Election Analysis

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

by Cliston Brown | Jul 26, 2020 | Election Analysis

(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.

The Myth of Ohio

by Cliston Brown | Apr 25, 2020 | Election Analysis

For decades, the notion that Ohio is a bellwether state that decides the outcome of this nation’s presidential elections has persisted. Even today, many Democrats cling to the notion that their party cannot win an Electoral College victory without claiming Ohio’s electoral votes.

This theory is bunk.

Ohio has gained its unearned reputation as an election-deciding bellwether largely due to sheer luck and the fact that its polls close at 7:30 Eastern time. As a result, it is perfectly positioned to be the state that appears to put the Democrats over the top in the Electoral College, but that is merely a function of Ohio usually being called sometime between 10 and 11 p.m. Eastern time, when one candidate or the other is within striking distance of hitting the magic 270 electoral vote threshold.

But Ohio has as much to do with electing presidents as crowing roosters have to do with causing the sun to rise.

In truth, Ohio has not played a decisive role in the election of any Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson narrowly won reelection in 1916. Even in that election, it was not the tipping-point state; the tipping-point state that decided the election was California. (A “tipping point state” is the closest state that gives the winning candidate an electoral college majority.)

It is an arithmetical fact that every Democrat who has won the presidency in the last 100 years would have won an Electoral College majority even if he had lost Ohio. Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy did just that, in 1944 and 1960 respectively.

In fact, Ohio has only been the decisive, tipping-point state in two presidential elections since the Civil War, and in both of those elections (1876 and 2004), Ohio tipped the election to a Republican.

An examination of Ohio’s electoral history demonstrates that Ohio is a Republican-leaning state that almost always votes a few points more Republican than the nation as a whole. Since the Republican Party’s founding in 1854, 41 presidential elections have taken place. Ohio has given Republican presidential candidates greater margins than the national electorate at large has in 33 of those 41 elections, slightly more than 80% of the time. In the 24 presidential elections held in the last century, the Republican margin in Ohio has exceeded the Republican margin in the national popular vote 21 times, exactly 87.5% of the time. In short, Ohio leans to the right of the nation in more than four out of every five presidential elections, and its Republican lean has only become more pronounced with time.

In the 41 elections conducted since the GOP was founded in 1854, Republicans have outperformed their national margin in Ohio by an average of 3.07%. In the last century, the average GOP margin in Ohio has grown to 4.185%. While there are some clear outliers in the data that skew the margin a bit, it is nonetheless clear that Ohio does lean to the right of the national average. In short, if a presidential election is dead-even, or the Democratic nominee wins the national popular vote by roughly a point or less, Ohio will go Republican.

Arithmetically, Democrats simply do not need to win Ohio to win the presidency. By the time Ohio falls into the Democratic column, the election has already been won in other states (even if their polls haven’t closed yet, or there hasn’t been enough of a count in those states to call them for the Democrat by the time that Ohio, an early-closing state, has been largely tabulated).

The implications are simple: Ohio should only be contested if Democrats have plenty of money to spend in other, more crucial states. History conclusively demonstrates that Ohio has never been the tipping-point state in a Democratic victory. To the degree that it ever has been a tipping-point state, it has tipped the election to the Republicans both times.

This is not to suggest that Democrats should give up entirely on Ohio. As long as its major cities provide a treasure trove of votes to the Democratic Party, there will always be a chance to win it, even if that chance is less than 50/50. And just as history shows us that Democrats can win without Ohio (and have done so), history also shows us that Republicans must win Ohio to win the election. They’ve never won nationally without winning Ohio.

But in the later stages of a close presidential race in which tough decisions must be made about resources, Democrats should pull the plug on Ohio without a moment’s hesitation and turn their focus to more fertile ground. Because to put it bluntly: If Democrats find themselves counting on Ohio to win an election, they’re going to lose.

200 Days Out: Biden A Slight Favorite; Democrats Poised to Flip Senate Narrowly

by Cliston Brown | Apr 17, 2020 | Election Analysis

As of today, there are exactly 200 days until the November elections, and at this moment, my expectation is that former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, rates a slight favorite over Republican President Donald Trump.

Based in part on polling averages at this time, and in part on the fundamentals of the race, I currently expect Biden to win 334 electoral votes, compared to 204 for Trump. I refuse to classify any state as a toss-up, which in my mind is a cop-out, but if I were going to list any states as “toss-ups,” those states would be Florida and North Carolina, which I currently list as “tilt Biden.” 

From a polling perspective, Biden currently has an average lead of about 5.5 percentage points, which is roughly 3.4 points above and beyond Hillary Clinton’s popular-vote margin over Trump in 2016. Adding 3.4 points to her totals across the board would flip Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin narrowly to Biden, and would turn North Carolina and Arizona into pure toss-ups. I am rating the latter two states as “tilt Biden” for several reasons.

  • First, I expect slightly fewer third-party defections nationally in 2020 as compared to 2016, which to me indicates a probable bump of at least a few tenths of a percentage point for Biden.
  • Second, there are key Senate races in both states:
    • In Arizona, Democrat Mark Kelly appears to be a clear favorite in his race against incumbent Republican appointee Martha McSally. Given the partisan polarization of the country at this time, I find it hard to imagine there will be very many Kelly voters who will also vote for Trump.
    • In North Carolina, Democrat Cal Cunningham, who is challenging Republican incumbent Thom Tillis for a Senate seat, is remarkably well funded.

I am rating Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin as “lean Biden” because adding 3.4 points to the Democrats in those states, compared to 2016, and also expecting fewer third-party defections, would flip those states by close but relatively comfortable margins. However, Michigan appears to be much more solid to flip back to blue than the other two, and Wisconsin much less so. I nearly put Wisconsin in the “tilt Biden” category, but was convinced to move it to “lean Biden” by the landslide win by the Democratic candidate in last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, despite the obstacles of voting during a pandemic. It appears clear that there is a motivated Democratic electorate in Wisconsin this year. I also considered putting Pennsylvania in the “tilt Biden” category, but moved it to “lean Biden” based on his long history in the state.

Although the margin in Florida was not significantly greater for Trump in 2016 than it was in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin, I am rating Florida “tilt Biden” right now, rather than “lean Biden,” for several reasons:

  • First, there is a lot of unpredictability about how its numerous Latino communities will vote. For example: will Venezuelan-Floridians see Democrats as the party of socialism, as many Cuban-Floridians have for generations?
  • Second, Republicans typically overperform in Florida relative to polling. I typically assume Republicans will do 2 percentage points better than expected in that state.
  • Third, as is the case in most southern states, third parties typically do not do as well there as they do in other parts of the country; third-party defections were less of a factor in Florida to begin with, so Democrats should not expect as significant of a boost from a reduction in “spoiler votes” in Florida as they might in the Rust Belt states.
  • Fourth, Trump’s approval ratings in Florida have been notably better than in many other swing states. So I have significantly less certainty about Biden being a favorite in Florida than I have about him being a slight but solid favorite in the three key Rust Belt states that I am rating “lean Biden” at this time.

In addition to Florida, North Carolina and Arizona, I also rate the 2nd District of Nebraska as “tilt Biden.” It is slightly less Democratic-leaning, on the whole, than the three Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. But it is also the kind of urban/suburban area where Trump is not especially popular, and at this point, I would rate Biden a very slight favorite to win it.

In the “lean Trump” category, I include Ohio, Georgia, Iowa and the 2nd District of Maine. A 3.4-percentage point increase in the Democratic totals would not budge any of these jurisdictions out of the Trump column. In fact, a case could be made that Ohio, Iowa and Maine’s 2nd District should be rated “likely Trump.” However, there tends to be a greater tendency toward sharp swings in the Midwest than in other parts of the country, so it is not inconceivable that Biden could compete in either state. The 2nd District of Maine is not only demographically similar to Iowa and rural Ohio, but also prone to large swings.

Understand that I consider the “lean Trump” states to be much more likely to go as I expect than any of the “lean Biden” states are. I think Trump is in a stronger position in Ohio, Georgia, Iowa or Maine’s 2nd District than Biden is in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin.

Moving on to the states rated in the likely category, as a rule, I rated any state that voted for Clinton in 2016 as no worse than “likely Biden.” The states Clinton won by three points or less (Minnesota, Nevada, Maine and New Hampshire) all fall into this category. I expect all of them to be off the board unless there is some sort of significant shift toward Trump nationally, which I do not foresee at this time.

I continue to rate Texas as likely Trump. Despite the ongoing exuberance of many Democrats about Texas, it is too soon to expect Texas to flip in 2020. It may get closer than its nine-point Trump margin in 2016, but not close enough to truly be in play at this time. I expect Biden would need to win nationally by double digits to flip Texas, and I don’t consider that outcome likely.

The remaining states I classify as either “safe Biden” or “safe Trump,” and I doubt very many of those classifications would be considered controversial. I will discuss two of those: Virginia and Colorado, which I rate “safe Biden.” These two states have been consistently moving leftward for a generation, and their demographics (highly urban/suburban, highly educated) do not favor Trump or the Republican Party.

Also rated “safe Biden” are the District of Columbia and the following states: California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon, New Mexico, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware and Vermont.

Rated “safe Trump” are Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

The breakdown, as I see it today, is as follows:

BIDEN 334

  • Safe Biden 210
  • Likely Biden 22
  • Lean Biden 46
  • Tilt Biden 56

TRUMP 204

  • Safe Trump 125
  • Likely Trump 38
  • Lean Trump 41
  • Tilt Trump 0

Moving on to the Senate races, I will state that as a rule of thumb, I do not consider any state likely to vote for a presidential candidate of one party and a Senate candidate of the other party. The correlation between presidential vote and Senate vote over the four presidential elections conducted in the 21st century is around 85%, and in the last presidential election, the same party won the presidential and Senate races in each state which had both races on the ballot.

As a result, at this time, I expect the Democrats to make a net gain of three seats in the Senate, flipping four seats from red to blue and losing the Alabama seat currently held by Democratic Senator Doug Jones. If Biden does, in fact, win the presidency, a +3 Democratic pickup will shift the Senate to Democratic control, with the Democratic vice president breaking the resulting 50-50 tie.

Earlier, I mentioned Democrats Mark Kelly of Arizona and Cal Cunningham of North Carolina as being especially strong candidates, and these are two of the seats I currently expect Democrats to flip. I’m currently rating North Carolina as “tilt Democratic” I also expect Democrat Sara Gideon to defeat incumbent Republican Susan Collins in Maine. In addition to Maine being a likely Biden state, which bodes well for Gideon, Collins’s approval ratings have plummeted as her veneer of supposed moderate has worn off. I currently rate the Arizona and Maine races as “lean Democratic.”

The fourth expected Democratic pickup is also the likeliest one, with Republican Senator Cory Gardner expected to lose in Colorado. As I noted earlier, Colorado is persistently moving left, and the demographics in that state bode poorly for the GOP. Gardner only won his seat narrowly in 2004, running against a Democratic incumbent who ran a poor campaign in a disastrous year for Democrats. Colorado’s continuing leftward shift since then has put Gardner in a decidedly bad position, and I rate Colorado as “likely Democratic.”

Very few other Senate races would not be considered safe at this time for one party or the other. On the Democratic side, I’m rating incumbent Democratic Michigan Senator Gary Peters’ race as “likely Democratic.” On the Republican side, I still rate races in Texas, Montana and Georgia involving GOP incumbents as “likely Republican,” despite the decision by popular Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock to run for the Senate seat in Montana. It is hard to see even a popular Democrat knocking off an incumbent Republican Senator (Steve Daines) while Trump is winning at the top of the ballot in Montana by a wide margin.

I rate two GOP-held seats as “lean Republican,” including Iowa and the seat up for a special election in Georgia. These ratings are the same as the presidential ratings in those states and I expect they will continue to correlate. If either Iowa or Georgia appears to be moving blue at the presidential level, I will adjust the Senate ratings in those states as well.

I am not issuing any House ratings at this time, as that landscape will require further study, but I also consider the House outcome to be in less doubt than the outcome of the presidential race or the composition of the Senate. Unless Trump reverses his fortunes in the suburbs in a big way between now and November, the House is all but certain to remain in Democratic hands.

2018 Midterm Forecast: Democrats +43 in U.S. House; No Net Change in Senate

by Cliston Brown | Nov 5, 2018 | Election Analysis

As I sit down to make my final estimates about the 2018 midterm elections, I have no small sense of trepidation. The last time I attempted to forecast an election, I got it badly wrong. My failure to see what, in retrospect, I feel I should have seen coming in 2016 has made me consider whether my own partisan preferences and/or overconfidence in my own acumen blinded me to the fundamentals of that election.

I resolved after that election to go back to basics, to pay less attention to polls and to do what I have typically done best: to focus on the fundamentals and what I know about the socio-political makeup of each Congressional district and each state.

There are two key fundamentals I have been keeping in mind over the two years of the current cycle:

  1. Fundamentally, midterms are always a referendum on the president, and typically, when a president is hovering well under 50% approval ratings, his party loses badly.
  2. Special elections during a two-year cycle usually give a very solid indication how the next election will end up.

With that in mind, I think it is clear that Democrats will make major gains on Tuesday. I think it is extremely likely that they will win the U.S. House of Representatives, a large number of governorships currently held by Republicans, and a significant number of state legislative chambers. The U.S. Senate has always been an uphill climb for Democrats this cycle, simply because so many Democratic-held seats (26) and so few Republican-held seats (9) are on the ballot, providing minimal pickup opportunities for Democrats and putting Team Blue on defense all over the map.

So the easiest call of this cycle is that Republicans are likely to retain the U.S. Senate. I see Democratic pickups in Nevada and Arizona, and Republican pickups in North Dakota and Missouri. I will say that my confidence about Arizona and Missouri is slim: Arizona, fundamentally, is still a Republican state, and Missouri’s Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, has a history of surviving tough races. But I feel extremely confident about the outcomes in Nevada and North Dakota. I expect when the votes are in, the makeup of the Senate will remain 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and two independent Senators aligned with the Democrats.

This means that I expect several endangered Democratic Senators will hold on, including Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.); Jon Tester (D-Mont.); Bill Nelson (D-Fla.); Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.); and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). It looks like Nelson and Donnelly have opened a slight edge at the end. Democrats are sending out alarms about the troubled Menendez, but it is difficult to see how he loses when Democrats are poised to pick up 3-4 of the five Republican House seats in New Jersey (more on that later). I expect Democratic voters in New Jersey to hold their nose and vote for Menendez, if for no other reason than the Garden State’s disdain for Donald Trump.

In governorships, I expect Democrats to have a big night. It is a slam-dunk that they will flip governorships in Illinois, Michigan and New Mexico. After that, it is a question of who has momentum and enthusiasm. All the signs out of the Midwest is that Democrats will do well there Tuesday, so I expect governorships in Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin to flip from red to blue as well.

Andrew Gillum, despite recent revelations that are causing his camp heartburn, has the momentum in Florida, and I expect him to prevail to become the first Democratic governor of Florida since 1998.

I expect the governorships of Maine and Nevada to flip, with slightly higher confidence about Nevada.

Now, on to the heavier lifts for Democrats. Republicans in Kansas are sounding alarms about their governor’s race, but the last time they were in peril (four years ago) in the gubernatorial and Senate races, they pulled it out by larger margins than expected. Of course, this isn’t 2014, but the presence of a third-party candidate in the governor’s race leads me to believe that the GOP will narrowly hold on. I also expect that South Dakota is too Trumpy a state to elect a Democratic governor for the first time since 1974, and that Oklahoma is too Trumpy to anoint a Democrat as well.

I also expect that Alaska will flip from independent to Republican, narrowly. Despite independent governor Bill Walker’s decision to drop out in favor of the Democrat, former Senator Mark Begich, Walker will still inevitably win a small percentage of the vote, and that should probably be enough to prevent Begich from winning.

In all, it adds up to a net gain of nine governorships for the Democrats, and a net loss of eight governorships for the Republicans, leaving the states split at 25-25. But watch the following states: the aforementioned Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota, as well as New Hampshire. And if you want a real long-shot sleeper, keep an eye on Idaho, where Democrat Paulette Jordan appears to be an excellent candidate, but in a state that is very deep Republican red.

State legislatures are not given much attention in the horse race coverage, but based on the current trends and historical performance, I expect the following nine legislative chambers to flip from Republican control to Democratic, narrowing the Republican advantage in legislative chambers controlled from 66-33 to 57-42.

  • Maine Senate
  • New Hampshire House
  • New Hampshire Senate
  • Connecticut Senate (from tied to Democratic)
  • New York Senate
  • Wisconsin Senate
  • Minnesota House
  • Iowa Senate
  • Colorado Senate

If these gubernatorial and legislative forecasts are correct, Democrats would go from full control of eight states to full control of 14 states; Republicans would go from full control of 26 states to full control of 21 states; and 15 states would have split control, as compared to 16 currently.

That brings us to the U.S. House of Representatives, which is the hardest body to forecast. It really comes down to whether one believes the Democrats will continue to overperform as they have in special and off-year elections since 2016, and how much Republican gerrymandering will blunt any wave. Working from east to west, here is where I see changes:

  • New York: Democrats net 4 seats.
  • New Jersey: Democrats net 4 seats.
  • Pennsylvania: Democrats net 3 seats.
  • Virginia: Democrats net 3 seats.
  • North Carolina: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Florida: Democrats net 3 seats.
  • Kentucky: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Ohio: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Michigan: Democrats net 4 seats.
  • Illinois: Democrats net 2 seats.
  • Iowa: Democrats net 2 seats.
  • Kansas: Democrats net 2 seats.
  • Texas: Democrats net 2 seats.
  • New Mexico: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Colorado: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Arizona: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Utah: Democrats net 1 seat.
  • Washington: Democrats net 2 seats.
  • California: Democrats net 5 seats.

Going on the state-by-state, race-by-race calls, that puts Democrats at +43, giving them a 238-197 majority in the House.

However, keep in mind that this is an EXTREMELY conservative estimate. I have left a lot of potential Democratic pickups in the Republican column. If Tuesday night is really good for the Democrats, the number of gains could surpass 50. That said, one has to keep in mind the impact of Republican gerrymandering and the fact that even a wave leaves some survivors in the party on the wrong end of the wave. On the flip side, there are always some districts that surprise everybody. To wit: Don Young could lose in Alaska and somebody like Elise Stefanik could get taken out in New York. On the whole, I feel pretty comfortable predicting Democrats +43 in the House. A lot would have to go right for them on Tuesday to exceed that number.

My past results in Congressional elections, dating back to 2006, are within 1.5 seats in the Senate and 4.5 seats in the House. Using my own error margins, that could mean anything from a 51-49 Democratic majority to a 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate, and anything from a 233-202 Democratic House majority to 243-192.

 

Final 2016 Predictions: Clinton Wins, GOP Keeps House, Senate Barely Flips to Dems

by Cliston Brown | Nov 8, 2016 | Election Analysis

I’m getting in under the wire before the polls close. My final predictions are as follows:

Hillary Clinton will become the first woman president, taking the Electoral College vote 322-215, with one elector in Washington state pledging not to vote for her. I ultimately called Ohio and Arizona for Donald Trump, but if I am wrong, I suspect it will be in one or both of these states. I predict Clinton will win the remaining swing states except for Iowa, where Trump has a clear lead.

I see the Democrats picking up a net of 14 seats in the House of Representatives, but Republicans will still hold a commanding 233-202 advantage.

And I see the Democrats picking up a net of four Senate seats to tie the chamber 50-50. Vice President-Elect Tim Kaine will have the tiebreaking vote once he is sworn in on January 20, 2017. Kaine’s vacant Senate seat will be filled by a Democrat, as Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, has the authority to appoint his replacement until the 2017 off-year elections in Virginia. Watch for that seat to flip to the GOP, giving Republicans a 51-49 advantage heading into the 2018 midterms.

In elections dating back to 2006, I have come within 3.8 seats in the House and 1.4 in the Senate, and in 2014, I missed the House by two seats and the Senate by one. We’ll see how it goes this year. I could see the Senate going 51-49 in either direction, but it is very difficult to see either party getting to 52 seats. At any rate, a 50-50 or 51-49 Senate is going to be essentially paralyzed due to the filibuster rules, so the final tally is of little significance except as to which party’s leaders get the better titles. Congress’s accomplishments for the next two years will be limited largely to naming post offices.

Congressional Race Ratings (October 2, 2016)

by Cliston Brown | Oct 2, 2016 | Election Analysis

This week’s Congressional Race Ratings have five changes, four of which favor the Republican Party. It is becoming clear that no Democratic wave is developing and that the party’s gains are likely to be modest at best.

In the House, I am making three changes, all of which move “Lean Democratic” seats to “Lean Republican.” In two Iowa districts (1 and 3), recent polling, and the surprising strength of Donald Trump in the Hawkeye State, have moved those races in the direction of incumbent GOP Congressmen Rod Blum and David Young, respectively. And in New York 19, centered on suburban Westchester County, Republican John Faso recently took a very slim lead over Democrat Zephyr Teachout in an open-seat race. In this district, currently held by a Republican, Trump is +5, so he is clearly not creating a drag on Faso.

The latest round of projections leaves expected net gains for the Democrats at +9, which would leave the GOP with a comfortable 238-197 advantage. A nine-seat gain would not even erase the Democrats’ net losses from 2014, which totaled 13 seats.

In the Senate, I am making two changes. Most recent polling in New Hampshire now shows incumbent GOP Senator Kelly Ayotte moving narrowly ahead of Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, despite Trump’s poor numbers in the Granite State. This race now moves from “Leans Democratic” to “Leans Republican.”

In the one change favoring the Democrats this week, I am taking a bit of a gamble and moving the North Carolina Senate race from “Leans Republican” to “Leans Democratic.” Recent polling gives Democrat Deborah Ross a slight lead over incumbent GOP Senator Richard Burr. North Carolina Democrats are extremely motivated this year after some high-profile controversies by the state’s Republican governor and legislature, especially the “bathroom bill” that has caused numerous bodies (including the NBA and the collegiate Athletic Coast Conference) to pull their events from the state. This one is a gamble, but it does seem that Democrats are highly motivated in the Tar Heel State this year.

These two changes leave my current Senate projection at Democrats +4, gaining seats in Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and losing a seat in Nevada. This would mean an even 50-50 split, with Democrats poised to gain procedural control of the chamber on the tiebreaking vote of the vice president. As I continue to expect that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency, this tiebreaker vote would fall to her running mate Tim Kaine.

For my full, updated listings in competitive House and Senate races, please click here.

Congressional Race Ratings Mostly Move Toward GOP (Sept. 25, 2016)

by Cliston Brown | Sep 25, 2016 | Election Analysis

I am making changes to five race ratings this week, two in the House and three in the Senate. Four of these changes benefit the Republican Party.

In the House, the race in Maine 2 moves from Lean D, favoring Emily Cain, to Likely R, favoring incumbent Rep. Bruce Poliquin. Polling by the Portland Press-Herald not only shows Poliquin with a healthy lead in this rural district, but also shows Donald Trump leading big there. It doesn’t look like this is shaping up as a good year for Democrats in northern Maine.

Also in the House, the race in New Hampshire 1 moves from Lean D to Likely D, as former Rep. Carol Shea-Porter has a big polling lead on embattled GOP Rep. Frank Guinta in their fourth race against each other.

The change in Maine 2 now adjusts Democrats’ expected House gains to +12.

On the Senate side, the Nevada Senate race moves from Lean D, favoring Catherine Cortez-Masto, to lean R, favoring Rep. Joe Heck. Heck has opened up a bit of a lead, and with Trump doing well in Nevada, it doesn’t look like the top of the ticket is going to be the kind of liability originally expected here.

Also, the race in Arizona moves from Lean R to Likely R as Sen. John McCain has opened up a sizable lead on Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. The same is true in Florida, as Sen. Marco Rubio now has a clear lead on Rep. Patrick Murphy.

The change in the Nevada Senate race now adjusts the current projection to 50-50 in the U.S. Senate, reflecting a Democratic net gain of four seats.

For the full chart, click here.

Congressional Race Ratings (Aug. 31, 2016)

by Cliston Brown | Sep 1, 2016 | Election Analysis

Tonight, I am publishing my initial forecast in what I consider to be the competitive U.S. House of Representatives and Senate races for 2016. Starting September 11, I will publish updated ratings every Sunday between now and the election.

There are few real surprises. At this time, I am forecasting a net Democratic gain of five seats in the Senate, which would flip the chamber to Democratic control, 51-49. I also forecast a Democratic gain of 13 seats in the House, which would recover the ground the party lost in 2014 and narrow the Republican advantage to 234-201.

Two ratings that stand out include the Senate race in Nevada and a House race in the 49th District of California. At this point in time, I am rating Catherine Cortez-Masto a slight favorite to hold outgoing Democratic leader Harry Reid‘s Senate seat in Nevada. Republican Joe Heck appears to have a slight polling lead, on average, but I continue to expect we will see high Latino turnout, and that the vaunted Reid political machine will pull out a close victory for the longtime Senator’s preferred successor.

I also am rating Democrat Douglas Applegate as a slight favorite to upset Congressman Darrell Issa in what has long been a Republican district in Southern California, centered in south Orange County, the epicenter of GOP politics in the state. Applegate has been polling very well in this race against the controversial Issa, and also performed well in the open primary pitting all candidates against each other in June. With higher turnout to be expected in November, the signs at this time point to an upset. Stay tuned.

For the full chart of competitive races and their ratings, click here.