polls showed a continuation of a strong lead rather than a new boost. He actually fell by one point in Pennsylvania, the state where the shooting happened.
The shooting was an emotional moment for the country, but it wasn’t the kind of event that changed peoples’ minds about who to vote for.
Prediction markets may position themselves as more reliable than polls. Users of both instruments would’ve seen the same information and drawn the same conclusions, though.
