I'm Surprised It's Not Even More Lopsided

The Democrat-to-Republican spending ratio in the Georgia US Senate runoff between incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker, that is.

According to Newsweek as of last Wednesday, Democrats were in for $36 million on Warnock while Republicans were putting $20 million into Walker.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago (when I was still just four for five on my Senate predictions; my record has since improved to perfect):

If Cortez Masto does win Nevada, I don't expect big GOP funding for Herschel Walker in the Georgia runoff. Even if he wins, that won't get the Republicans a Senate majority, and there are big down sides to giving the Democrats six years of great scandal/mockery opportunities vis a vis US Senator Herschel Walker.

Cortez Masto did win Nevada, and on net there's nothing the Republicans could get out of a Georgia runoff victory that seems worth much spending or effort.

The only real up side for Republicans would be slowing down some committee approvals on e.g. judicial appointments -- appointments that the Democrats will still have enough votes to confirm on.

As long as the Republicans have 40+ votes in the Senate, they can still block passage of actual bills by voting against cloture to keep them from coming to the floor for votes. Walker in that seat wouldn't really do anything for them.

And the Republicans have a tiny House majority, too. So no bills are going to Joe Biden's desk for signature or veto without at least some Republican support.

The down side to having Walker in that seat is that he spends six years making Republicans look like idiots both nationally and in Georgia.

Looking like idiots in Georgia is proving costly for Republicans in presidential elections.  After going GOP six times in a row (Dole, Bush the Younger twice, McCain, Romney, Trump), the state returned to the Democratic fold with Biden in 2020. Those six GOP victories are six of the total of ten time Republican presidential candidates have ever carried Georgia. The other four are Goldwater in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Bush the Elder in 1988. Prior to that, the Democrats carried the state 24 presidential elections in a row going back to 1868, and another six of nine elections prior to the Civil War going back to Andrew Jackson in 1828 (it went Whig three times during that period). It even went for segregationist Democrat/Dixiecrat George Wallace, running on the "American Independent Party" ticket, rather than for Nixon (or Humphrey) in 1968.

It might be a little much to expect the GOP to overtly throw this runoff, but they have good reasons to not be that interested in winning it. Walker antics in the Senate could quite conceivably keep Georgia in the Democratic presidential column, which seems to be its natural home anyway, in 2024.

What do the Democrats get out of winning the runoff? Well, they get that slight amelioration of inconvenience when it comes to confirming appointees by getting committee majorities rather than tied committees. They protect an incumbent. And that one additional vote in pocket makes it just a little bit harder for e.g. Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema to game a single "balance of power" vote for special favors or hometown political points.

The Senate seat just seems like it should be worth a lot more to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Election 2022: My Final US Senate Predictions ...

Why so early? Two reasons:

1. It's not fun waiting until the last minute, like the day before election day. Yes, there can be "October surprises," but it's not really much of a prediction if you're using exit polls.
2. Early voting has already begun in many if not most states, and it's going gang-busters. The bulk of the vote in those states will likely be cast in the next week or so (a note on that below, though).

My predictions for what were considered "toss-up" states earlier in the year:

Arizona: Incumbent Democrat Mark Kelly in a walk. This state never really looked like a "toss-up" to me. It was always "leans hard Democrat." The GOP's nomination of Trumpy Peter Thiel protege Blake Masters sealed the deal. An early October poll from OH Predictive Insights has Kelly up 46-33 over Masters, with Libertarian Marc Victor at 15% and only 7% "unsure." Yes, the third party vote tends to diminish as election day draws near, but the FiveThirtyEight polling average (which includes only Kelly and Masters) has Kelly up by 5.7 points.

Georgia: This one's slightly more complicated. FiveThirtyEight has incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock up on Republican challenger Herschel Walker by 3.7% on average; RealClearPolitics has Warnock up 2.4%. So, close. BUT! In Georgia, a majority is required to avoid a runoff, and neither candidate is polling at 50% ... and Libertarian Shane Hazel is doing God's work. He forced a runoff two years ago, and last week he debated Warnock with Walker pulling a no-show. I expect Warnock to get more votes than Walker, but for the race to go to a runoff. And I expect Warnock to win the runoff, for two reasons. The first is that the Democrats will pour big money into the runoff; the second is that Walker is clearly a lost cause scandal machine and Republicans likely won't invest in trying to save him, especially with (as we shall see) doing so offering them no chance of getting the Senate majority they were hoping for.

Nevada: Both FiveThirtyEight and RCP have the race between incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez-Masto and Republican challenger Adam Laxalt marked as pretty much a statistical tie with Laxalt up by 0.2% and 1.2% respectively. I predict a Cortez-Masto win.  It's a "get out the vote" game here. Democrats are traditionally better at GOTV. GOTV efforts are more effective in urban areas, and the Democratic vote is concentrated in Las Vegas/Clark County while the Republican vote is dispersed in smaller towns and rural areas. And, again, early voting (see note below).

Pennsylvania: No incumbent, open (previously Republican) seat. Yes, Democrat John Fetterman had a stroke earlier this year and has residual "auditory processing" problems. Yes, Republican Mehmet Oz is making the most of the "health issue." Yes, RCP has Fetterman up by only 2.4 points (FiveThirtyEight says 4.4). I predict that Fetterman wins this one. The people who would let Fetterman's health negatively influence their vote weren't going to vote for him anyway. The people who were going to vote for Fetterman are MORE motivated and sympathetic, since he's clearly not a vegetable or anything. Fetterman's a Pennsylvania mayor/lieutenant governor. Oz is a carpet-bagging TV quack with a foreign-sounding name who edged out the Trump base's preferred candidate in the primary. And, again, early voting.

Wisconsin: I didn't expect this one to be a nail-biter. I expected incumbent Republican Ron Johnson to go down hard to Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes. The polls say differently: FiveThirtyEight's average has Johnson up by 2.9%, RCP's by 2.8%. The power of incumbency is strong, there is no in-person early voting, and a witness signature (not especially inconvenient, it doesn't have to be notarized, but any inconvenience reduces vote-by-mail "turnout") is required for absentee ballot mail voting. I predict Johnson will pull off re-election. I could be wrong. If I am, I suspect it will be because really terrible weather shows up that depresses rural voting more than urban voting.

So: To get a Senate majority, Republicans need a net gain of one seat. If all the "non-toss-up" states go as expected, my prediction has the Republicans losing one seat. If Cortez-Masto wins in Nevada, then even managing to pull Herschel Walker through a runoff in Georgia won't get them to a majority.

Outlier:

Ohio: The polls have this race -- an open seat -- statistically tied. FiveThirtyEight has Republican JD Vance up 0.8% over Democrat Tim Ryan. RCP has the margin at 2.8%. Vance has proven to be a pretty poor candidate, but he's running for a previously Republican seat, as a born-again Trumper, in a state that Trump carried 53% to 45% versus Joe Biden in 2020 and 51% to 43% versus Hillary Clinton in 2016. It looked like things might go a different way earlier in the year, but now I predict that Vance is going to the Senate.

OK, so let's talk about my emphasis on early voting, especially voting by mail.

At the moment, it helps Democrats the most. That wasn't always the case. Republicans used to be all for it because, among other reasons, it makes it easier for their rural base voters to "turn out."

But, you guessed, it, Trump. He convinced a lot of Republicans that voting by mail was just a scam to help Democrats and discouraged them from doing it. Go to the polls on election day, he said. Cast your ballot personally, he said.

So, let's make some not terribly unreasonable estimates here: 50% of likely voters are Republicans. 30% of those (that is, 15% of the voter pool) still distrust voting by mail two years after Trump's opposition to it may well have cost him a presidential election. And 10% of those voters -- that is, 1.5% of potential Republican votes -- end up not voting.

Overslept and didn't have time to vote before work. Babysitter called, sorry, can't cover for you after work. Blowout fight with the spouse, went to the bar to drink the troubles away. Flat tire on the way to the polling place, screw it. Just. Didn't. Really. Feel. Like. It.

In a close election, 1.5% is the ball game. Early mail voters can put their ballots in the mailbox tomorrow if they forgot to yesterday. Election day voters who don't show up to vote on election day are done.

So, yes, I think it makes a difference, and that difference is in favor of Democrats right now, because Trump is the gift who keeps on giving.

The NRSC Signals Its Agreement With My US Senate Predictions

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is canceling $10 million worth of advertising buys in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Rolling Stone reports (citing the paywalled New York Times).

Translation: The NRSC agrees with me that those states are pretty much irretrievably in the Democratic win column and will be redirecting the money to seeking turnovers in Nevada and Georgia, and saving JD Vance's hide in Ohio, which was supposed to be a relatively easy Republican "hold" but is now a real horse race with Democrat Tim Ryan polling 4.5% ahead.

Additional translation: The GOP is giving up on the idea of a net gain of one seat in the US Senate to get a majority, and hoping to limit its losses to one or two seats.

My 2022 Senate Predictions, Updated

Since April, I've been saying that the Republicans weren't in very good shape to take control of the US Senate.

The polls seem to be catching up with my assessment.

Good news for the Republicans first: In Missouri, disgraced former governor Eric Greitens lost Tuesday's GOP primary to attorney general Erich Schmitt. while Democrats nominated a not-very-energizing heiress instead of a hard-charging populist Marine for the seat. If both -- maybe even either -- of those primaries had gone the other way, Missouri might actually be in play, at least to the extent of Republicans having to pour lots of money into the state to protect a formerly "safe" seat -- money that could have been spent elsewhere shoring up GOP prospects.

Bad news for Republicans in "leans Republican" territory: In Ohio, Democrat Tim Ryan continues to lead Trump-endorsed Republican JD Vance ... and not just by a little. This week's polling has Ryan up by 10-11%. I wouldn't call the seat "leans Democrat" just yet, but unless the GOP redirects a crap ton of money to pull Vance's fat out of the fire (and unless Vance actually starts campaigning instead of just e.g. doing photo opps in Israel), it's looking pretty damn iffy.

Now, to the "toss-up" states. At present, Republicans hold two of them (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), Democrats hold three (Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada), and Republicans must win three of those elections (in addition to holding all of their "safe" and "lean" seats) to get to 51 in the Senate.

Arizona: I never really thought it was much of a "toss-up," but now it's far into the "leans Democrat" range. As in Ohio, the Republicans nominated a Trumpy McTrumpkin, Blake Masters, leaving incumbent Mark Kelly in good shape (at the moment, up by 5%, and likely to open that lead way up) to hold the seat.

Georgia: Well, it's still pretty close, and I'm still not going to try to predict it. All the recent polling that isn't specifically sponsored by one of the candidates' support organizations has incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock up by 3-5% over Republican challenger Herschel Walker. And walker is a train wreck in various ways, from dribbling out admissions of "secret" children by various baby mamas to just generally stumbling under questioning (and he's agreed to a debate). But there are just too many variables -- Democratic "Get Out The Vote" efforts, versus Republican "Keep The Voters From Voting" efforts, two African-American candidates potentially breaking that demographic as a solid bloc, etc. I'd still call this one a "toss-up."

Nevada: Incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is polling (accounting for partisan pollster bias) slightly ahead of Republican challenger Adam Laxalt. On the one hand, "Laxalt" is a big name in Nevada (Laxalt's grandfather was a governor of, and US Senator from, the state, and he himself is the former state AG). On the other hand, three things have me rating this seat "leans slightly Democrat." One is the Dobbs ruling, which should drive Democratic turnout up by at least a little. Another is Cortez Masto's incumbency, which has her in good position to raise the funds, pack the events, etc. to win. And the third is that the Democratic vote is more urban (Vegas) than the Republican vote, making "Get Out The Vote" activities (rides to the polls, etc.) and media market focus easier.

Pennsylvania: No longer a "toss-up." Leans "hard Democrat," maybe even "safe Democrat." Most polling has lieutenant governor John Fetterman up 14-17% over GOP nominee (and, you guessed it, Trump pick) Mehmet Oz. Even specifically GOP polling has the margin at 6%, advantage Fetterman.

Wisconsin: I'm out on a limb here since the most recent polling is from June, before incumbent Republican Ron Johnson really got busted down over his role in the disgraced former president's attempts to steal the 2020 presidential election, and before the Dobbs ruling had a chance to get Democratic voters energized and "moderates" off the fence. But even then, before the Democratic field unified behind lieutenant governor Mandela Barnes,  Barnes was at least in strong contention with Johnson. If I took a guess now, I'd guess that Barnes is up on Johnson by at least 5% and likely closer to 10%. I mark this one "leans Democrat."

So: The Republicans need to win at least three of those five races to get a Senate majority, If I had to give each race a final pick at the moment, I'd say they willy be incredibly luck to win two (Georgia and maybe either Nevada or Wisconsin), face a strong possibility of winning only one (Georgia), and could conceivably lose all five ... with Ohio as the dark horse candidate for yet another defeat.

Alabama: Best Bad Thing for the GOP?

Personally, I was surprised that Republican Roy Moore lost Alabama's election for US Senate to Democrat Doug Jones last night. In fact, I didn't really expect to be especially close. I guess I didn't give Alabamians enough credit for having basic good sense and morals. So, given that this was a race that I didn't predict well, feel free to take my further opinions with a grain of salt (as if you wouldn't anyway). But here are those opinions:

Once Moore won the Republican primary, Moore losing the general election was the best outcome the GOP could hope for.

The party organization could have gone all-in behind a write-in Republican alternative, but that would likely have handed the race to Jones anyway, while enraging the Trump base and making other prospective Republican candidates around the country doubt their party's commitment to their success. Their only viable option was to offer tepid, back-and-forth party support while some individual party leaders tried to get out a "Roy Moore is not us" message.

If he had won the race, he would have spent the next 11 months making the Republican Party look like a raging bunch of assholes (which, in fairness, they are), and the Democrats would have joyously assisted him in promoting that image (if for no other reason than to deflect attention from their own raging assholishness). Holding the one Senate seat in Alabama would almost certainly have cost the GOP one or more Senate seats and a number of House seats in competitive elections next November.

Of course, he's still threatening to spend some time making Republicans look like a raging bunch of  assholes. He's refused to concede the election and is jabbering about a recount. But now that he's lost, the party organization has an excuse to wash its hands of him, and has already started making a show of doing so.

He lost, and the Democrats have gained one Senate seat, but they lost a horse's ass they could have beat through 2018. The horse's ass went down with a broken leg last night. Unless Moore shows some epic "rigged election" whining chops (and, assisted by media who hate him, hey, maybe he will), the horse will shortly die, and beating a dead horse isn't nearly as effective as beating a live horse's ass.

Cold comfort to the Republican Party, I'm guessing, but like I said, it was the best they could hope for.

Mathematical Possibilities

Up front disclaimer: No, I'm not looking to pick on Gary Johnson in particular with this post. He's far from the first or only person to say something similar to what I'm going to quote him saying. He just happens to be some combination of the most recent/most prominent, having said it in the New York Times, and having said it this year, and being on of the principals in a lawsuit related to it. Here it is:

The contention is on our part that if you're on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected, then you should be included in the presidential debate.

Q: How many states does a candidate have to be on the ballot in for it to become mathematically possible for that candidate to be elected president?

A: None.

Here's a scenario featuring a way that Johnson himself could be elected:

This November, Gary Johnson carries one state. Let's just assume that that state is New Mexico, which comes with five electoral votes.

Now, let's say that Hillary Clinton carries California (55), New York (29), Florida (29), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Washington (12), Virginia (13), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), Texas (38), and Vermont (3). No, those specific states aren't likely; they were just the ones I picked offhand to demonstrate the math. They come with a total of 268 electoral votes.

That leaves the remaining states, which come with 265 electoral votes, for Donald Trump.

If no candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, the US House of Representatives picks the next president from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Which means that Gary Johnson could conceivably become president.

But, then, so could Jill Stein, who will be on the ballot in a number of states. Maybe not enough states to win in the electoral college, but as long as she carries at least one state and only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump end up with more electoral votes than she does, she is still eligible for consideration by the House.

For that matter, if a write-in candidate (in states that allow them) carried a single state while holding the major party candidates below 270 electoral votes each, ditto.

Mathematically, a candidate doesn't need to be on the ballot in a single state for it to be possible for that candidate to be elected president.

[Update, 07/19/16: As Shawn L points out in comments, a candidate wouldn't even have to carry a state to be eligible for election by the House -- Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes rather than assigning them "winner take all." So if (for example) a candidate got one electoral vote, and the other two candidates got 269 and 268 respectively,  all three would be eligible for election by the US House of Representatives. And now that I think about it, a "carried no states victory" could also occur under the auspices of one or more "faithless electors" - TLK]

Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?

Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.

Addendum: This turned into a bit of a series. Check out Part 2 and Part 3.

Things That Make Me Ask "WTF?"

Marco Rubio wasn't going to seek re-election to the US Senate.

But apparently he considers Omar Mateen's attack on an Orlando nightclub an indicator of strong public demand for his continued service, to which he may -- reluctantly, mind you, reluctantly -- bow.

Anyone got some extra facepalm? I'm running short this week.

Election 2014 Handicapping: US Senate Outlook

Different people draw the "forever" line in politics at different points. Personally, I put it at three months. More than three months out, any predictions are mostly just speculation. Nonetheless, I'm posting my first US Senate handicapping outlook 7 1/2 months out. Why? Because I was messing around with the maps and felt like it.

33 Senate seats are up for regular election this year, and another two will be disposed of in special elections. Here's the current partisan disposition of those seats -- red means Republican, blue means Democrat:

The states with black lines across them -- Oklahoma and South Carolinia -- are the states with two Senate elections, one normal and one special to select a replacement for someone who's retiring mid-term.

Here's my first cut at predicting outcomes in November:

An "H" in the state means I'm predicting that the incumbent, or at least the current party, will hold the seat. For all those small blue states in the northeast, imagine a little "H" even though I didn't have room for one.

If I've put a red circle and the letters "RP" in an otherwise blue state, I'm predicting a Republican pickup there. If there were any red states with blue circles and "DP," those would be predicted Democrat pickups ... but at the moment, you won't see any of those.

A purple "T" in a state means "tossup."

About The Coming Clobbering

From The Hill:

President Obama complained Thursday that Democrats "get clobbered" in midterm elections, blaming a "toxic" atmosphere in Washington for suppressing key Democratic constituencies.

Well, no. It's not "Democrats" who get clobbered in midterm elections, its the president's party that gets clobbered in midterm elections.

For example, in 1994 -- the middle of Democrat Bill Clinton's first term -- the Republicans took dual House and Senate majorities away from the Democrats for the first time since the 1950s. And in 2006, the Democrats took both House and Senate back (they also had taken the Senate briefly in 2001, when it was split 50-50 until Vermont US Senator James Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and caucused with the Democrats). Then in the 2010 midterms, the Republicans took back the House.

Why does the president's party lose seats at midterm?

Well, it's a lot easier to energize the president's party's base when the president is running for re-election. If he's popular at all, he has coattails. His campaign spending is basically a force multplier for his party. At midterms, he's theoretically not running. He's just governing.

And the opposition's base, almost by definition, doesn't like the way he's governing -- so it's a lot easier to energize them.

There are a lot of reasons why the Democrats look set to take a beating this November. ObamaCare is one that comes immediately to mind. Some kind of midterm general structural bias against Democrats isn't one that comes to mind at all, because such a bias is compeletely imaginary.

My First Election 2014 Prediction

Scott Brown appears to be ready to jump into the race for US Senate from New Hampshire.

If he does, he will probably win the Republican primary, but he'll get whipped like a red-headed stepchild in November by incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

Here's why:

• Brown couldn't hold on to a Senate seat from Massachusetts, so he's shopping for one from New Hampshire. Nobody likes sloppy seconds. Especially "independents."
  
• He won't get the GOP base out. After his first debacle of a partial term, his picture appears next to "RINO" in the acronym dictionary. The only Republicans who are really excited about Brown are the navel-gazing psycho wonks who thought John McCain and Mitt Romney were surefire winners. He can probably win the primary on name recognition and low turnout, but the general is a whole different story.
  
• And he won't play well with Democrats because well, they've already got one holding down that seat.

If Brown runs, New Hampshire is a D-hold in November.