Blog

Virginia and New Jersey Results Demonstrate Things Are Worse Than Imagined For Democrats

The stunning loss by former Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe to Republican Glenn Youngkin in Virginia, and the near-miss by Democratic governor Phil Murphy in New Jersey, demonstrate that the position of the Democratic Party is even worse than I imagined.

I expected McAuliffe to win and Murphy to win easily. In the end, McAuliffe lost narrowly and Murphy barely squeaked out a win over an obscure but talented Republican, Jack Ciattarelli.

Neither of these results change my long-held view on the 2022 midterms, which I have consistently said Republicans will win. But it does appear now that Democrats’ prospects are even worse than I initially expected.

At this time, I expect that any or all of the Democratic-held Senate seats in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and New Hampshire could flip to the Republicans. I have been saying this for a year and the results yesterday only solidify my views on this point. On the flip side, Democrats only have decent chances to win in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and will be lucky to flip either.

I can’t make any guesses about the number of House flips at this time because a number of states are still redistricting. The only thing I feel confident in saying right now is that I am close to 100% certain that Kevin McCarthy will be Speaker of the House in 2023.

I also fully expect Democrats to lose a number of governorships in 2022, and I think they are very vulnerable in Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Additionally, I would keep an eye on Colorado, Connecticut and Minnesota. The only state where I expect Democrats will be favored to flip a governorship is Maryland.

The picture looks bleak for Democrats at the moment, in part because of their inability to do much in the way of governing in Washington, D.C. due to internal squabbles between the party’s progressive and establishment wings. But here’s the bottom line: the president’s party almost always loses seats during midterm elections, with only three exceptions since 1865. The three exceptions all occurred when the sitting president was extremely popular: Franklin Roosevelt in 1934; Bill Clinton in 1998; and George W. Bush in 2002. It seems safe to say that Joe Biden will not be at or above 65% approval ratings a year from now, and history clearly indicates that his party will lose seats. The only question is whether it will be a trickle or a bloodbath, and right now, a bloodbath looks more likely.

COVID-19 Deaths Will Not Hurt GOP Electoral Chances

One of my occasional criticisms of Democrats who are active on Twitter is that they don’t know how to count. This is, of course, a figurative criticism, not a literal one. The point of my observation is that they often don’t grasp some of the basic nuances of electoral and legislative arithmetic.

For example: it doesn’t make sense to send money to a Democratic candidate challenging GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, because Democrats are so badly outnumbered in her northwest Georgia district that no amount of campaign contributions will flip it from blue to red. As such, any money spent there is wasted. It’s gone and can’t be spent in districts where Democrats actually have a chance to win.

The latest example of Twitter Democrats not being able to count is the ongoing stream of tweets expressing that COVID-19 will kill enough unvaccinated Republicans to impact the coming midterm elections.

There are a few things wrong with this line of thinking, not the least of which is the ghoulish glee at the prospect of mass deaths among vaccine holdouts helping Democrats to defeat Republicans in an election. I don’t like these stubborn, petulant and childish vaccine-deniers any more than anyone else, and as far as I’m concerned, if they get sick or die, it’s their own fault. However, actively applauding the prospect of their deaths because of the perceived electoral boost it would supposedly provide to Democrats is pretty sick and not a good look. You might keep that in mind.

Beyond that, there’s the fact that the numbers just don’t add up. One Twitter poster I follow recently re-posted a graphic from a New York Times article indicating that on average, the death rate from COVID is three times higher in heavily Trump-voting counties than it is in heavily Biden-voting counties. The person who re-posted the graphic expressed the thought that perhaps Democrats might win the midterm elections after all.

So let’s dig into the numbers a bit. The graphic indicated a widening gap between the deaths-per-100,000 residents in Trump counties and Biden counties that really began to grow in August and September of this year. As of September 23, approximately 1.25 people per 100,000 residents in Trump counties were dying per day, as compared to approximately 0.4 people per 100,000 residents in Biden counties.

After the 2021-22 redistricting cycle, the average number of residents per Congressional district, taking the current Census population of 331.4 million residents and dividing it by 435, will be about 762,000 residents in each district. There will be some variance, but that’s the average.

If 1.25 people per 100,000 are dying in Trump counties per day, and 0.4 people per 100,000 in Biden counties, and we extrapolate that to the average Congressional district, that means, roughly, 7.6 people in Trump counties and 3 people in Biden counties per day per district. With 411 days left between Sept. 23, 2001 and the Nov. 8, 2022 midterms, the average Congressional district could see (roughly) 3,124 people in red areas and 1,233 people in blue areas die of COVID prior to the vote.

Not all of these people are voters. If we assume that COVID deaths are largely among adults (which so far has been the case), only about half of them (at best) would be voters in a midterm election. That would mean Republicans in an average Congressional district might lose about 1,600 votes (at most) to COVID deaths, and Democrats would lose about 600 votes (at most) between now and the midterms. (But that’s only if we have midterm turnout close to the unusually high midterm voting rate in 2018. The numbers would be lower in an average midterm.)

In short, in an average Congressional district, Democrats might expect to gain, at most, a net of 1,000 votes due to COVID deaths. In the 2018 midterms, a Democratic net of 1,000 votes per district would have flipped exactly two U.S. House districts from red to blue: the 7th Congressional District of Georgia, which the Republicans held by 433 votes, and the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, which the Republicans held by 926 votes. Two districts. That’s it.

As to Senate races, a net gain of 1,000 votes per Congressional district in 2018 would have kept Democratic Senator Bill Nelson in office in Florida. Nelson lost by a little over 10,000 votes, and a net gain of 27,000 votes (1,000 in each of Florida’s 27 U.S. House districts) would have saved him from defeat.

In short, deaths among unvaccinated Republicans are not likely to make any substantial difference in the upcoming midterm elections, particularly in the House, where the average midterm loss for the president’s party since 1934 has been a little over 29 seats. In the Senate, the average loss for the president’s party during that timespan has been a little over four seats. Assuming average losses for the Democrats in 2022, minus the additional couple of House seats and perhaps a single Senate seat that might be affected by COVID deaths, Democrats would still lose both chambers handily. Republicans could expect, under these circumstances, to emerge from the 2022 midterms with a 240-195 majority in the House and a 53-47 edge in the Senate.

Bottom line: If you’re expecting COVID deaths among unvaccinated Republicans to crush their electoral prospects, you’re going to be in for a big surprise in November 2022.

Why Republicans Hate Democracy

I became a Democrat as a college student in the 1990s, largely for three reasons, one practical, the other two ideological.

1) At that time, I harbored ambitions of running for office, and my home county and Congressional district were solidly Democratic. That was the practical reason.

2) I was appalled by the childish, petulant Republican reaction to the election of President Bill Clinton, of whom I was a staunch supporter. Their constant grumbling and whining about losing an election, to me, indicated an unwillingness to accept the verdict of the voters.

3) The Republicans opposed what was known as the Motor-Voter Bill, which allowed drivers’ licensing branches across the country to register people to vote. The point of the bill, which Clinton signed into law in 1993, was to get more eligible citizens registered to vote. I remember asking myself at the time “Why don’t Republicans want more people to vote?” I quickly concluded that the answer was evident in the question itself.

Many years later, I would write an article for the New York Observer on how polling showed non-voters tended to break heavily Democratic. The implication was clear: the more people who vote, the likelier that Democrats will win.

Therefore, it is clearly in Republicans’ interest to stifle the democratic process. If voting is easy, more people will do it, and Republicans will win fewer elections. The rash of restrictive voter-identification laws in Republican-controlled states, surgically precise gerrymandering that ensures Republicans win Congressional and legislative seats even if they win fewer votes statewide, targeted voter-roll purging, and chicanery such as shutting down or moving polling stations in heavily Democratic areas, are all intended to reduce the voting pool and help Republicans win.

In short, democracy itself works against Republicans, because Republican ideology and policy is unpopular with most of the public. Republicans have faced this conundrum for almost a hundred years, and for most of that time, they lost a lot more elections than they won.

By the 1960s, it was clear to Republicans that they were never going to win elections on the issues, so they needed to find other ways to win. This was the genesis of Richard Nixon’s infamous “Southern Strategy,” in which Republicans began getting around their unpopular positions on economic issues by appealing to the cultural grievances of disaffected white racists. As it turned out, these voters existed outside the South as well. They began leaving the Democratic Party after President Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Republicans rode them to victory in five of the next six presidential elections, control of Congress for most of the years after 1994, and control of most key swing states since the turn of the century. That enabled Republicans to begin redrawing the Congressional and legislative maps to cement their continued advantage and to pass laws making it far more difficult for eligible Americans to vote.

This drift toward full-throated opposition to democracy has played out for over 50 years. The inevitable turn from subverting democracy to attempting to overturn it outright it played out in the wake of the 2020 election, in which President Donald Trump and his supporters actively pushed for Republican officials in closely contested swing states to overturn the will of the voters. Ultimately, an angry mob invaded the Capitol on January 6, 2021, seeking to forcibly block Congress’s certification of the presidential election.

The fanciful notion that a post-Trump GOP will back away from its enmity toward democracy ignores that this phenomenon has been ongoing for nearly 60 years. The Republican Party’s positions on economic issues remain unpopular, so Republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. If their choice is to change their views or circumvent democracy, they will circumvent democracy. They’ve been doing it for decades.

The Republican Party is the enemy of democracy in America because democracy in America is the enemy of the Republican Party. The GOP’s war on democracy is the inevitable result of its inability to sell its ideas to the public, and as long as the public isn’t buying what Republicans are selling, the Republican Party will continue trying to overrule the public. They failed in 2020, but they’ll double down going forward.

Betting On Exceptions Is A Good Way To Go Broke: Expect GOP To Win 2022 Midterms

A prominent sportswriter in the early 20th century, Hugh Keough, has been credited with a quote that is also quite relevant to political prognostication:

“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”

My Twitter feed these days is abuzz with the notion that Democrats are going to buck the longstanding trend in which the “out” party–which is to say, the party that does not control the presidency–picks up seats in Congress during midterm elections.

Is it possible? Sure. Democrats made net gains in Congress in the 1998 midterms, and Republicans did so in 2002. Prior to that, the last time the “in” party netted seats in Congress was 1934. On a handful of rare occasions, notably the midterms of 1962, 1970 and 2018, the “in” party has picked up seats in one chamber of Congress, while losing a larger number of seats in the other chamber.

However, to say that it is unlikely would be a tremendous understatement. The near-constant of midterm elections cutting against the party holding the presidency is one of the most consistent, and time-tested, patterns in American politics. The likelihood of Democrats keeping the House of Representatives or taking an outright majority in the Senate after 2022 is so low that I would consider it foolhardy for anybody to bet any amount of money on that outcome.

It isn’t just 150-plus years of post-Civil War history that leads me to this conclusion. There are several factors coming into play that point to significant Republican wins in the 2022 midterm elections.

First, the “exception” midterms of 1934, 1998 and 2002 all occurred when the president at the time was exceedingly popular. In 1998 and 2002, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, respectively, were both polling above 65% approval. While there was no public polling on approval ratings in 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt was exceedingly popular at the time due to his leadership in combating the Great Depression.

With today’s partisan polarization, it is hard to imagine President Joe Biden being at 65% or higher in November 2022. Polarization alone would seem to render that all but impossible. But there’s also the fact of continued Republican obstruction, which means that President Biden will likely fail to pass very much substantive legislation. The public, not always especially discerning as to where to place the blame, usually blames the president and his party, not the opposition party in Congress, when things don’t go well.

Two Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have ensured Republicans will continue to have the ability to obstruct the Democrats through 2022. By refusing to budge on ending the filibuster, the arcane rule requiring 60 votes out of 100 to end debate and bring a bill up for a vote, Manchin and Sinema have given the Republicans a veto over any Democratic legislation that might benefit the public. Republicans will use this veto to deny Biden any substantive victories, and Biden will get the blame for it from a largely uninformed public.

On the House side, it is a near-certainty that Republicans, who need to net only five seats for control, will gain those seats on the strength of redistricting alone. Because of Democratic failures to flip any state legislatures in the 2020 elections, Republicans remain in firm control of redistricting in most of the key swing states.

On the Senate side, most of the Republican-held seats that are up in 2022 are not promising targets for the Democrats. Their best shot at a pickup is in Pennsylvania, where Republican Senator Pat Toomey is not seeking reelection. There will also be vacancies in North Carolina and Ohio, but North Carolina still leans Republican, and Ohio has been trending heavily Republican for years. Democrats also may have a shot at flipping Wisconsin, where incumbent GOP Senator Ron Johnson is considering retiring, and Florida, though it appears very unlikely that any top Democrats will step up for a tough race against Republican Senator Marco Rubio. Of these five seats, Democrats would probably do really well to flip two, and one is much more likely.

But there are several vulnerable Democratic senators up in 2022, two of whom won special elections in 2020 by extremely close margins. With an electorate that is likelier than not to skew more Republican in 2022, Democratic Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Raphael Warnock of Georgia will face difficult challenges. Catherine Cortez Masto is up for reelection in closely divided Nevada, and Maggie Hassan may have to face off against popular Republican Governor John Sununu in New Hampshire. It would be no surprise if two or three of these Democrats lost, maybe even all four if 2022 is a bad year for Democrats.

The likeliest scenario in the Senate is a wash, which would mean continued 50-50 gridlock, or a modest GOP gain, which would deliver control of the chamber to the Republicans. Starting in 2023, President Biden is likely to face a Congress where at least one chamber is Republican-controlled, sharing the fate of the last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It is true that midterm losses for Clinton and Obama in 1994 and 2010 set the stage for resurgences by both presidents and their ultimate reelections two years later. However, it is also true that neither of those Democratic presidents ever had a governing majority in Congress again, and that they were succeeded by Republican presidents who inherited those Republican majorities in Congress.

The bottom line is that whatever little Democrats get done in Washington in the next two years is likely to be all they are going to get between now and 2033, at the earliest.

Regardless of Georgia Results, GOP Will Obstruct And Win Big In 2022

I have held off making any predictions about the Georgia Senate runoffs because I frankly have no idea what’s going to happen. The only thing I can say with any confidence is that I expect there will not be a split: either Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will both win, or incumbent Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will retain their seats.

We hear that there is a lot on the line, and superficially, this is true. If the Democrats win both seats, they will take control of a 50-50 Senate on the tie-breaking vote of Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. If not, Republicans will continue to control the chamber and the agenda.

In reality, the outcome is not going to make a great deal of difference. As long as the filibuster remains in place, 60 votes will be required to advance any legislation. We already know that the votes will not be there to end the filibuster, as Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) has already stated flat-out that he will not vote to do so. Congressional Republicans have shown for more than a decade that they will give a Democratic president no cooperation, and there is no reason to expect that their stance will change. Frankly, obstructionism has worked very well for them, and because the overwhelming majority of them are in safe Republican constituencies, most of them will face no negative consequences for obstructing President-Elect Joe Biden.

In short, regardless of what happens next Tuesday, Democrats aren’t going to be able to pass very much of anything through the Senate. If they do get to a 50-50 tie, they might be able to pass some items through the budget reconciliation process, but this option is much more limited than a lot of people seem to think it is. The new president is going to have to rely heavily on executive orders to get any significant part of his agenda through, and that approach also has its limitations.

In short, President-Elect Biden will achieve very little of substance between his inauguration and the 2022 midterms, and given the longstanding patterns of American politics, this will play to the benefit of the obstructing party, the Republicans. Expect the GOP to block almost everything Biden tries to do, knowing that a poorly educated and highly polarized public will blame the president, not them. The end result is likely to be big Republican wins–and control of both chambers of Congress–in the 2022 midterms. Barring some major, unanticipated event–such as a terrorist attack that boosts Biden’s popularity into the stratosphere, as happened with George W. Bush heading into the 2002 midterms–substantial Republican victories in the 2022 midterms are as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

Biden Clear Favorite To Win Presidency; Democratic Trifecta Likely

Map provided courtesy of 270towin.com

On the eve of the 2020 elections, it is clear that Joe Biden is a heavy favorite to win the presidency and become the next president of the United States. For Donald Trump to win would require either the largest collective polling error recorded since 1936, or a massive, government-orchestrated theft of an election that would shame even the lowest “third-world” tyrant.

At this point, the only question is the margin. As of today, I expect Biden to win all of the six key states that will determine the winner in the Electoral College. I further expect that he will win by clear margins in the three most important of those six states: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. All available evidence points to these results.

To make my final projections, I am using the Real Clear Politics site (https://www.realclearpolitics.com), which I have chosen for two reasons: one, it has a very good, comprehensive listing of most available polling going back well over a year, and two, it tends to produce the least favorable results for Biden, as compared to other sites which aggregate polling data. To explain further—if Biden is clearly leading in a state at the RCP site, I believe one can count on him being ahead there.

First, let’s look at the three most pivotal states, the large “Rust Belt” states that gave Donald Trump the presidency in 2016. At this point, there is no way any reasonable person can look at the available data and conclude that Trump is not a significant underdog in these three pivotal states.

PENNSYLVANIA (20 electoral votes)

In 72 polls of Pennsylvania dating back to February, Trump has led two and been tied in three. He was trailing all polling in the Keystone State even before the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the country. There has been no notable movement in his direction. At this point, the evidence points to a projection of “Likely Democratic,” but I am going to keep Pennsylvania at “Leans Democratic” simply because the polling margins are somewhat close.

MICHIGAN (16 electoral votes)

In 61 polls of Michigan dating back to February, Trump has led four, none by more than 2%. All four of those polls were conducted by the Republican pollster Trafalgar. It is clearly “Likely Democratic,” and the only reason it cannot be moved into the “Safe Democratic” category is an abundance of caution based on the surprising results of 2016.

WISCONSIN (10 electoral votes)

In 59 polls of Wisconsin dating back to February, Trump has led three and has been tied in three. Two of his leads were by 1% each, both in polling done by the Republican pollster Trafalgar. Again, evidence clearly points to a projection of “Likely Democratic.”

Moving now to three other hotly contested states, it is clear again that Biden is ahead, although a Trump win in any of them would not be considered a major upset.

FLORIDA (29 electoral votes)

Of all of the six key states that will determine the election, Florida is the hardest one to project. That said, Biden has led in many more polls than Trump, even though the margins have typically been close. Disturbing reports of Biden doing poorly (relatively speaking) among Latinos in Florida certainly give one pause, but his surprising strength among older voters is important here too, and appears to be offsetting any softness in his Latino numbers. It appears that if Trump does win Florida, it will be by a margin similar to that of George W. Bush in 2000. If a candidate’s best case is a photo-finish, one can’t call him the favorite. I am going to bite the bullet and characterize Florida as “Tilts Democratic.”

NORTH CAROLINA (15 electoral votes)

There is no question about two facts: North Carolina is very close, and Biden has led the overwhelming majority of polls, particularly polls not conducted by Trafalgar or Rasmussen, also a Republican-leaning pollster. Unlike in other states that I consider part of the “Big Six”—the six key states that will decide the election—Trump has also led here in polls that are not clearly Republican skewed, though not recently. But most of the polling has favored Biden by a close but clear margin. Therefore, North Carolina has to be characterized as “Leans Democratic.”

ARIZONA (11 electoral votes)

Although Biden has led in the overwhelming majority of polling taken since February, Trump has moved ahead in three of the last seven polls. However, two of those three were conducted by Republican-leaning pollsters (Trafalgar and Rasmussen). I learned a hard lesson in 2016, which is that just because a pollster is partisan does not necessarily mean it is wrong. Their numbers have to be thrown in the averages. However, when the only polling showing a Republican lead is Republican-skewed, that factor also has to be taken into consideration. Right now, it is clear that Arizona is close, but also clear that Biden has a slight lead, and Arizona is, therefore, characterized as “Tilts Democratic.”

With Biden favored in all of the six key states, again, the key question here appears to be whether the election will turn into a landslide for Biden. Let’s now take a look at the four states that would be considered “Landslide Indicators” for Biden.

TEXAS (38 electoral votes)

There has been much Democratic exuberance in recent days about Texas, especially with the reports of heavy voting before election day. However, the overwhelming preponderance of polling, even in recent days, shows Trump maintaining a narrow but clear lead in the Lone Star State. It may be very close, possibly decided by 1% or 2%, but Trump is clearly ahead. There may be some post-election recriminations against Biden and charges that if he had spent more time and money in Texas that he could have won it, but it is vitally important to understand that Biden’s national strategy (which did not include a heavy push in Texas) was correct. Texas was always going to be a very heavy lift, and Biden’s prime directive was to nail down the three Rust Belt states that defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Heading into election day, he appears to have done that. Texas was never going to swing the election; it would only have been icing on the cake. At this point, Texas is narrowly, but clearly, “Leans Republican.”

OHIO (18 electoral votes)

Ohio is very close, but Biden in recent weeks has been ahead, even if only slightly, in all but the most partisan polls. I never thought very much of Biden’s chances in Ohio and never considered it a must-win state for him. It isn’t. He can certainly win without Ohio. But looking at the data, it is with surprising ease that I can characterize Ohio as “Tilts Democratic,” and I am only going with “tilts” rather than “leans” due to the closeness of the margins.

GEORGIA (16 electoral votes)

It is very, very clear that Georgia is extremely close. Of 28 polls taken since February, Trump has led 13, Biden has led 11, and there have been four ties. In the last eight polls, it has been 3-3-2. Very few of these polls have been conducted by blatantly partisan pollsters. Candidly, Georgia is a coin flip, and if I were going to characterize any state as a toss-up, that is where Georgia would land. However, if Biden truly is ahead nationally by more than 7% (and I believe, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that he is), then Georgia is fairly likely to flip. I am going to characterize Georgia as “Tilts Democratic.”

IOWA (6 electoral votes)

I will state categorically that the latest Des Moines Register poll, typically considered the “gold standard” of Iowa polling, was an outlier, and I have several reasons for this position that I won’t delve into here (except to say that its characterization of U.S. Rep. Abby Finkenauer trailing by 15% in District 1 was obviously very, very wrong; it is not a plausible result). But even if we completely throw that poll (Trump +7%) in the trash can, it is clear that several other quality pollsters show Trump very narrowly ahead in Iowa. It is a close call, but I consider Iowa “Tilts Republican.”

Now, let’s look briefly at some of the states that Hillary Clinton narrowly carried in 2016 and which Trump was hoping to contest. Trump has not led in Minnesota (10 electoral votes) in a single poll in the Real Clear Politics listing, dating back over a year. In Nevada, local political expert Jon Ralston has noted on Twitter that Democrats have built a 90,000-vote firewall in early voting and are clearly favored to win that state’s six electoral votes. Polling in Maine and New Hampshire, with four electoral votes each, has clearly shown Biden with wide margins. All four are characterized as “Likely Democratic.” Maine splits its electors, with two being given to the statewide winner and one each from the state’s two congressional districts. Maine-01 is “Safe Democratic.” Maine-02 appears, at this point, to be “Tilts Democratic.”

Additionally, I expect Biden to flip one electoral vote in Nebraska, which apportions its five electoral votes the same way Maine does. Nebraska-02 polling indicates that its single electoral vote should be considered “Likely Democratic,” with the state’s remaining four electoral votes “Safe Republican.”

The only other state that I do not feel I can characterize as safe for either Biden or Trump is Alaska, where the small amount of polling done (two polls) has averaged a 4.5% lead for Trump. Out of an abundance of caution, I am characterizing Alaska’s three electoral votes as “Likely Republican.”

The remaining 35 states, and the District of Columbia, can be safely characterized as either Safe Democratic or Safe Republican.

Safely Democratic constituencies include: California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), New Jersey (14), Virginia (13), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), Vermont (3), the District of Columbia (3), and, as mentioned previously, the single electoral vote in Maine-01.

Safely Republican states include: Indiana (11), Tennessee (11), Missouri (10), Alabama (9), South Carolina (9), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Oklahoma (7), Arkansas (6), Kansas (6), Mississippi (6), Utah (6), Idaho (4), Nebraska (4), West Virginia (4), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), and Wyoming (3).

In all, the breakdown indicates a Biden win of 369-169 in the electoral college, with 210 of those electoral votes considered safe Democratic and 49 considered likely Democratic. Those states alone would get Biden to 259 of the 270 electors he needs to win. Biden would then need to win only one of Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Arizona to get over the top.

Understand that a number of these states may not be formally called or projected by the networks on election night, due to the unusually heavy volume of mail-in ballots brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. But Florida could tell us a lot, because it does have experience with mail ballots and typically counts those quickly. Even if Biden does not cross the 270 threshold election night, he should be clearly on track for victory.

U.S. SENATE

Shifting to the Senate, it appears that Democrats are on track to make a net gain of three seats, with two seats in Georgia likely headed to a December runoff. This would give Democrats a 50-48 advantage pending the outcome of those Georgia runoff elections.

As I have expected all along, I think Democrats are clear favorites to flip Republican-held Senate seats in three states: Colorado, Arizona and Maine. In Colorado, I consider former Democratic governor John Hickenlooper a safe bet to unseat incumbent Republican Cory Gardner. In Arizona, I consider Democrat Mark Kelly a likely winner over incumbent Republican Martha McSally. And in Maine, I expect Democratic House Speaker Sara Gideon likely to defeat incumbent Republican Susan Collins.

I also think Democrat Cal Cunningham is clearly ahead of incumbent Republican Thom Tillis in North Carolina, and I rate that race “Leans Democratic.”

Conversely, former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, a Republican, is a heavy favorite to defeat incumbent Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama, and I rate this race “Safe Republican.”

The closest race right now is in Iowa, where incumbent Republican Joni Ernst is locked in a tight battle with Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield. If I were to characterize any Senate race as a tossup, it would be Iowa. However, recent polling (not just the clearly flawed Des Moines Register poll) makes it clear that the race has shifted back in Ernst’s direction, so I am calling Iowa “Tilts Republican.”

In Georgia, I think Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will lead their races on election night, especially Warnock, who is running in a special election race with more than 20 candidates on the ballot. However, I would be surprised if either got to 50% in the final count, which means both races would go to a December runoff. History has shown that Democrats do not show up robustly in post-election runoffs, and so I am characterizing both races as “Runoff/Tilts Republican.”

Turning to other close races, I have never been bullish on the chances of five Democrats seeking Senate seats in strongly red states, and I remain skeptical that any of these five will win. I characterize Senate races in Alaska, Montana and South Carolina as “Lean Republican,” with Republican incumbents in all three states favored to win.

I consider Kansas, an open seat, to be “Likely Republican,” in part because of some past history in which a Senate race was polling closely there but ended up being a double-digit Republican victory. I simply don’t believe that the race in Kansas, which has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1932, is as close as the polling indicates.

And I have never moved Kentucky off of “Safe Republican” at any point in this election cycle. Democratic donors have wasted millions of dollars on the doomed candidacy of Amy McGrath, who has no chance whatsoever to defeat Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in this deep red state.

It is important to face reality, and here are the facts: Kentucky has not elected a non-incumbent Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1972, or any Democrat at all to the Senate since 1992. The state has shifted heavily Republican in federal races since that time. Although Democrats often prevail in state-level races (such as the governorship), Kentucky is not alone in electing “out party” candidates to state-level races while steadfastly refusing to do so for federal-level races. (Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont are other current examples of this phenomenon). It would be surprising if this race is not called right away at 7 p.m. eastern on election night.

While Democrats have had a wide field on which to play, Republicans have had only other pickup opportunity aside from Alabama. That slight opening was in Michigan, and even that has never been better than an outside shot. It is clear that Democratic incumbent Gary Peters, whose small polling leads and poor fundraising had given hope to Republican challenger John James, is now pulling away, and I rate this race “Likely Democratic.”

Therefore, my expectation is that the final composition of the U.S. Senate will end up at 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris spending the next two years breaking tie votes. For those who do not understand how a landslide presidential victory can only produce a 50-50 tie in the Senate, understand that netting three seats is a pretty solid victory, and that the Senate, due to each state having equal representation, provides an artificial boost to the Republican Party. With heavily populated blue states like California each getting only two senators, the same as lightly populated red states like Wyoming, it is very difficult for Democrats to make big gains in the Senate.

U.S. HOUSE

Finally, shifting to the U.S. House, I believe that most prognosticators, as they did in 2018, are underestimating Democratic gains. Democrats won most of the seats that were available to them in their “Blue Wave” 40-seat pickup in 2018, but they left about 20 on the table that they lost by five points or less. After analyzing all the races and taking a look, particularly, at the Republicans who survived in suburban districts two years ago, I have come to the estimate of a +16 gain for Democrats this election, stretching their margin in the House to 248-187.

BOTTOM LINE

The end result would be a Democratic “trifecta,” meaning control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress. However, with only a 50-50 tie in the Senate, it would take just one Democratic senator (like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, for example) to defeat Democratic legislation. As a result, progressive wish-list items such as ending the filibuster, expanding the Supreme Court and enacting sweeping health care reforms are all extremely unlikely to pass. This likely means continued dejection and disappointment on the Democrats’ far left, and possibly very big midterm losses in 2022. Whatever Democrats want to get done, they’d better get it done over the next two years.

FOOTNOTE: HISTORICAL ERROR RATE

Dating back to 2006, when I first began projecting the final outcomes of Congressional elections, my average miss on the final composition of the U.S. Senate has been 1.6 seats, and in the U.S. House, it has been 4.3 seats. If I remain within that range this election (not rounding up), the Senate could end up with anywhere from a 51-49 Republican majority to a 51-49 Democratic majority. Democrats could be expected to finish anywhere from +12 to +20 in the House, based on my past error rate.

No Election Night Guide This Year

In my last preview of the upcoming election, I wrote that I intended to publish a comprehensive Election Night Guide, as I typically do for most presidential elections. Unfortunately, due to a crush of both personal and professional commitments for the next week, some of which were unexpected, I am not going to have enough time to finish compiling the guide.

I will still publish a final overview of the election on the morning of Monday, November 2. While it will not go into the depth that my Election Night Guide traditionally has, it will still identify the key races to watch in terms of the presidential election and control of the U.S. Senate. Control of the U.S. House of Representatives appears to be a foregone conclusion at this point, so I will not focus on individual races.

For the presidential race, it has become apparent that the pivotal state, and likeliest tipping point, is Pennsylvania. It is the one state that I view as being crucial to both candidates, and one that neither candidate can probably win without. For control of the Senate, the likeliest tipping-point states are North Carolina and Iowa.

30 Days Out: Race Shifts Back To Biden, Senate Democrats

In the last two days, the revelation that Donald Trump had contracted COVID-19, and has been hospitalized as a result, has roiled the presidential race, but at this point, there seems to be no reason to expect that it will make a material difference. It is clear that the trajectory of the race has shifted back to Joe Biden. Readers may recall that in my last update, 30 days ago, I struck an ominous tone about the trajectory of the presidential race for Biden. Democrats will find my new update more heartening.

It is clear, from an examination of the polling trends in the key states, that Biden’s course has stabilized and has actually moved back in his direction. He maintains a lead in most of the key states and is, in fact, in better condition in some unexpected states than I expected he would be at this time.

A trend is emerging in which Biden’s position, relative to the position of Hillary Clinton four years ago, is improving among white voters in Midwestern states, but not improving significantly among their counterparts in southern states. It seems clear that white voters in the Midwestern and northeastern battlegrounds are much more “elastic” than white voters in southern states, who remain much more difficult to budge out of the Republican column.

The trends now clearly point to the first major shakeup in my view of the state of the race, as I am cautiously shifting Ohio to “Tilts Democratic.” Polling data clearly points to a race in the Buckeye State that has shifted in Biden’s direction, with Biden leading 10 of the last 12 polls since July. That said, his leads are very small—but consistent.

I am also moving Iowa at this time to “Tilts Democratic,” even though Trump’s polling position has been better in Iowa than in Ohio. It appears the trend is moving against him, with Biden recently moving into a small polling lead, and Biden’s improving position among Midwestern white voters and older voters augurs well for him in Iowa.

It is also clear that Michigan and Wisconsin can be moved back to “Leans Democratic,” although Michigan polling still appears softer for Biden than I expected it would. That bears watching. I also am moving the race in Nebraska’s District 2 back to “Leans Democratic,” and Biden appears to be in a very strong position to win that single electoral vote in Nebraska.

I remain convinced, as I have for months, that Pennsylvania is a harder lift for Biden than either Michigan or Wisconsin, and polling data is now bearing that out. I am keeping Pennsylvania at “Tilts Democratic,” as it is clear that Trump’s team is putting a lot of marbles in Pennsylvania. However, some recent polling in Pennsylvania has been very favorable for Biden, and the state appears likelier to move toward “Leans Democratic” than “Tilts Republican.”

I am also keeping Florida at “Tilts Republican,” despite a narrow polling lead for Biden. All signs I am seeing point to Democrats completely misplaying their hand with the state’s non-Cuban Latino communities. I have been in contact recently with a well-placed source in south Florida Democratic politics who indicates to me that the Democratic failure to engage these communities is even worse than I imagined. Make no mistake: with Biden’s improved position among white voters and seniors, he should be well ahead in Florida right now, by at least two or three points on average. The fact that he isn’t should be concerning to Florida Democrats.

I am also keeping North Carolina at “Tilts Republican,” because I find it hard to imagine that North Carolina will flip blue while Florida stays red.

But I am moving South Carolina to “Leans Republican,” based on a continued trend toward stronger-than-expected showings by Biden in that state’s polling. That, coupled with a very strong race by Democratic Senate candidate Jaime Harrison, convinces me that something unexpected is going on in the Palmetto State, and it bears watching.

At this point, it is clear that Biden’s position in Minnesota and Maine is strong, and I am moving Minnesota back to “Likely Democratic,” and three of Maine’s four electoral votes to “Safe Democratic.” I am also shifting the electoral vote in Maine’s Congressional District 2 to “Tilts Democratic.” Polling in Maine is now very strong for Biden, and it is hard to imagine him winning the entire state by double digits while losing the 2nd District. The same trends that are benefitting Biden in Ohio and Iowa—improved performance among white voters and older voters—will also benefit him in northern Maine.

The ratings changes now show states that fall into the safe, likely or leaning Democratic categories have a total 270 electoral votes, exactly the number required for Biden to win. If all the states listed as “Tilts Democratic” also go to Biden, he would win the electoral vote by a count of 315-223.

U.S. Senate 

One of the dumbest things a person can do when his theories are cast into doubt is to double down and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

It has long been my contention that it is unlikely that any given state will vote for one party’s presidential candidate and another party’s candidate for Senate this fall. I still consider it unlikely. However, weeks of consistent polling data have made it clear that Democratic Senate candidates in IowaKansasMontana, North Carolina and South Carolina are clearly running ahead of Joe Biden in those states. While I still expect Republicans will win most or all of those races, it would be stupid to rule out the possibility of a split result in any of them.

In the last 20 years, the results of Senate and presidential races, when both are contested in the same year, have shown almost an 85 percent correlation. The correlation is even more stark when an incumbent senator is on the ballot and a presidential candidate of his or her party wins the state. There has been only one exception since 2000, and that exception occurred with the incumbent senator (Ted Stevens, R-Alaska) under indictment.

This is why I have been hesitant to give much of a chance to Democrats Steve Bullock of Montana or Jaime Harrison of South Carolina. Both are running against incumbent Republican senators in states that Donald Trump is likely to win. In the end, unless Trump faces surprisingly close races in those states, I still expect both Democrats will lose. But it would be foolish to deny that they are competitive and may have a realistic chance to win.

I have also been hesitant to give much of a chance to Democrat Barbara Bollier in Kansas. Although Bollier is not running against an incumbent, she is running in one of the most safely Republican states in America—one which hasn’t elected a Democrat to the United States Senate since 1932, and one which has not voted Democratic in a statewide federal race since 1964. In the end, I also expect she will likely lose, but again, it would be foolish to deny that she is close enough to have a puncher’s chance at an upset. That said, I’ve been fooled by Kansas before. In 2014, I bought into the polling that showed independent Greg Orman beating incumbent Republican Senator Pat Roberts. In the end, Roberts won comfortably, which has rendered me exceedingly cautious about overstating Democratic prospects in Kansas.

I am moving all three of these races to “Leans Republican,” but at this time, I still expect Republicans to win them all.

I still remain convinced that Democrats, in the end, will probably lose both Senate races in Georgia, with both likely headed for runoffs in December. Given a historical pattern of Democratic turnout drop-off for post-election runoffs, the dynamics favor the Republicans in both races.

Right now, the likeliest state for a split result split appears to be North Carolina, where Democratic Senate candidate Cal Cunningham is clearly running ahead of Biden in his race against Republican Senator Thom Tillis. That said, unlike in Iowa, Biden also maintains a razor-thin polling lead in North Carolina, so it may happen that both Democrats prevail in the Tar Heel State. That said, the recent revelations of romantically charged texts between Cunningham, who is married, and a married California political consultant, may change the trajectory of this race. At this time, out of an abundance of caution, I am moving this race to “Tilts Democratic.”

The next likeliest state for a split result appears to be Iowa, where Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield has established a small, but consistent, lead over Republican Senator Joni Ernst, but Biden is in a very tight race with Trump. I am moving this race to “Leans Democratic,” but I also have Iowa now going narrowly to Biden as well, so there may not be a split result here after all.

A split is also possible in Alaska, where independent candidate Al Gross won the Democratic primary and is polling very strongly against incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. Biden is also polling surprisingly well in Alaska; as in South Carolina, there may be something interesting happening there worth watching as well. I am now moving this race to “Tilts Republican.” Keep an eye on this one.

In addition to characterizing Iowa and North Carolina as “Tilts Democratic,” I continue to rate Colorado as “Safe Democratic,” while setting Senate races in Arizona and Maine as “Leans Democratic.” If Democrats prevail in these five races, while losing their seat in Alabama, as expected, they will finish with a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

U.S. House

I will not get into an exhaustive race-by-race breakdown here. There are always some House races on both sides that go an unexpected direction. Most people were taken completely off guard by Kendra Horn winning a seat in Oklahoma in 2018. That seat was on my list of potential surprises, given the fact that it was the kind of urban/suburban district that had been trending blue since Trump won in 2016. It is the same kind of seat, in locales across the country, where I expect Democrats will add to their House majority in 2020.

After 2018, my assessment of the results was that there were about 20 Republican-held seats in suburban districts that Democrats narrowly missed picking up in their 40-seat wave. Two of those seats have gone back to the Republicans as the result of a special election loss (California 25) and a party switch (New Jersey 2), but I expect them both to flip again, back to the Democrats, in 30 days.

This year, I think Democrats have a top-out number of +21. I don’t think they will top out; it is probably more realistic to expect that they will net about half of what they left on the table in 2016, roughly 10 seats. Using those two numbers as a range, my best estimation at this time is that Democrats will make a net gain of 16 U.S. House seats, which would give them a 249-186 advantage. This figure would approach the crushing 257-178 majority Democrats held in the House after the 2008 elections. However, with no filibuster available in the House, as there is in the Senate, and a continued trend toward partisan polarization, the margin in the House does not matter nearly as much as it once did.

However, these expected Democratic gains would not change the balance of power in state delegations, where Republicans would continue to control the delegations of at least 26 states. In the event that disputed results in one or more states send the presidential election to the House of Representatives, Trump would still likely have the edge, despite Democrats controlling more seats, because a House vote for president provides that each state, not each representative, would have one vote.

Final Update and Election Night Guide

I will issue a final update on the election on the morning of Monday, November 2, and I plan to publish a comprehensive election night guide on my website at that time. The quadrennial Cliston Brown Election Night Guide will provide a rundown on the presidential race and key House and Senate races in every state, listed by poll closing times, so that viewers can have a sense of what to be watching for as the returns come in.

60 Days Out: Biden Still Ahead, But Race Is Fluid; GOP Now Favored To Hold Senate

It was around this time four years ago that I began to observe that the position of Hillary Clinton relative to Donald Trump in the Electoral College was slipping. At the time, I did not assign enough importance to this development, assuming that her continued polling lead was the key point to consider in forecasting the ultimate outcome of the race. I thought she was far enough ahead that some slippage would not matter. Like most election forecasters, I was wrong.

After Trump pulled out his upset victory, I began considering why I and so many others missed what was happening. In my case, I identified three considerations that I missed and resolved not to miss again.

  1. Events matter. It became clear, based on exit polling of late deciders in 2016, that the James Comey announcement, late in the race, that he was reopening the FBI investigation into Clinton, moved late deciders heavily in the direction of Trump, clearly flipping Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin out of the Clinton column and into Trump’s.
  2. All polls matter. I was too dismissive of polling that came from Republican outlets, which clearly showed movement in Trump’s direction in key states, particularly Florida and North Carolina, in the final days of the race, and I left such polling out of the state-by-state polling averages.
  3. The trend matters. In past elections, the actual polling numbers have often been a lagging indicator, and it is the trend that gives us a better view of how the race is going. Two key examples: the elections of 1980 and 1948. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were in a dead heat going into Election Day, but Reagan ended up winning in a blowout. In 1948, President Harry Truman trailed Thomas Dewey, but the trends had been moving in his direction for weeks, and Truman won by a surprisingly decisive margin.

In 2016, the polling trend was clearly moving against Clinton by this point in the race, so much so that I was revising her status downward in every swing state. I didn’t miss the trend, but I missed what it meant.

It is clear now that Biden has been suffering some slippage since my last forecast 40 days ago, with his national lead over Trump falling from 8.6% to 7.2%. While this is still a solid lead, the trend–particularly some concerning slippage (on average) in the battleground states–should be a matter of concern for the Biden campaign and his supporters.

In short, all three of the key areas of consideration that I missed in 2016 are showing movement in Trump’s favor. Events are moving in his favor as COVID is no longer a novelty and the public has, to some degree, gotten used to it; polling averages are moving in his favor; and polling trends are moving in his favor.

Several other factors are also concerning for Biden. A fourth factor in play is that Biden, according to virtually all available polling, is suffering slippage among Latino and Black voters relative to Clinton and certainly as compared to Barack Obama. This slippage could pose problems for him in states like Arizona, Nevada and even New Mexico if not reversed. Virginia may still be safe for Biden, even with slight slippage in its significant Black vote, due to its educational demographics; the same is true for Colorado, even with slight slippage for Biden among Latinos.

The fifth factor that poses a problem for Biden is that more people surveyed continue to view Trump as stronger on the economy than Biden would be, despite the economic turmoil that has racked the country due to the administration’s bungled COVID-19 response. As Democrats too often do, they are leaving it to the voters to connect the dots, which is a mistake. They seem to be banking on the idea that voters will independently deduce that Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic response has been the cause of the economic downturn. While this may seem like an obvious fact to Democrats, the general public seems to be disconnecting the two issues. Democrats’ failure to make that connection for voters is reminiscent of the John Kerry campaign’s failure in 2004 to knock down the Swift Boat allegations that damaged his image as a war hero.

And there is a sixth factor that should be particularly concerning for Team Biden: his slowness to act. His failure to go to Kenosha swiftly after the police shooting of Jacob Blake and the ensuing riots was a colossal mistake, opening the door for Trump to capitalize on that mistake by going himself. As we have repeatedly seen over the last few decades, Democrats are consistently too passive and slow to act, while Republicans are consistently proactive and quick to seize opportunities that Democrats fumble. Biden finally went to Kenosha this week, but his flat-footedness is a matter of concern.

As a result of negative, or at least concerning, developments in these six areas, I am revising my ratings in 16 states in Trump’s direction. While I still rate Biden as the favorite, Team Biden needs to be thinking about playing to win rather than trying to run out the clock, and they especially need to be doing a better job with Latino voters.

I am, at this time, making the following ratings changes:

SAFE BIDEN to LIKELY BIDEN (5 electoral votes): New Mexico (5).
LIKELY BIDEN to LEAN BIDEN (38 electoral votes): Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Maine-at-large (2).
LEAN BIDEN to TILT BIDEN (71 electoral votes): Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), Nebraska-02 (1).
LEAN BIDEN to TILT TRUMP (15 electoral votes): North Carolina (15)
TILT BIDEN to LEAN TRUMP (16 electoral votes): Georgia (16).
TILT TRUMP to LEAN TRUMP (25 electoral votes): Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Maine-02 (1).
LEAN TRUMP to LIKELY TRUMP (38 electoral votes): Texas (38).
LIKELY TRUMP to SAFE TRUMP (9 electoral votes): South Carolina (9).

The upshot is that I now show Biden winning the Electoral College 319-219, down from my 350-188 projection 40 days ago, with North Carolina flipping to “Tilt Trump” and Georgia flipping to “Lean Trump.” But that is a very soft 319 for Biden, with only 210 electoral votes in the “safe” or “likely” category for him, and 270 needed to win.

In the U.S. Senate, I continue to maintain that it is highly unlikely that any state will produce a split result in which a presidential candidate of one party and a Senate candidate of the other party both win. At this time, I now expect Republicans to maintain their majority in the Senate by a bare 51-49 margin, with Democrats picking up seats in Arizona, Colorado, and Maine and losing a seat in Alabama.

With Biden’s fortunes clearly on the decline in North Carolina, and with the slippage of Democratic Senate candidate Cal Cunningham as well in recent polls, my expectation at this time is that the GOP will hang onto that Senate seat, unless the trajectory of the race turns back in the Democrats’ favor. I continue to maintain my view that Democrat Steve Bullock is not just an underdog in Montana, but a significant underdog. I also discount the chances of Democratic contenders in Kansas, Kentucky and South Carolina due to the fact that partisan polarization has created a very significant correlation between presidential and Senate results during presidential election years.

Additionally, I expect Democrats will make small gains in the House of Representatives. In 30 days, I will do a full analysis on the House.

The bottom line is that Democrats cannot expect to just run out the clock and win this election. Team Biden and the rest of the Democratic contenders need to be not just active, but proactive, and they need to both define Trump (rather than assuming that events will define Trump for them) and demonstrate that they will do better than Trump. Although some Democrats may consider it obvious that Biden will do better than Trump, they would do well to remember that nothing in politics should ever be considered obvious. You have to draw the voters a picture. If the Democrats don’t, the Republicans will.

100 Days Out: Biden Solidifies Role as Favorite; Democrats On Course To Win Senate Narrowly

(Map courtesy of 270towin.com)

Today, July 26, we begin the home stretch of the 2020 election campaign. As of today, there are 100 days left until the November 3 elections. At this point in time, I am projecting that Democrat Joe Biden is now a clear favorite to defeat Republican Donald Trump, and that the Democrats are now favored to win control of the U.S. Senate.

In my last projections, 100 days ago, I was more circumspect on both counts. But the continued rolling disaster of the Trump Administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is looking more and more like Trump’s “Katrina event.” The difference is that the bungled response by George W. Bush to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina happened in his second term; politically, it only hurt his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections, not him personally. Trump has not been so lucky.

At this moment in time, Biden’s average polling lead is close to 9%, per Real Clear Politics. That puts him approximately 6.5% ahead of the 2.1% national popular vote margin posted by Hillary Clinton in 2016. While it is not necessarily a realistic view to assume a uniform shift, the state-by-state polling at this point does, in fact, reflect something very close to a uniform shift.

As a result, I am making the following ratings changes in the presidential race, all of which favor Biden:

GEORGIA (16 electoral votes) moves from Lean Trump to Tilt Biden.

FLORIDA (29 electoral votes), NORTH CAROLINA (15 electoral votes) and NEBRASKA-2 (1 electoral vote) move from Tilt Biden to Lean Biden.

MICHIGAN (16 electoral votes) moves from Lean Biden to Likely Biden.

OHIO (18 electoral votes), IOWA (6 electoral votes) and MAINE-2 (1 electoral vote) move from Lean Trump to Tilt Trump.

TEXAS (38 electoral votes) moves from Likely Trump to Lean Trump.

SOUTH CAROLINA (9 electoral votes) moves from Safe Trump to Likely Trump.

I am not as quick as some other commentators to move Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, Utah or Montana away from Safe Trump. I think that’s a stretch at this point. Demographically, nothing in any of these states indicates that they are likely to be in play for real in November. Despite the Johnson County suburbs moving away from Trump, he is still going to win rural Kansas by crushing margins. The same is true in Indiana and Missouri, where Trump is weak in suburban areas but disproportionately strong in rural areas. Utah’s potential to flip has been widely overstated as a result of a third-party candidate (Evan McMullin) shaving off much of Trump’s margin in that state in 2016.

I also remain hesitant to move Pennsylvania or Wisconsin from Lean Biden to Likely Biden, for much the same reasons that I am not moving states like Indiana, Missouri or Kansas out of the Safe Trump categorization at this time. Unlike most commentators, I think Wisconsin is likely to be a better state for Biden than Pennsylvania, and I would have moved Wisconsin to Likely Biden if not for the extremely draconian voter suppression laws that Wisconsin Republicans, both at the legislative and judicial levels, have put on the books in the last decade.

The reason why I consider Michigan and Wisconsin better turf for Biden than Pennsylvania is because Democratic losses in the first two states in 2016 clearly came down to turnout. If Detroit and Milwaukee had turned out at just slightly better rates in 2016, Clinton would have won both states. In fact, Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes in 2016 than Mitt Romney got there in 2012, when he was losing the state by 7% to Barack Obama. A simple increase in Democratic turnout will solve any problems the party might have in Michigan and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, conversely, Clinton did well enough in the major cities to have won in any other year, but she got clobbered in the rural areas by unheard-of margins. Additionally, both Michigan and Wisconsin have consistently been to Pennsylvania’s left by at least a small margin for decades.

As of today, my projection is that Biden defeats Trump by a vote of 350-188 in the Electoral College, up from my previous 334-204 projection 100 days ago. The projected flip of Georgia from Lean Trump to Tilt Biden accounts for the change. But I also now believe Ohio, Iowa and Maine’s District 2 are all in play, which I did not believe in April. I still think flipping Texas is a bridge too far for Democrats this year.

Here are my current characterizations for all states:

SAFE BIDEN (210): California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), New Jersey (14), Virginia (13), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Vermont (3), Maine-1 (1).

LIKELY BIDEN (38): Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Maine-At-Large (2).

LEAN BIDEN (86): Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), North Carolina (15), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), Nebraska-2 (1).

TILT BIDEN (16): Georgia (16).

TILT TRUMP (25): Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Maine-2 (1).

LEAN TRUMP (38): Texas (38).

LIKELY TRUMP (9): South Carolina (9).

SAFE TRUMP (116): Indiana (11), Tennessee (11), Missouri (10), Alabama (9), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Oklahoma (7), Arkansas (6), Kansas (6), Mississippi (6), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Idaho (4), Alaska (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Wyoming (3), Nebraska-At-Large (2), Nebraska-1 (1), Nebraska-3 (1).

TOTAL BIDEN: 350
TOTAL TRUMP: 188

U.S. SENATE PREVIEW

(Map courtesy of 270towin.com)

Shifting to the U.S. Senate, I am taking the unusual step of moving a state into the “safe” category for a challenger taking on an incumbent. I do not see any way at this point that Senator Cory Gardner can win reelection in Colorado. I now rate Colorado as Safe Democratic and expect Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper to comfortably defeat the incumbent. This is more due to Colorado’s continuing leftward shift than anything having to do with Hickenlooper personally. By most accounts, he is not running a spectacular campaign. But he doesn’t need to.

In Georgia, I would be tempted to rate Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff a slight favorite over Republican Senator David Perdue, given Trump’s troubles in the state, and also to rate the Democrats as slight favorites in the special election for the seat currently held by appointed GOP Senator Kelly Loeffler. However, both Senate races in Georgia present unique challenges for the Democrats. The regularly scheduled election between Ossoff and Perdue includes two third-party candidates, and because Georgia requires a runoff in any race in which no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the likelihood of a close race going to a low-turnout runoff in January is high, and lower turnout will favor Perdue. The special election will certainly end in a runoff, but because there are more Democrats running than Republicans, the likelihood at this point appears high that Democrats will split their vote too many ways, enabling both Loeffler and fellow Republican Doug Collins to advance to the runoff. As a result, I continue to rate both races Lean Republican.

I still have just enough doubt about Arizona and Maine not to move those states. I still think Arizona is Likely Democratic, with Democrat Mark Kelly poised to defeat Republican Senator Martha McSally, and I still rate Maine as Lean Democratic, though I think Democratic nominee Sara Gideon is certainly favored to defeat Republican Senator Susan Collins. As long as Iowa remains “Tilt Trump,” I think incumbent Republican Senator Joni Ernst is also a slight favorite to win, but the prospects for neither Republican look as rosy as they did 100 days ago.

I am not as optimistic as many commentators are about the chances of Democrats Steve Bullock in Montana and Barbara Bollier in Kansas. In both states, Trump appears likely to win by large margins, and I find it doubtful that upwards of 15%-20% of Trump voters will vote for a Democrat for the Senate. The same is true in Kentucky, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unpopular, but also highly unlikely to lose to Democrat Amy McGrath.

Bullock and McGrath face an additional obstacle that Bollier does not: they are running against incumbent Republicans. It is highly, highly unusual for a challenger to beat an incumbent senator in a year in which the incumbent senator’s presidential candidate wins the state. It has happened only twice in the last 20 years, and in both cases, there were special circumstances. In 2008, Democrat Mark Begich unseated Republican Senator Ted Stevens in Alaska, despite John McCain winning the state, because Stevens was under indictment at the time; Begich won by 1%.

Before that, it last occurred in 2000, when GOP Senator John Ashcroft lost narrowly in Missouri, despite George W. Bush winning the state. You may remember that was the famous race in which Ashcroft lost to Democrat Mel Carnahan, who had died in a plane crash just days before the election. Carnahan had been losing in most polling, but ended up winning posthumously after the Democratic governor promised to appoint his widow, Jean Carnahan, to the seat if the dead candidate won.

Neither the Montana nor Kentucky Senate races have any special circumstances this year. GOP Senator Steve Daines is not unpopular and there really seems to be no plausible reason why very many Trump voters would choose the Democrat Bullock over Daines. McConnell, on the other hand, is very unpopular, but Kentucky is such a heavily Republican state that it is impossible to imagine there will be very many Trump/McGrath voters. Besides, McConnell has always won despite never being especially well-liked in Kentucky, and that’s because Kentucky is a deeply conservative state. It may elect Democratic governors, but at the federal level, Kentucky hasn’t elected a Democrat in over 20 years, and voters clearly do make a distinction between state and federal races.

That said, the two-term governor Bullock is so well-liked in his state that I am shifting Montana from Safe Republican to Likely Republican. I am making the same rating change in South Carolina, where Democrat Jaime Harrison is running a credible race against Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, and where I think Trump’s support is softening a bit. Additionally, I also think Democrat M.J. Hegar is a good candidate in Texas, but I expect GOP Senator John Cornyn to run better than Trump in that state. To me, that means a rating of Likely Republican. I am making no ratings changes in Kansas or Kentucky, which remain Safe Republican.

As of now, I expect Democrats to defeat Republican incumbents in Colorado, Arizona, Maine and North Carolina, where Democrat Cal Cunningham continues to lead Republican Senator Thom Tillis. I characterize North Carolina as Lean Democratic. I also expect Republican Tommy Tuberville to defeat Democratic Senator Doug Jones in Alabama, and I rate this race Safe Republican (another rare instance in which I consider a challenger a safe bet against an incumbent). Jones won a special election under fluky circumstances, and while he will likely run well ahead of Biden in Alabama, it won’t be enough to keep him in office.

Iowa will be competitive, but right now, I still rate it as Tilt Republican. That could change between now and November, as could my rating in at least one of the two Georgia races.

Strangely enough, although Democratic prospects have improved over the last 100 days, I still, at this time, only expect Democrats to gain a 50-50 tie in the Senate, a net gain of three seats. If Biden does win, as I expect, his vice presidential candidate will be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, giving Democrats procedural control of the chamber. However, if the present trends continue, there is a very real chance that Democrats could pick up seats in Iowa and Georgia as well. If there is a total Republican collapse, it is not out of the question that Democrats could end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PREVIEW

As to the House of Representatives, I still have not sat down and done a comprehensive review at this time, but that is in part because I believe Republicans have no chance of retaking the chamber. Unlike most commentators, I do expect Democrats to make notable gains; they left a lot of suburban House seats on the table in 2018 by very small margins. I expect Democratic net gains in the House of somewhere from 12 to 15 seats. I will dig into this more deeply in future ratings.