by Cliston Brown | Aug 12, 2023 | Sports
It has become clear that the realignment of the major collegiate athletic conferences has become a complete farce, with ridiculous, coast-to-coast conferences creating crazy travel schedules for supposed “student-athletes” and destroying the traditions and traditional regional rivalries that make college sports great.
The latest round of restructuring, as it happens, has resulted in exactly 64 schools spread among the “Power 4” conferences. As suggested by UCLA head coach Chip Kelly, an obvious solution here is to create a “super league” (which I first suggested years ago), and realigning those 64 schools into four conferences of 16 schools each, divided into eight-team divisions, which would essentially create an eight-team playoff: four conference championship games, two semifinals and a national championship game. Conference members would play all seven division rivals and two teams from the other division on a rotating basis, for a total of nine conference games. As such, every member of every conference plays every other member at least once in a four-year period. (Conferences would also be permitted to dispense with divisions if they choose and instead designate three permanent rivals for each school, rotating the other 12 conference members at six a year, so that everyone plays everyone home and away at least once in a four-year period.)
My proposed realignment would emphasize traditional rivalries and geographic realities to the degree possible (although three schools east of the Mississippi River would still end up in the Big XII). The traditional major bowl alliances would also be restored, with the Big Ten champion meeting the champion from the Big XII (which would absorb most of the former Pac-12) in the Rose Bowl, and the SEC champion going to the Sugar Bowl to face the ACC champion.
This new “Premier League” of college football would also allow for Notre Dame and the four Pac-12 members left out in the latest round of musical chairs to join as independents, and for one independent to potentially qualify for a playoff spot, in lieu of the lowest-ranked conference champion, if any of the independents meets three specific criteria.
ACC
Add: Maryland, Rutgers from Big Ten; West Virginia from Big XII
Lose: Louisville to Big XII
Bringing Maryland back to its traditional home and adding Rutgers and West Virginia gives the ACC the entire Atlantic coast footprint, and it also restores eastern football in a meaningful way. The ACC North would be what the Big East should have been (minus Penn State). More than half of the traditional ACC, plus the Florida and Georgia additions, would be together in the ACC South.
The only downside to the plan is that Virginia and North Carolina would be in different divisions and, under a nine-game conference schedule with two foes rotating every year, the UVA-UNC rivalry would only be played as a conference game once every four years. However, if both schools wish to continue playing every year, they could schedule each other for a nonconference game in the other three years (as North Carolina and Wake Forest do now). If the ACC wants to preserve the rivalry as a conference game every year, Florida State and Miami could be shifted to be with the eastern football schools, with Virginia and Virginia Tech shifting into the division with the North Carolina schools, Clemson and Georgia Tech. Given Miami’s history with the other eastern schools, including as a founding member of the Big East football conference, this would make some sense from a traditional standpoint.
ACC North
Boston College
Maryland
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse
Virginia*
Virginia Tech*
West Virginia
ACC South
Clemson
Duke
Florida State*
Georgia Tech
Miami*
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
*—Virginia and Virginia Tech could swap places with Florida State and Miami if needed to preserve the Virginia-North Carolina rivalry.
If the ACC chose not to have divisions, the slate of permanent rivals might look like this:
Boston College: Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Duke: North Carolina, Wake Forest, North Carolina State
Florida State: Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, Miami
Maryland: Virginia, West Virginia, Rutgers
Miami: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson
North Carolina: Duke, North Carolina State, Virginia
North Carolina State: North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest
Pittsburgh: West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College
Rutgers: Maryland, Syracuse, Boston College
Syracuse: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Virginia: Virginia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina
Virginia Tech: Virginia, West Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
West Virginia: Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia Tech
SEC
Add: Oklahoma State from Big XII
Lose: Missouri to Big Ten
More than any of the other Power 4, the SEC has done a good job of expanding in a way that makes sense. Only Missouri, which is more in the Big Ten’s footprint (and really wanted to join the Big Ten) is an odd fit in the SEC. Swapping Missouri for Oklahoma State would restore two of college football’s great traditional rivalries: Missouri-Kansas (see Big Ten) and Oklahoma-Oklahoma State. It would also be a better fit for both the Big Ten and SEC’s geographical footprints.
SEC East
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
SEC West
Arkansas
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M
Should the SEC elect not to have divisions, it would be very, very easy to designate three permanent rivals for each school. The only games that would not be considered traditional rivalries would be South Carolina-Kentucky, Alabama-Mississippi State, Arkansas-Oklahoma State, and Mississippi State-Oklahoma State. However, Alabama and Mississippi State are neighbors, as are Arkansas and Oklahoma State, and Mississippi State and Oklahoma State both have similar positions in their states: as the “ag” school, looked down upon by the “flagship” school, and in that way would make very natural rivals.
Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Arkansas: LSU, Texas, Oklahoma State
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Florida: Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina
Georgia: Florida, Auburn, South Carolina
Kentucky: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina
LSU: Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt
Mississippi State: Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma State
Oklahoma: Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M
Oklahoma State: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi State
South Carolina: Georgia, Florida, Kentucky
Tennessee: Vanderbilt, Alabama, Kentucky
Texas: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
Texas A&M: Texas, LSU, Oklahoma
Vanderbilt: Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi
Big Ten
Add: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State from Big XII; Missouri from SEC
Lose: Oregon, Southern California, UCLA, Washington to Big XII; Maryland and Rutgers to ACC.
This new alignment would stop the madness and get the Big Ten back to what it used to be and always should be: a Midwestern-based league, with most traditional rivals playing each other every year. The Big Ten West would essentially be the core of the old Big Eight, minus the Oklahoma schools and Colorado.
Big Ten East
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Big Ten West
Iowa
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Should the Big Ten decide not to have divisions, it would be relatively easy to designate three permanent rivals for each conference member. The most difficult one to figure out would be Iowa, but its longstanding rivalries with Iowa State, Minnesota and Wisconsin would mean having to scrap Iowa vs. Nebraska on a yearly basis, and replacing it with Iowa State vs. Nebraska (a former Big Eight/Big XII rivalry). A non-divisional lineup could restore most of the Big Ten’s traditional trophy games (such as Illinois/Ohio State and Michigan/Minnesota) to yearly contests.
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa: Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Iowa State: Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska
Kansas: Missouri, Kansas State, Nebraska
Kansas State: Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, Penn State
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Missouri: Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
Nebraska: Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Penn State
Big XII
Add: Louisville from ACC; Oregon, Southern California, UCLA and Washington from Big Ten
Lose: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State to Big Ten; Oklahoma State to SEC; West Virginia to ACC
With footholds in California, Texas and Florida under this new alignment, the Big XII shouldn’t miss Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and West Virginia very much. It would basically become a Sunbelt/Pacific coast league. Adding Louisville from the ACC would restore a traditional rivalry between UL and Cincinnati. The only odd fit would be Colorado in the East Division, but the Buffaloes are not likely to complain about annual matchups with four Texas schools and Central Florida. Seven of the old Pac-12 would be reunited in the West Division, plus BYU, thus preserving its “Holy War” rivalry with Utah.
Big XII East
Baylor
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Colorado
Houston
Louisville
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
Big XII West
Arizona
Arizona State
Brigham Young
Oregon
Southern California
UCLA
Utah
Washington
A non-divisional lineup with three permanent rivals per school might look like this, with emphasis on keeping together longstanding traditional rivalries (such as the Texas schools and the west coast schools). Unfortunately, there would be a handful of odd pairings (Arizona State-Louisville, BYU-UCF and BYU-Cincinnati), but because BYU traditionally has liked to travel due to its desire to be a messenger for the Mormon faith, this actually might work out all right.
Arizona: Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Arizona State: Arizona, Colorado, Louisville
Baylor: TCU, Texas Tech, Houston
Brigham Young: Utah, Cincinnati, UCF
Central Florida: Cincinnati, Louisville, BYU
Cincinnati: Louisville, UCF, BYU
Colorado: Utah, Arizona, Arizona State
Houston: TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
Louisville: Cincinnati, UCF, Arizona State
Oregon: Washington, USC, UCLA
Southern California: UCLA, Washington, Oregon
Texas Christian: Baylor, Houston, Texas Tech
Texas Tech: Baylor, TCU, Houston
UCLA: USC, Oregon, Washington
Utah: BYU, Colorado, Arizona
Washington: Oregon, UCLA, USC
Independents
The four Pac-12 schools left standing when the latest round of musical chairs stopped (California, Oregon State, Stanford and Washington State), as well as Notre Dame, would be invited to join the new league as independents. It’s obvious that Notre Dame would have to be included. And clearly, the flagship school from the nation’s biggest state can’t be left out, nor can its chief rival, which is considered one of the world’s leading schools. Inviting Oregon State and Washington State is a call which is less clear-cut, but their football programs are arguably no worse than California’s or Stanford’s. The top-ranked independent each year would be eligible to make the playoffs (replacing the lowest-ranked conference champion) if it meets three criteria:
- Plays at least nine Premier League opponents. Because the members of the four conferences all would play nine conference games, this is only fair. (If all the independents play each other, they will have satisfied almost half this requirement and would only need to find five more opponents from the four conferences. If Notre Dame continues its deal with the ACC, in which it plays five ACC schools a year, the Irish would have a full slate, without even considering its annual rivalry game with USC.)
- Loses no more than one game.
- Outranks at least one conference champion.
Playoffs
Two bowls would be designated as the semifinals, with the Big Ten and Big XII champions playing in the Rose Bowl, and the ACC and SEC champions playing in the Sugar Bowl, both games being restored to New Year’s Day, in accordance with tradition, and the championship game to follow a week later. While the site could rotate, the best solution would be to have the game in Dallas every year (thereby throwing a nod to the old Cotton Bowl, which used to be considered one of the primary bowls, and also having it in a top-flight stadium close to the middle of the country). The lowest-ranked conference champion could be replaced by an independent if the top-ranked independent meets the three criteria listed earlier.
While the Orange Bowl would be left out of the rotation for the playoffs, it could also be a New Year’s Day bowl, with the top independent, or the conference champion replaced by the top independent, getting an automatic bid and facing the highest-ranked Premier League team that did not win its conference. No other bowls would be played on New Year’s Day.
A potential scenario for New Year’s Day would be as follows:
Orange Bowl: Notre Dame/USC vs. Alabama/Georgia
Rose Bowl (semifinal): Ohio State/Michigan vs. USC/Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl (semifinal): Georgia/Alabama vs. Clemson/Florida State
by Cliston Brown | Jan 26, 2023 | Election Analysis
In thinking about the upcoming presidential election, Democrats have two considerations to keep in mind. First and foremost, they must ensure that President Joe Biden is reelected. Secondly, and closely related to the first consideration, they need to think about how to deal with the extremely daunting Senate map they face in 2024.
Of the 34 Senate seats that will be on the ballot, Democrats are defending 23 (a total which includes three independents who caucus with the Democrats). Of the 11 Republican seats which are up for election in 2024, nine are in deeply red states where Democrats simply cannot win a statewide race these days, and the other two (Texas and Florida) offer Democrats odds which are well under 50%.
On the flip side, Democrats will be defending as many as 11 seats where Republicans have a legitimate chance to win, although certainly some of those states offer Democrats odds above 50%. With Democrats holding a 51-49 advantage in the Senate, they can only afford to lose one seat, but three of the seats they must defend are in states that Donald Trump won by landslide margins (8% or greater) in the last two elections (Ohio, Montana and West Virginia). Unless Democrats can somehow figure out how to hold on to two of those three seats, and all the others they currently hold–or win in either Texas or Florida–they will lose the Senate in 2024.
The reason that presidential and Senate consideration are closely related in 2024 is because ticket-splitting in presidential and Senate races is at an all-time low. Over the last two presidential elections, states have voted for the presidential candidate and Senate candidate of the same party 68 times out of 69 (a 98.6% correlation rate). The lone exception was the 2020 reelection of Republican Susan Collins in Maine, which Biden carried–and even Collins had her closest Senate race ever.
As such, President Biden has to think about campaigning not just in the states that he needs to hold on to in order to prevail in the Electoral College, but also in some states where he might not have a great chance to win. If he loses Ohio by 8% again, or Montana by 16%, Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Jon Tester (D-Montana) are likely to lose. At the very least, Biden will have to significantly shrink his margin of defeat in those two states–or compete seriously in Texas and/or Florida–if Democrats are to retain control of the Senate after 2024.
FIRST-TIER STATES
As we look at the electoral map, it is very clear that there are two absolute must-win states for Biden: Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes) and Michigan (15 electoral votes) are irreplaceable keystones of a Democratic Electoral College win. As it happens, both states have Senate races in 2024 as well, and Michigan’s Senate race will have no incumbent, because Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow is retiring after four terms.
BOTTOM LINE: The Democrats must do whatever is necessary and spend whatever funds are required to hold onto Pennsylvania and Michigan. They cannot afford to lose either state.
SECOND-TIER STATES
The second tier for Democrats includes the three states that Biden won by less than 1% each in 2020: Georgia (16 electoral votes), Arizona (11 electoral votes) and Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), and one state he won by 2%, Nevada (6 electoral votes). If he holds Pennsylvania and Michigan, Biden only needs to retain one of Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin to be reelected. Of these three states, only Georgia has no Senate race in 2024. Democrats will have tough holds in Senate races in Arizona and Wisconsin. As such, Arizona and Wisconsin should be considered slightly higher priorities than Georgia, though Georgia cannot be ignored, because the Peach State’s demographic trends make it a far more promising state for Democrats going forward than either Arizona or Wisconsin. Biden must also ensure he hangs on to Nevada to ensure that Democrats retain that Senate seat.
BOTTOM LINE: The smart strategy here is to go all-out in Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada–sparing no expense–but to take a slightly less aggressive approach in Georgia, which Biden can afford to lose if he wins either Arizona or Wisconsin, and where Democrats are not defending a Senate seat.
“REACH” STATES
The third group of states where Biden and the Democrats must consider playing includes four states that voted twice for Donald Trump. But here, the strategy depends on whether it is considered smarter to defend incumbent Democratic senators in two states where Republicans now have a considerable advantage (Ohio, Montana), or to try to take out incumbent Republican senators in states that are not quite as red as the other two (Texas, Florida). Another factor to keep in mind is that Texas and Florida are extremely expensive states to campaign in due to their large populations and multiple big media markets. Ohio is not a cheap, low-population state, either, but Democrats can get more bang for their buck in Ohio, and certainly in sparsely populated Montana, than they can in Texas or Florida.
For Biden, it is obvious that he has a better chance to carry Florida–even with its recent rightward trend–than he has to win Ohio. He has perhaps a better chance to win Texas than he has to win Ohio, although Ohio and the Midwest tend to be a little more elastic than Texas and the South. Biden has no realistic chance whatsoever to win Montana.
There is also the fact that Texas (40 electoral votes) and Florida (30 electoral votes) pack much more of a punch in the Electoral College than Ohio (17 electoral votes) or Montana (4 electoral votes), and the two bigger states in recent elections have been more promising for Democrats than either of the two smaller states. An upset win in either Texas or Florida guarantees Biden’s reelection. For that matter, a (less-likely) win in Ohio does the same. Montana makes no difference and isn’t really winnable for Biden anyway. The only reason for Biden to campaign in Montana is to avoid hanging a 16-point anchor around Tester’s neck. So if you’re Biden, you’re probably more interested in the Texas-Florida route than the Ohio-Montana route.
But Democrats do not want to lose Tester or Brown, and as Democratic incumbents, they in some ways have a slightly easier task than the Democrats who will challenge Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rick Scott (R-Florida). Incumbents start with a thumb on the scale.
Not included in this group of “reach” states is West Virginia, where Democratic Senator Joe Manchin will face the most difficult race of his career. It would be futile for Biden to campaign in West Virginia, a state where he is guaranteed to lose by at least 30 percentage points. If Manchin can overcome a 30- to 40-point anchor at the top of the ticket, tip your hat to him. But Democrats can afford to lose Manchin’s seat as long as they win two of the four Senate seats in the “reach” states, and all four of those states are far better bets for Democrats. The Democrats should leave Manchin to fend for himself, which might actually help him in the nation’s second-reddest state.
BOTTOM LINE: Democrats don’t need any of these four “reach” states to keep the presidency, but they do need to win two of these four Senate seats to keep the Senate. They have no chance to win any of them if Biden doesn’t do decently in those states. The best bet is to campaign in all four and hope Democrats can win two of those Senate seats.
“DEFENSE” STATES
Finally, Biden and the Democrats should spend some money and resources in three states where Biden is likely to win, but all of which remain close enough that they could go haywire under the right circumstances. These three states are Virginia (11 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes), and Maine (4 electoral votes).
BOTTOM LINE: Democrats are likely to win both the presidential races and Senate races in all three of these states, but they can’t take any chances and must make sure to nail them all down.
SUMMARY
For Joe Biden to win reelection and give his party the best chance at retaining its slim advantage in the Senate in 2024, he must campaign in, and dedicate significant resources to, exactly 13 states, and only those 13 states. There is no utility whatsoever in campaigning in any of the other 37 states, or the District of Columbia, which–with the exception of North Carolina–are all safe for one party or the other.
With North Carolina unnecessary to an Electoral College majority for Biden, and the Tar Heel State having no Senate races on the ballot in 2024, there is no strategic reason to vigorously contest it when the party has more pressing priorities. (Although a similar case can be made about Georgia, which also has no Senate races on the ballot in 2024, the fact remains that Georgia flipped blue in 2020 and North Carolina did not. As such, Georgia could be a backup for Biden in the event that he loses both Arizona and Wisconsin. Strategically, Democrats would do well to leave North Carolina alone in 2024 and revisit it in 2026 and 2028, when it has Senate races on the ballot.)
There will be some talk of trying to challenge Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) or flip an open Republican seat in Indiana, but such talk should be ignored. Democrats will have their hands full in the 13 states where they really need to compete, and spending money and resources in deeply red states like Missouri and Indiana, where Democrats are simply not going to win or even come close, would be foolish, wasteful, and bad strategy. Any money spent in any of these 37 states is money that can’t be spent where control of the White House and the Senate will be decided. Democrats need to keep their eyes on the prize and not go off on wild goose chases in impossible states.
by Cliston Brown | Nov 13, 2022 | Election Analysis
As of Sunday morning, the New York Times elections site—which is possibly the best one available—shows 21 U.S. House seats still uncalled, although one of them is a Democrat-vs.-Democrat race in California, so that seat is automatically a Democratic hold. Among the 20 other races, Democrats would need to win 14 to hold the majority, while Republicans only need seven. Here I’m going to analyze how those 20 seats break down, from east to west.
Maine 2—Democrat Jared Golden leads Republican Bruce Poliquin by 3% before ranked-choice voting kicks in. Golden’s in good shape. LIKELY D.
New York 22—Republican Brandon Williams leads by about 2% in a Republican-leaning district. LIKELY R.
Colorado 3—Republican Lauren Boebert holds a narrow lead, but most signs indicate that she will squeak this one out. LEANS R.
Colorado 8—It is a bit surprising that this race has not been called for Democrat Yadira Caraveo, whose Republican opponent, Barbara Kirkmeyer, conceded days ago. The margin is only 0.7% right now, but one tends to think that the person who conceded had a good reason to do it. LIKELY D.
Arizona 1—Democrat Jevin Hodge leads incumbent Republican David Schweikert by 0.8%, but there are a lot of votes (14%) still to be counted. It is a close district, so it is hard to say who will prevail here. My guess is that Schweikert ekes it out. LEANS R.
Arizona 6—Republican Juan Ciscomani leads Democrat Kirsten Engel by 0.4% with 13% of the vote still out. I expect Ciscomani hangs on. LEANS R.
Oregon 5—With Republican Lori Chavez-De Remer leading Democrat Jamie McLeod-Skinner by 2. It’s clear that a bitter Democratic primary, in which McLeod-Skinner ousted incumbent Kurt Schrader, left a mark. My guess is that the Republican holds on. Democrats should take a lesson from what happens when you primary a centrist Democrat in a centrist district. LEANS R.
Oregon 6—Democrat Andrea Salinas leads Republican Mike Erickson by 2%. It’s a slightly blue-leaning district, so I expect Salinas wins. LIKELY D.
California 3—Republican incumbent Kevin Kiley leads Democratic challenger Kermit Jones by about 6%. Late counts in California typically favor Democrats, but Jones probably has too far to go to get there. LEANS R.
California 6—I don’t know why this one hasn’t been called yet. Incumbent Democrat Ami Bera has a 12% lead over Republican Tamika Hamilton, in a Democratic-leaning district. LIKELY D.
California 9—Another race that probably should have been called by now. Democratic incumbent Josh Harder leads by 12% over Republican Tom Patti. LIKELY D.
California 13—Republican John Duarte has a 0.2% lead over Democrat Adam Gray in this open seat. The late count, I expect, will likely favor Gray. LEANS D.
California 21—Incumbent Democrat Jim Costa leads Republican Michael Maher by 10%. LIKELY D.
California 22—Republican incumbent David Valadao has a 6% lead over Democrat Rudy Salas. This is a heavily Democratic district, but Valadao’s personal brand has helped him overcome his district’s partisan lean many times. The margin will tighten, but I expect Valadao will hold on. LEANS R.
California 27—Republican incumbent Mike Garcia holds a 10% lead over Democrat Christy Smith in this Democratic-leaning district. The margin will tighten, but it’s hard to imagine Garcia losing a 10-point lead. It’s beginning to look like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was right to pull the plug on this race. LEANS R.
California 41—Longtime Republican incumbent Ken Calvert leads Democrat Will Rollins by about a point and a half. This one could be pretty tight up to the end. It’s one of California’s more Republican districts, but that’s not saying much. With the late count usually favoring Democrats, I think Rollins pulls it out. LEANS D.
California 45—Incumbent Republican Michelle Steel leads Democrat Jay Chen by 8%. She probably holds on. LEANS R.
California 47—Incumbent Democrat Katie Porter’s district got a lot more Republican this cycle, but she leads her GOP opponent, Scott Baugh, by 2%, and I expect she holds on. LEANS D.
California 49—Incumbent Democrat Mike Levin leads Republican Bryan Maryott by 4% and should win. LIKELY D.
Alaska At-Large—Democratic incumbent Mary Peltola is in great shape, with 47% of the vote before ranked choice takes effect, and some number of Republicans certain to have named her as their second choice. LIKELY D.
In all, of the 20 uncalled races, I expect Democrats to win 11 and Republicans to win nine. That would give Republicans a scant 220-215 majority with a net gain of seven seats. As compared to the average loss for a president’s party in a midterm election (34-35 seats), this is clearly a major underperformance by the Republican Party, and it puts Democrats in a strong position to retake the House in 2024 if President Biden does well in his reelection campaign.
That said, if just three of those expected Republican seats end up going Democratic (and at least two of them are pretty dicey calls at this point), then Democrats would hold the House—a remarkable result if it happens.
Recent Comments