Some final thoughts before we vote.
- As you can see from the above, the path to the Senate is pretty much over for the Democrats-the real question remains how much they lose by. If you still hold out hope, it would probably look something like this (though it’d be the biggest political upset since Jesse Ventura was elected governor):
- The Democrats lose Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana. These are gone, time to move on. Additionally, it would take a small miracle for the Republicans to lose in Kentucky, so as much as I’d like to say that’s still in play, it’s not part of any realistic math.
- The Democrats would need Kansas, North Carolina, and New Hampshire to stay in their column. I predicted Kansas and North Carolina to go with the Republicans, but their polls indicate these are the three states that the Democrats have the edge (I’m just guessing that dampened Democratic enthusiasm costs them). This gets the Republicans to 47 and the Democrats to 48.
- At this point there are five races on the map: Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Colorado, and Iowa. 100% of these races as of today currently have an RCP that favors the Republicans, and 60% of them were won by Mitt Romney. The problem for the Democratic math isn’t that these races aren’t close (they are), but really they can only win the out-and-out majority in Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa. Neither Louisiana nor Georgia will swing Democratic if voters know the Senate is in the balance (the odd reality is that the Democrats could probably win both, but particularly Louisiana, if they secured the Senate on Election Night as Landrieu and Nunn do better when the Senate isn’t in the balance). It’s hard to say which of the other three could make the more logical argument for their win: Iowa voters turn out out of habit and vote for a Democrat they don’t care for, Mark Udall is saved in Colorado by mail-in ballots (though evidence from the Secretary of State’s office seems to indicate that he’s doing poorly in this regard), or Mark Begich benefits from the crazy-thorough Alaskan GOTV effort. I still say that Iowa is the best option here, and polling backs me up pretty hard there. If I had to venture a guess, Mark Begich is probably your best bet to pull off an upset of the remaining two. Again, though, this is assuming the Democrats take every race they are expected to with the wind in their face, and pull off two states almost every pundit (including me) doesn’t have in their column. Like I said-it would take a miracle.
- This is a make-or-break year for a number of state parties. Democrats in Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana have opportunities this year to prove their relevance in a way that they might not have for years and years to come. Conversely, Republicans in Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Illinois have races on the map that they need to prove they can win to prove that they should be taken seriously when challenges come along in the future. As we’ve seen all cycle, Republicans, despite their obvious advantage at the polls, have had trouble out-fundraising the DSCC and DCCC, principally because with the Senate over the past two cycles they’ve been so likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, losing the Senate in 2010 and 2012 despite the math favoring them. These states need their wins so that national parties, the next time a race looks competitive in the state, actually want to spend money to win, and not just lose by single digits.
- Finally, a look at the numbers…
- Governors: I’m oddly predicting a net neutral for the Republicans, with the Democrats having a net loss of one (and the Independents getting a new win). The races I’m most reluctant regarding are Alaska, Kansas, and Maine. Polling in Alaska is always sketchy, and I’m bucking current polling in Kansas and Maine. A big question for the math of the gubernatorial races rests in New England: if Democrats hold their nose and vote for candidates they clearly aren’t wild about, they could hold Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and pickup Maine, giving them a net win. Still, though, Hillary Clinton has to be happy headed into 2016 that Pennsylvania and Florida both look likely to have allies in the statehouse for her to utilize.
- Senate: I’m basically going worst-case scenario for the Senate Democrats: a nine-seat net loss, with no pickups of Republican seats. I nearly went with New Hampshire going red, but I just couldn’t quite go there. Conversely, I do think the Democrats have a fairly decent shot in North Carolina and Kansas, and would probably have thrown them a bone in one of those seats if the national media wasn’t so dire on Democratic chances (dampening enthusiasm to vote). However, the actual math over the majority remains impossible to overcome-Mitch McConnell will take over come January.
- House: The Republicans made the ‘Drive
to 245’ a thing earlier this cycle, in a quest to have their biggest majority
since the Truman administration, but thanks to key pickups in Arkansas,
California, and Florida, I just don’t see them having it. I am still a bit worried that I am
underestimating the late onslaught of “competitive races” in places like NY-18,
NV-4, and IA-1, but these late pushes only occasionally pan out. If I had to pick five races that are
randomly keeping me stumped, they would be IA-1, NE-2, FL-2, CA-26, and
MN-8. Still, though, John Boehner
should make gains, but don’t expect the same kind of pressure to be put on
Nancy Pelosi to retire that will be put on Harry Reid to step down as leader,
considering in a strange turn of events, Pelosi has become the most popular
congressional leader nationally.
And there you have it-my annual Election Night Guide (all
13,000 words of it). Use it to
watch Tuesday’s elections, praise or mock me for my accuracy, and don’t forget
to vote!
No comments:
Post a Comment