America The Beautiful - An Election Update

The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain

(Dolly Parton)

© Katharine Lee Bates, Samuel A. Ward, 1895

Some people see things as they are and ask why
Others see things as they never were and claim mad cow
(Alan Shore, Boston Legal: Stick It, 2006)

The land of the free and the home of the brave, they say. This is the country where people are ready to accept a 60% pay cut because employers provide health insurance so you have to stay on the payroll at any cost or you lose all coverage in times of pandemic. The choice between poverty or death, that's the American Dream for you. Not that it could happen in the UK, or could it? And yet Donald Trump's electoral prospects have not sunk to the bottom of the Mariana Trench as the rally-around-the-flag Christo-fascist rhetoric still works with whole chunks of low-education Americans, and there are just enough of them to win an election. Biden has Silicon Valley, Martha's Vineyard and Bono. Trump has all the shiftless peckerwoods, so a winning hand in two dozen States as long as the Supreme Court upholds the ban on mandatory literacy tests to register to vote. Always bear in mind this is the country where Nazis are protected by the Constitution and anyone with enough dosh can buy themselves a seat in either House of Congress, or an acquittal at a multiple rape-murder trial, depending on which is most urgently needed. So the narrative some months ago was "don't believe what you see in the polls, Trump will pull a rabbit anyway" and it was pretty convincing during the primary season when the Generic Democrat's lead over Trump remained close to the 2016 result. Now, and one Covid crisis later, the picture has changed quite dramatically as the trendlines show.

The big dots on the left show the 2016 vote shares and the trendlines factor in only the polls fielded in 2020, which is why they don't connect with the big dots as this year's polling has steadily been better for Biden than the last election was for Clinton. There has also been speculation about Bernie's People, those who supported Sanders in the Democratic primary, only reluctantly supporting Biden, or even deserting him, after Sanders dropped out of the race. There is no real evidence one way or the other in polls, as the variations in Biden's voting intentions have remained within +/-1% of the trend, though individual polls have shown larger variations. One of the factors here is that the sample sizes for individual polls (shown by the tiny dots in the chart) vary widely from some 800 to more than 30,000. This leaves the door open to more random variations than in British polls, especially with a probable turnout of 130 to 140 million. So the weighted average of the last six polls is just as good a clue of where the election might go. Right now it shows Biden leading by 5.6%, or 3.5% higher than Clinton in 2016. Which is good news for Biden as four of Trump's 2016 states were decided by a smaller margin (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida) and another two by a barely larger one (Arizona, North Carolina). These are just the battlegrounds where Biden needs a clean sweep for a convincing victory.

Then of course US-wide polls tell only part of the story, actually a rather minor one even if it makes for easy headlines. What truly matters is state-by-state polling and how it translates in the number of electoral votes (EVs) for each candidate when the Electoral College convenes in mid-December. The tables below shows what these polls predict this week. State names in bold red denote those predicted to switch from Trump to Biden. The resulting number of Biden's EVs would match Obama's in 2012 with a slightly different map. Compared to Obama's 2012 results, Biden would lose Iowa and Ohio but gain Arizona and North Carolina. Interestingly Obama had won North Carolina in 2008 but Arizona has a long history of supporting Republican candidates. The last time a Democrat won Arizona was Bill Clinton in 1996, and the last one before that Harry Truman in 1948. State-by-state polls also deliver some interesting results in supposedly strongly Republican states. A lot of pundits have a hard time admitting that Georgia and Texas, to name only two, could be too close to call on Election Night, as both have been solidly Republican for many years. But demographics in both are steadily moving the Democrats' way, just like in Arizona and Florida. Proof of this is that, two years ago, Democrats came within 1.4% of unseating Republican Governor Brian Kemp in Georgia, and 2.5% of unseating Republican Senator Ted Cruz in Texas. Though I wouldn't hold my breath for a presidential upset in either state this year.

It's interesting to see that American prognosticators and pundits have different views about this election. Roughly the split between a data-based approach (it can happen because the polls say so) and a precedent-based approach (it can't happen because it hasn't happened already). Of course the punditariat have something of a short-term tunnel vision here. After all they're the same who said Clinton would win in 2016 because Obama had won twice and are now doubting Biden because, ye ken, Trump won the last one. Right now prognosticators say it's Biden by 316 to 222, the only difference with my projection being that they allocate North Carolina to Trump. The punditariat have a more ultra-cautious approach with Biden on 222-268, Trump on 204-233 and a further 57-112 rated as 'tossups'. Their average now is Biden winning 290-248, which is my 'Biden Min' scenario with Florida and North Carolina staying in the Trump column. As usual, time will tell, but I have a hunch the changed context makes it more difficult for Trump to stage a Clintonian 'Comeback Kid' upset now.

If it is what it is, it ain't what it ain't. Don't make it what it isn't.

(Detective Sergeant Frank Tripp, CSI Miami: Sunblock, 2007)

© Martin Bell, The Guardian, 2020

When you fling enough crap into the universe, occasionally the breeze is going to blow your way.

(Captain Jim Brass, CSI: Torch Song, 2013)

This November's Senate elections might also deliver some upsets. Here only state-by-state polling matters and it is currently surprisingly favourable for Democrats. Below are the tables of projected results according to the most recent polls for each seat. Projected Democratic gains are in bold red and the lone projected Republican gain in bold blue. There is no doubt many Democratic candidates would be riding Biden's coattails as several of the predicted Democratic gains mirror their successes in the presidential polls. But polls also say that Democrats would harvest surprise gains beyond that, in complete reversal of the 2014 elections which saw Democrats lose the Senate when the same seats were last up for re-election. But the projected Senate map would be different from the pre-2014 one as Democrats would not recoup all their losses. Some of the seats lost in 2014 now look decisively out of reach (Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, West Virginia). Only three of the Democratic losses of 2014 would turn blue again (Colorado, Montana, North Carolina) while the last two (Alaska, Iowa) would be weak Republican holds.

But there remains a certain amont of uncertainty as Senate elections tend to be highly personalized and skeletons in the closets have the nasty habit of surfacing late in the campaign. The Arizona seat looks like a sure gain for Democrats as they already gained the state's other seat in 2018 and demographics there favour them. But the predicted gains in Kansas and Maine definitely look more difficult to score, and some pundits even consider them quite far-fetched, as Democrats haven't held these seats since 1918 and 1978 respectively. But Democrats clearly hope that Trump cultist Kris Kobach will prove toxic even in Ruby Red Kansas as he was already decisively defeated at the gubernatorial election two years ago, and that this election will be the one too many for 'moderate' Republican four-term veteran Susan Collins in Maine. So the spread between the best case and the worst case scenarios for Democrats is quite large, and you can't rule out Republicans holding control of the Upper Chamber by the tiniest of margins.

American pundits are also quite divided about these elections. Their predictions credit Democrats with 45-50 seats (all including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats) and Republicans with 47-50 seats, with 2-6 seats rated as Tossups. Which covers pretty much all possible combinations between my 'Dem Max' and 'Rep Max' options and leaves nobody none the wiser, as they say. Then some among the punditariat are secretly dreaming these elections will deliver the rarely seen 50-50 split. In the current highly polarized climate, many votes would probably go 50-50, meaning the Vice-President would cast the tiebreaking vote. That would be Trump's Veep Mike Pence, himself quite a far-right fundamentalist, for the two weeks between the swearing-in of the new Senate and Inauguration Day, and then the next Veep, whoever that may be. I guess some pundits would love nothing more than Trump trying to pass some controversial legislation during that twilight zone session. Which would no doubt trigger a major uproar and just the kind of crisis that makes for juicy headlines.

Denny Crane: Say what you will about Republicans
We stick to our convictions even when we’re dead wrong
Alan Shore: Some might say especially then
(Boston Legal: Witches Of Mass Destruction, 2005)

© Bruce Springsteen, 1970 

Denny Crane: You Democrat! Protesting wars, banning guns.
If you nancies had your way, nobody would ever shoot anybody.
And then where would we be?
Alan Shore (shaking head): Where would we be?
(Boston Legal: Smile, 2006)

The House of Representatives elections are not predicted to deliver any stunning changes as Democrats have already scored a major success in 2018 when they took back control of the House with 10% of its seats changing hands. The general trend of recent polling has been less kind for Democrats than it was a few weeks back, without actually jeopardizing their dominant position. Even more caveats apply here though than for the presidential polls. Sample sizes here are routinely somewhere between 800 and 1,200 with the random one surveying about 2,000. So there is huge room for any kind of random variations, especially as American pollsters mix surveys of registered voters and likely voters, and their approach of 'likely voters' is generally less solid than the 'likelihood to vote' algorithms used by British pollsters. But that's all we have, so we have to live with it.

The current weighted average of voting intentions, based on the last six published polls, is also mildly worrying for Democrats as it shows basically the same vote shares as in 2018. It is nevertheless better than Biden's predicted presidential vote, probably because smaller left-leaning parties like the Greens are willing to field a presidential candidate even if they bag only 2% of the vote, but can't afford to stand for Congress except in a few select districts in the Pacific West or Atlantic Southeast. A lead of about 8% is anyway enough to preserve the current Democratic majority, even if it won't increase it. Then Democrats surely hope some downballot effect on Election Day will allow them to do better and bag some additional seats, mostly in Southern states. Main targets, consistent with evolving demographics and the presidential polling, are in heavily Hispanic districts in Texas as well as heavily African-American districts in Georgia and North Carolina. Republicans managed to hold some of these seats in 2018 only because minorities usually have a lower turnout, and Democrats hope to overcome this as they did successfully at previous elections in Nevada or Southern California, where they wiped out the last Republican stronghold in legendary Orange County two years ago.

 

Pundits are generally more optimistic for the Democrats than polls suggest, and agree that this election will deliver a wee batch of Democratic gains in marginal seats. But the absolute worstest case scenario for Democrats could be as close to a tie as an odd number of House seats will allow, something that has not happened since 1930. Oddly Democrats back then had won the popular vote 52.7% to 44.5%, almost the same as current polling predicts, and yet were outnumbered 218-217 by Republicans, though by-elections had turned this into 218-217 for Democrats by the end of 1931. But of course history exactly repeating itself after 90 years is quite a far-fetched prospect. Or isn't it? Then reaching a tie this year when Democrats would still get a majority of the popular vote, even in their worst case scenario, only highlights again the effects of aggressive gerrymandering in Republican states, which mean that Democrats need a 4% lead in the popular vote to bag just a tie in seats. This is obviously a strong incentive for Democrats to devote resources to the State Legislature elections that will be held in 44 states and the gubernatorial elections to be held in 11 states. The impact of these elections goes way beyond local, as who wins them in a majority of states will also have the upper hand in the next redistricting cycle, due to happen next year on the basis of the 2020 Census and be implemented for the 2022 mid-terms. A strong coattails effect from the expected good result in the presidential election could trigger just the sort of domino effect Democrats need in State Legislatures to deliver a less unbalanced playing field two years out. Time will tell.

The $64,000 question now if what impact, if any, current events will have on the campaign and the elections, and of course here I mean George Floyd's murder and the massive violent protests that followed. It is common knowledge that race is a key issue in American politics and even American everyday life, often in an obsessive way that Europeans can never fully comprehend, even in an ethnically diverse UK where we have our own issues with racism. It so happens that Democrats here are catch22ed between a rock and a hard place, as the events have already made Joe Biden's choice of a running mate more complicated, even if he doesn't have to make the final decision until August. On the one hand, Democrats can't afford to alienate minorities, specifically African-Americans, who are massively supporting them and whose turnout is a key to the elections in many states. On the other hand, they can't afford to look or sound weak on violence when major cities are rocked by riots and looting. From distant Europe, Trump might have sounded massively offensive when he tweeted that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts", or utterly ridiculous when he decided to treat Antifa as a terrorist organization, or ventured out of his bunker under live-ammunitioned guard for a Bible-thumping PR stunt. Yet all definitely struck a chord with his Christo-fascist gun-toting fanbase and might even have swayed some law-and-order cultists that might otherwise have ticked the Biden box. Remember this is America, where "shoot first, talk later" is a basic of social life and "go get 'em" is a valid foreign policy option. Things could definitely get much worse before they get marginally better, if ever.

I’m talking about the future, so what if I’m not up on recent history?
I’m prophetic, not infallible
(Morden, Babylon 5: Day Of The Dead, 2262)

© Jim Morrison, Robbie Krieger, Ray Manzarek, John Densmore, 1978