The systemic bias Kamala Harris must overcome in order to win
The electoral college, not the popular vote, decides who becomes president
It is a common cliché in films: a character flicks through TV channels, seeing the same news story again and again. Pennsylvanians may feel as if their TV sets are mimicking the movies. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are pouring money into the state. The two campaigns have splurged $189m on advertising there since March, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, compared with $105m Michigan, the second-highest spend. The people of Pennsylvania can blame the bombardment on the electoral college, which means that the leader of 330m Americans is chosen by a few thousand voters in swing states.
Explore more
Kamala Harris makes Donald Trump look out of his depth
The presidential debate was a success for the vice-president
Astrologers are predicting the result of America’s election
Spreading their forecasts through social media can be lucrative—and divisive
How Boston became the safest big city in America
Murder is declining across the country, but Boston has led the way
Checks and Balance newsletter: The enduring game of political ads in America
Lessons from Pennsylvania
Why Kamala Harris has the advantage in debating Donald Trump
She’s better at it
Where is Kamala Harris’s convention bounce?
And what its absence means for election forecasting