Washington Post polling finds presidential election deadlocked.

What should we expect going forward?

The Washington Post used its polling average model to check the status of the presidential race in seven swing states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada. It found that Harris leads in the first two states; that the candidates are tied in the third (Michigan); and that Trump leads in the remaining four. But in none of these states did either candidate have a lead larger than the margin of error.

If I have the math right, divvying up the states based on these results means the outcome of the election depends on which way Michigan goes. However, the Post’s model gives Harris an edge. It contends that Harris, having put Sunbelt states in play, now has two paths to victory and Trump only one. Harris, it says, can win the race by carrying either the Sunbelt swing states or the industrial swing states. Trump needs to carry both.

But the Post doesn’t provide what I think is a potentially significant caveat: Trump typically outperforms his poll numbers.

The Post reminds its readers that the election is two-and-a-half months away. We’ve seen this summer that just two weeks can alter the course of a race. Given the closeness of this contest, two-and-half months certainly can put one or the other candidate in the driver’s seat.

To be sure, we’re unlikely to see another candidate withdraw from the race (as much as I wish both would). Nor, I pray, will we see another assassination attempt. However, we might see external events that change the race. War, for example.

And there are at least three events within the horse race contest that could shake things up. The first starts today in Chicago.

“Convention bounces” aren’t what they used to be. However, it’s plausible to think the Democrats will get some bounce from their convention.

In saying this, I’m assuming that the Dems won’t experience a repeat of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, when leftist protests and the police response created a spectacle that gave the Republicans a big bounce. I assume no repeat for three reasons.

First, I believe this year’s protesters are basically just going through the motions. They feel obliged to protest, but they don’t want to harm the Democrats. Second, even if the protests become serious, the Chicago police force is likely to handle them in a way that minimizes the damage to Democrats. Third, even if things get out of hand, the mainstream media is unlikely to televise the spectacle.

So I do expect the Democrats to get a “bounce” from their convention. However, such bounces often dissolve as the election draws close.

The second main event is the Trump-Harris debate, if it comes off. (I don’t include the Vance-Walz debate because vice presidential candidate square-offs rarely move the needle.)

For what it’s worth, based on Harris’ performance against Mike Pence and Trump’s performances against Joe Biden, I give Harris the edge. Why? Because she has what Trump sorely lacks — discipline.

It’s true that when unscripted, Harris sounds like a dope. But I expect she will be scripted to the hilt at the debate and that she will stick to her script.

Normally, it’s very hard to script a lengthy debate because surprises are bound to occur. But debating Trump is a different proposition. Most of what he says is likely to come straight from his rallies and/or from his debate with Biden. It will be easy for Harris’ handlers to prepare her responses. To the extent that Trump says anything surprising, it will likely be off-the-wall and/or off-putting.

It’s possible that one or both of the moderators will ask Harris non-softball questions for which she has no prepared answer. If so, this might produce a few bad moments for Harris. But I suspect that the overall impression from the debate — and certainly the line the media will peddle — is that Harris gave a polished and mature performance, while Trump spouted tired and false assertions obnoxiously.

Unlike a convention bounce, a debate bounce — if there is one either way — is very likely to linger.

The third event that I hope we’ll see is a pro-Trump ad blitz. There should have been one already, but as far as I can tell, it hasn’t happened.

Anti-Harris ads offer Trump’s supporters the opportunity to present a disciplined and focused message — the kind Trump himself struggles to provide. And given Harris’ record, the ads almost write themselves.

In my view, the ad blitz should focus on only two areas. First, they should focus on the failures of the Biden administration with regard to the economy and immigration. Immigration is a particularly rich area given Harris’ role as “border czar.”

Second, they should focus on Harris’ past radical positions, of which there are plenty. Immigration (again), crime, energy policy (fracking), and health insurance are probably the most fruitful examples.

Ideally ads pointing to these positions can be used to show both Harris’ radicalism and her flip-flops. Either showing might be enough to bring her down a peg or two.

I would advise (again, for what it’s worth) that the ad blitz steer away from the radical positions Harris is pushing now — price controls, tax credits, etc. Conservatives understand the folly of these proposals. So do mainstream economists.

However, it’s unlikely that the voters to whom these ideas are targeted understand the problems. Indeed, I assume that each idea has been tested in polls and focus groups and been found appealing.

It’s better to call out the radical views Harris presented when she was pitching herself to hardcore Democrats than to stress the ones she’s presenting now that she’s pitching herself to swing voters in swing states.

I’ll abstain from trying to predict the outcome of this race. Instead, I’ll paraphrase Margo Channing, the Bette Davis character in All About Eve: Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.