To view the full ratings chart, click here.
Readers of my Twitter/X page (@clistonbrown) and my website know that I consider polling to be an untrustworthy means of assessing upcoming elections. Having seen the massive polling errors in several key states over the last two presidential elections, as well as recent midterm elections, I believe we can no longer glean anything of value from polls or polling averages.
In assessing the state of the race, it is important to look at other factors, and at this point in time, there are a number of countervailing factors that make it impossible to honestly say that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump has the advantage with 15 days to go.
On one hand, some of the signals coming out of the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada should be troubling to Harris and the Democrats. Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada over the last few weeks have been warning that they do not like the signs and trends they are seeing in their states. And in Pennsylvania, two things are especially troubling for Democrats. The first concerning point is that Republicans continue to close their gap in registration with Democrats in the Keystone State. The second worrisome data point: Democratic Senator Bob Casey has been running an ad where he points out areas of agreement he has with Trump on certain issues and featuring a married couple, one Republican and one Democrat, supporting Casey.
To be honest, that ad marked the first time in this campaign that I have really thought Democrats might be in trouble. As a rule of thumb, when Democrats are focusing on winning crossover Republicans or getting strong support from young people, that is usually a sign that they don’t think they have enough votes to win without those groups. And because those groups are hard to get—most voters don’t ticket-split anymore, and young people have voted at a lower rate than any other age group in literally every election on record—if Democrats think they need those two groups, they’re in trouble.
On the other hand, we are seeing reports of record early turnout and promising turnout among voters voting by mail. Georgia and North Carolina are seeing record early turnout. Pennsylvania Democrats are building a “firewall” of mail ballots, hoping to withstand an Election Day turnout in the Keystone State that is likely to be heavily Republican.
It would be completely dishonest for me—or anyone—to say we know at this point which indicators are likely to be more important 15 days from now. I have long believed that Vice President Harris, as an African-American woman from California, would be a hard sell to the white voters she needs to win to capture the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. In those states, traditionalist views hold more sway than they do on the coasts, and residents tend to cast a wary eye toward Democratic politicians from California. On the other hand, it is possible that she may run better than Joe Biden did in North Carolina and perhaps Georgia. If she can win those states, as well as Arizona and Nevada, she could overcome losses in the Rust Belt and still prevail. But it is a dicey proposition. A loss in any of the four Sun Belt swing states, if coupled with losing all three Rust Belt swing states, would doom Harris’s candidacy.
It has also always been my contention—backed up by results in both 2016 and 2020, and trends dating back to the turn of the century—that House and Senate races are likely to mirror almost perfectly the presidential results in those constituencies. My view remains that the Republicans are all but certain to flip control of the Senate—and I am now moving the race in Ohio to “Leans Republican,” which would indicate at least a 52-48 GOP majority in 2025. I have rated Montana at least “Leans Republican” (and now “Likely Republican”) since the beginning of the campaign, and the Senate seat in West Virginia, currently held by former Democrat and current independent Joe Manchin, is certain to flip to the GOP. I believe that whichever candidate wins the presidency, his or her party is nearly certain to win the House as well.
In short, I rate the Senate now as “Likely Republican,” and both the presidency and the House as toss-ups.
Given all of the information available at the moment, I am now moving the presidential and Senate races in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to toss-up status, and as I noted earlier, I am moving the Senate race in Ohio to “Leans Republican,” with GOP nominee Bernie Moreno now a slight favorite to oust Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. Additionally, based on some of the early voting totals reported by Jon Ralston in Nevada, and also by statements coming from the powerful Culinary Union that Harris would lose Nevada if the election were held now, I am moving the presidential and Senate races in Nevada to toss-ups as well.
All of these aforementioned changes represent movement away from the Democrats, but I also am making two ratings changes in their direction. After seeing the heavy early turnout in Georgia, and a recent court case that went against the Trumpist-dominated Georgia elections board, I am now moving Georgia from “Leans Republican” to toss-up.
I now show all seven “swing states” as being toss-up states in the presidential race, and five of those states have Senate races this cycle, with the exceptions of North Carolina and Georgia. Of the five Senate races in those states, I rate four as toss-ups. I still consider Democrat Ruben Gallego a slight favorite over Republican Kari Lake in the Arizona Senate race—I believe that a female candidate will run slightly behind Trump due to some of the Trumpist base’s prejudices. Those voters may not vote for Gallego, but they might pass on voting for Lake, too. Nonetheless, I think the Arizona Senate race will be much closer than polling indicates, largely due to the fact that the presidential race in the state is a toss-up.
My only other rating change away from Republicans, since 15 days ago, is an unexpected wild card. The independent Senate candidacy of Dan Osborn in Nebraska is causing a tremendous level of heartburn for incumbent GOP Senator Deb Fischer. I believe that Osborn’s status as an independent candidate is helping him overcome the resistance that most of Nebraska’s electorate would have against a Democratic candidate. One thing I have learned over the last 18 years of prognosticating elections is that when candidates are pleading for more money, they are seeing trends and data points they do not like. (Jon Tester, the incumbent Democratic Senator from Montana, has been almost screeching for help for months, and Sherrod Brown’s level of pleading in the Ohio Senate race has become more intense in recent weeks.) Fischer’s camp has been sounding alarms for several weeks now. I ultimately think that enough of Nebraska’s Republican voters will “come home” to reelect Fischer, but I can no longer dismiss the possibility of an upset out of hand. I am moving that race from “Safe Republican” to “Leans Republican.”
It is often presumed that Osborn, should he upset Fischer, would caucus with the Democrats, but I doubt that, as it would likely doom his reelection bid in ruby-red Nebraska. But even if he did caucus with Team Blue, my view at this time is that Republicans are likely to have a 51-49 majority regardless. Should Osborn win, and if Sherrod Brown were to hold on to his seat in Ohio, we could see a situation where the Senate has 50 Republicans, 47 Democrats and two Democratic-caucusing independents, and Osborn holding the keys to the chamber, possibly forcing the Senate to anoint someone like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) or Angus King (I-Maine) as majority leader. Of course, that would depend on Harris also winning, thus giving Tim Walz the Senate’s tiebreaking vote. But this is all conjecture, and it is all based on probabilities that I consider to be below 50%.
The bottom line is that nobody knows who is going to win the presidency or the House right now, and anybody who tells you that they do know is full of crap. This race will come down to turnout and intensity. Whoever wants it more will win it. That’s why the heavy early-vote turnout in North Carolina and Georgia, and Democratic successes in mail voting in Pennsylvania, have given me pause. If not for that, at this point, I would likely be moving several of these states to “Leans Republican” and characterizing Trump as the front-runner. At this point, I see a lot of worrisome signs for Harris, but I am not yet convinced that she has any worse than a 50-50 shot.
I will try to make predictions for every state in two weeks, but candidly, I am not sure that I will be able to do so. I will tell you this: out of respect for my readers, and my sense of integrity, I am not going to claim to know something I don’t. I do not want to give anybody any false hope or any false reasons for alarm. The one time I got a presidential election wrong, in 2016, it was an honest error based on what I believed to be the best information available at the time. But to be candid, it was also an error based in hubris and my inability or unwillingness to see something that, in retrospect, was staring me right in the face. I will not make such an error again, even if it means telling you honestly that I just can’t call it.
We will see if developments indicate a decisive break is occurring in one direction or the other between now and November 5th. The decisive break usually comes, but when it doesn’t, you get an election like 1960 or 2000.