May 04

Pres map


Previous | Next

We have received a number of e-mails from readers suggesting that the EV total you see above (currently 352-38-148) is misleading, since not all of those assigned EVs are sure things for Joe Biden or for Donald Trump. They propose that we should provide a more accurate breakdown that accounts for the more certain versus the less certain EVs. The number at the top is our best prediction of what would happen if the election were held today. If you want the more nuanced count, you need only turn to the right, and it's provided at the top of the right-hand column (note, for example, that Joe Biden's 204 Strongly Dem EVs and 66 Likely Dem EVs mean that, right now, he has enough EVs whose polls are outside the margin of error to be elected president).

Biden Crushes Sanders in Kansas Primary

Joe Biden won Saturday's Kansas primary even though no voters showed up at the polls to vote for him. How did he pull this off? Did the DNC pull some strings? Nope. Kansas ran an all-mail-in primary and the former veep got 77% of the vote to 23% for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). In 2016, Kansas had a caucus and Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton in it, 68% to 32%. That's a drop of 45 points for the Vermont Senator.

What is also noteworthy is that participation tripled compared to 2016. Back then, 39,230 registered Democrats voted. This year it was 146,873. And in 2016 it was a competitive race, while this year it didn't matter because Sanders has already dropped out and endorsed Biden. The fact that three times as many Democrats voted in a race that didn't matter compared to one 4 years ago that did matter strongly suggests that mail-in elections really do increase turnout. This is why Republicans oppose mail-in elections so strongly.

Another interesting feature of this year's election was the use of ranked-choice voting for the first time in Kansas. On the first round, Biden won 69% of the votes and Sanders won 18%. However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) got 8%, uncommitted got 3%, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) got 1%. All three were declared nonviable. In the second round, Gabbard's supporters were redistributed to their second choices. In the next round after that, the supporters of uncommitted went to their highest viable choice. Fortunately, uncommitted did not complain. Finally, Warren bit the dust and her votes were also redistributed to the highest candidate still in contention. Unlike Iowa, which couldn't count the votes in a much simpler election, everything went smoothly in Kansas. This shows that mail-in elections and ranked-choice voting work fine. (V)

David Axelrod: We Vetted Biden in 2008 and Didn't Find Anything

David Axelrod was Barack Obama's top strategist in 2008 and 2012. He has now said that during the spring of 2008, Barack Obama commissioned a team of lawyers to vet all the potential running mates in great detail. This especially included looking for any vulnerabilities. Joe Biden was one of the vettees. Axelrod said that if there had been any formal complaints about Biden during his 36-year career in the Senate, the lawyers would have found them. There weren't any.

Specifically, the name of Tara Reade never showed up on the radar. No formal complaints. No informal chatter. Zero. Axelrod said that the team of investigators left no stone unturned, and if there had been issues of sexual harassment, they would have shown up. Nothing came up on that front. If something had shown up, Obama would never have picked Biden, as Obama and Biden weren't even close in 2008. They were distant Senate colleagues and rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. So it wasn't that he might have picked his good buddy despite what the investigators had found. The slightest whiff of a scandal would have instantly disqualified Biden, as Obama had a large list of Democratic senators and governors to choose from. While this is not conclusive proof that Tara Reade is lying, it certainly suggests that her current story is of recent origin. (V)

Why Did Trump Scream at Parscale?

When Donald Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, showed the President some polling results, he freaked out. Now the Washington Post has managed to find an insider who was willing to share the content of that 20-page polling report. The Post has published some of it, which may explain Trump's freakout.

In 17 battleground states, Biden is leading Trump 48% to 45% in the aggregate. Worse yet, the top issue for voters is handling the coronavirus and in people's perception that Joe Biden would be better managing it than Trump. Only 36% of the voters think Trump is more honest, only 35% think he is more compassionate, only 44% think he is more competent, and only 36% think he is more calm, steady, and relatable. Also, only 37% think the country is headed in the right direction. When less than 40% of the country thinks you are handling their biggest issue well, you have a problem.

Trump saw that and didn't like it, so he lashed out at the messenger. He told Parscale—in no uncertain terms—that people love his performances and think he is fighting for them. Parscale backtracked and later showed up with some nicer numbers that Trump enjoyed more. Running a campaign in which a key principle is keeping the candidate in the dark about what voters think and what they want has never been tried before. If it works, Parscale will someday be able to write a most informative book on the subject of how to run a campaign and not tell the candidate what you are doing and how it is going. (V)

Bush Slams Trump?

George W. Bush has remained largely out of the spotlight since leaving the White House, a product of his generally unassuming personality, his low popularity on leaving office, and his desire to respect the niceties of ex-presidential behavior. However, given the similarities between 9/11 and COVID-19 (namely, a divided country at risk of flying apart at the seams), #43 thought this might be the time for an elder statesman to share some words of wisdom. So, at the request of the folks organizing the "Call to Unite" 24-hour livestream event, he released a brief message on Twitter this weekend:



Since the message is fairly brief, we're going to give you the entire transcript, in case you don't feel like watching:

This is a challenging and solemn time in the life of our nation and world. A remorseless invisible enemy threatens the elderly and vulnerable among us. A disease that can quickly take breath in life. Medical professionals are risking their own health for the health of others, and we're deeply grateful. Officials at every level are setting out the requirements of public health that protect us all. And we all need to do our part. The disease also threatens broader damage; harm to our sense of safety, security and community.

The larger challenge we share is to confront an outbreak of fear and loneliness. And it is frustrating that many of the normal tools of compassion—a hug, a touch, can bring the opposite of the good we intend. In this case, we serve our neighbor by separating from them. We cannot allow physical separation to become emotional isolation. This requires us to be not only compassionate but creative in our outreach and people across the nation are using the tools of technology and the cause of solidarity.

In this time of testing, we need to remember a few things. First let us remember, we have faced times of testing before. Following 9/11 I saw a great nation rises as one to honor the brave, to grieve with the grieving and to embrace unavoidable new duties. And I have no doubt, none at all, that this spirit of service and sacrifice is alive and well in America. Second, let us remember that empathy and simple kindness are essential powerful tools of National Recovery. Even at an appropriate social distance, we can find ways to be present in the lives of others to ease their anxiety, and share their burdens. Third, let's remember that the suffering we experience as a nation, does not fall evenly. In the days to come, it will be especially important to care in practical ways for the elderly, the ill, and the unemployed. Finally, let us remember how small our differences are in the face of this shared threat.

In the final analysis, we are not partisan combatants. We're human beings, equally vulnerable and equally wonderful in the sight of God. We rise or fall together. And we're determined to rise. God bless you all.

Undoubtedly, on listening and/or reading, your first thought is: How could a former president brazenly attack Donald Trump like that? After all, he mentions Trump by name at least...oh wait, he doesn't do that. Well, he does allude to specific policies of the current White House several...oh wait, he doesn't do that, either. Still, there's a lot of negativity there, like the passage where...hmmm...our staff researchers will have to get back to you on that.

Even if we are having trouble finding it, the attack on Trump must be there, because #45 blew a gasket when he learned of Bush's message:

.@PeteHegseth “Oh bye the way, I appreciate the message from former President Bush, but where was he during Impeachment calling for putting partisanship aside.” @foxandfriends He was nowhere to be found in speaking up against the greatest Hoax in American history!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2020

The alternative explanation is that Trump is an incredibly thin-skinned man who feels the need to personalize and respond to absolutely everything, including a message of hope and unity in the midst of the greatest crisis the United States has faced in (at least) a generation. But what are the odds that's what's happening here?

Oh, and in case you are wondering how Barack Obama avoided a Trump attack on Sunday, he did not. Trump also went after him, retweeting this item from David Harris Jr., whose credentials are...that he has a podcast, and who says he's found evidence suggesting that Obama was working with Vladimir Putin to rig the 2016 election. Strange that a president would work with a foreign country to weaken his own party's candidate, but how can one possibly question the conclusions of someone who has achieved the rare distinction of being a guy with a podcast? (Z)

Why McConnell Wants the Senate to Meet Despite the Danger

The House is on "vacation" for the time being, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has ordered the 100 senators and hundreds of aides and building employees back to work today. Is he going to pass another coronavirus relief bill because the first four didn't actually bring any relief to much of the country?

Nope. His priority right now is confirming more judicial nominations. Topping the list is the 37-year-old Justin Walker, a protégé of his from Kentucky who has been judged by the American Bar Association as "not qualified" to be on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second most powerful court in the country. If a few elderly senators get sick and maybe die, so be it. Of the senators who are 75 and older, four are Democrats, eight are Republicans, and two are the independents who caucus with the Democrats. So it is roughly in balance.

Democrats are not happy about coming back and risking their lives to confirm someone the ABA says is not qualified. The number two Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin (D-IL), said: "To take [Walker], who's been on Kentucky district court for a matter of weeks, and promote him to the second highest court in the land is an outrage. It is as bad as it gets in terms of packing the court with political toadies." Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said: "There's no reason to bring the Senate back to make conservative radio hosts happy." McConnell was not impressed. He said: "My motto for the rest of the year is: leave no vacancy behind." He clearly doesn't care that the local authorities, including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD), and Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) have all pleaded for all federal workers to stay home because there have already been 2,000 fatalities in the D.C. region. McConnell clearly wants to get Walker on the circuit court before the campaign rolls into high gear and his confirmation potentially becomes a campaign issue. (V)

Scott Gottlieb: We Will Have 1,000 Deaths a Day All Summer

Donald Trump is hoping the coronavirus will vanish in the heat of the summer so people can enjoy the beach and he can brag about how he beat the virus into submission with his bare hands. Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb doesn't think Trump is going to get his wish. Yesterday he told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the new normal is 30,000 new cases of COVID-19 daily and 1,000 deaths per day. And that will continue throughout the summer. He expects to get to 100,000 deaths in June. Celebrating the Fourth of July by noting that more Americans have been killed by COVID-19 than in all of World War I (116,708) would be no fun at all. White House coronavirus coordinator Deborah Birx told "Fox News Sunday" yesterday that she is sticking with the initial estimate of 100,000 to 240,000 deaths in total, which is not that different from Gottlieb's prediction if it lasts all year.

To make it worse for Trump, while the number of deaths in New York still leads the pack by a mile, as states in the South reopen, more of the deaths will be coming from red states going forward. Having older voters in red states die will not only reduce his actual vote count, but it may make their adult children begin to wonder if Trump is up to the job. Given the incubation period of about 2 weeks, those deaths won't be showing up this week, but by Memorial Day we will likely be seeing plenty of them. (V)

Five Ways the Coronavirus Could Change Politics

The Hill has a piece on how the coronavirus could permanently change American politics going forward. Here are the main points:

These are just some of the more obvious ways. Sometimes the long-term effects may not surface until later. (V)

Will We Ever Go Back to Normal?

Many people are longing for going back to normal. There is a good chance it will never happen. After all, 9/11 was nearly 20 years ago and Osama bin Laden is dead. Are we back to normal yet? Normal is when you don't have to get (partially) undressed to get on a commercial airline flight or walk through a scanner that shows you naked to somebody in a secret room somewhere in the airport. Will security checks be abolished in 10 years? In 20 years? Don't count on it.

Frank Bruni of the New York Times has an interesting column based on some quality Zoom time he had with Laurie Garrett, a Pulitizer Prize-winning journalist who has written extensively about Ebola and who wrote a best-selling 1994 book "The Coming Plague" in which she predicted and described a pandemic similar to the current one. That gives her a bit of credibility, much like Cassandra.

She has a different list of permanent changes that the coronavirus may usher in. Her list includes;

She also thinks that the virus will not disappear in one fell swoop, but will come back in waves in isolated hotspots for years to come, until nearly complete herd immunity has been acquired. She also thinks that once it has subsided, many people will notice that for average people the pandemic has been a living nightmare, but for many rich people, all they had to do was drive off to their "summer" home, purchase a new freezer to be delivered there, and buy up all the town's meat to store in it. She summarized this by saying: "Just as we come out of our holes and see what 25 percent unemployment looks like. We may also see what collective rage looks like." Maybe Bernie Sanders also peaked a few years too soon.

She also noted that the problem is bigger than the current administration. America has invested heavily in trying to cure cancer, but maybe a lot more lives would be saved by spending some of that money on improving public health in general. Mortality in the U.S. nosedived during the twentieth century not due to a magic cure for some disease, but due to improved public health measures like improved sanitation, cleaner water, and widespread vaccination. Maybe in the future, public-health experts like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx won't have to carefully tiptoe around the fragile ego of the president and will be taken much more seriously.

When the 2024 version of Bernie Sanders says that the system is rigged in favor of the rich, it may ring a bell with a lot more people than this year. To save you the trouble of looking it up, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) will be 35 three weeks before the 2024 election. And she won't be the only Democratic politician who senses the residual collective rage from how this pandemic plays out. (V)

Model Shows Democrats with a Slight Edge in Taking over the Senate

The Democrats need to gain three seats and the vice presidency or four seats without the vice presidency to take control of the upper chamber. Harry Enten, CNN's answer to the Nates (data guru Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com and data guru Nate Cohn at the New York Times), has a new model for control of the Senate. It shows the blue team with a 60% chance of gaining a net of three seats and a 50% chance of netting four seats. There is still a lot of uncertainty here, and scores anywhere from -4 to +11 are conceivable (although unlikely).

The Democrats are doing well not because they are overwhelming favorites in any one state, but because there are so many states where they have a decent shot. Only 12 Democrats are up vs. 23 Republicans. According to the model, Democrats have at least a 5% chance in 25 races. Obviously, at least 13 of those are currently held by a Republican.

On the generic ballot, Democratic Senate candidates have an 8-point lead. This is double what it was in 2016, when Democrats picked up two Senate seats. Based on historical trends, races that look like toss-ups now, such as Montana and North Carolina, could move toward the Democrats by the fall.

According to the model, Democrats are now the clear favorites in Arizona, Colorado, and Maine, with win probabilities ranging from 0.67 to 0.75. However, Alabama is a lost cause for them, and they know it (see below). The state with the most potential to be pickup #4 is North Carolina, with a probability of 0.55. Next comes a trio of states, Kansas, Montana, and Iowa, each of which individually looks favorable for the Republicans, but the Democrats have a shot at winning one of them. Each of these races has its own peculiarities. If Kansas Republicans choose Kris Kobach as their nominee, Democratic chances of winning their first Senate race in the Sunflower State since 1932 shoot up. If Gov. Steve Bullock (D-MT) is seen as doing a good job managing the coronavirus, his chances of moving over to the Senate also shoot up. In Iowa, if farm incomes continue to drop, that won't help Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) much.

In six other races, Democrats have at least a 5% chance. These are Georgia (2x), Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. If Republicans have a 0.95 chance in each of these races, the probability of them winning all of them is 0.95^6 or 0.74. This gives the Democrats about one chance in four of picking up one seat in this group. Actually, it might be larger than that, because Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) currently has an approval rating of 20% on account of her being caught with her hand in the cookie jar and selling her stocks based on inside information. The model doesn't take into account the fact that she is far less popular than a normal Georgia Republican.

The bottom line is this: The reason the Democrats are slightly favored to take over the Senate is that they have half a dozen realistic targets while the Republicans have only one. Further, the list of Democratic realistic targets has the potential to expand, while the Republican list probably can't (even Michigan is looking like a longshot for them at this point). (V)

Democrats Have Given Up on Doug Jones

Every political group has only so much money to spend and thus is forced to make choices. The two biggest groups that are trying to win control of the Senate for the Democrats have already reserved nearly $100 million for fall advertising to go after Republican incumbents. But they haven't reserved a single penny to protect their incumbent Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL).

Has Jones been a terrible senator? Not at all. He voted the party line pretty much all the time, including the impeachment trial. Is he difficult to get along with? Not at all. Most of his colleagues like him. He's not even that conservative. His voting record is to the left of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). So what's the problem? Well, there are two things. First, no top Democrat thinks he could beat any Republican who isn't a child molester. Remember, he barely beat one in the special election that got him his seat, and turnout for the general election will be bigger this time. Second, Jones actually has a decent war chest already. He has $8 million in the bank, 10x the amounts either former senator Jeff Sessions or Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville have now, and they are going to have to spend much of what they have on the primary, currently scheduled for July.

Republicans haven't invested or reserved anything in Alabama either. They think that whoever wins the primary will be a shoo-in. Since Alabama is one of the reddest states, they are probably right.

While it seems dishonorable to leave one of your soldiers alone on the battlefield, the DSCC is probably doing the right thing. Democrats have an excellent chance of flipping seats in Arizona and Colorado, and a decent chance in Maine and North Carolina. Iowa and Georgia (Kelly Loeffler) are also possibilities. In one state, the coronavirus is particularly helping the Democrats. That would be Montana, where Democrats have won 20 Senate elections since the end of World War II. Republicans have won just four. The Democrats' current senatorial candidate, Gov. Steve Bullock (D-MT), is in the news all the time on account of being the face of the fight against the virus in Montana. His approval/disapproval is currently 49%/40%. Every dollar spent on helping Jones is money down the rathole, whereas that dollar spent to help Bullock realistically could yield an extra seat. (V)

What Happens If a Senator Is Appointed to the Cabinet?

A few days ago, we speculated that if Joe Biden is elected president, he might pick Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) for a cabinet post to allow Gov. Tom Wolf (D-PA) to appoint his successor. Or he might pick Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) for a cabinet slot to force a special election that a Democrat might be able to win.

Now, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball is looking at the other side of the coin: What if Biden picks a sitting Democratic senator for a cabinet slot? Many people are speculating that if Biden doesn't pick Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his running mate, he will pick her for the AG position. Quite a few other senators are also potential cabinet officers. What happens to their seats?

Here's the scoop: In seven states, a vacant Senate seat must be filled by a member of the party that last won the seat. Typically, the chair of that party's state organization gives the governor three choices to choose from. The party chair can easily force the governor's hand by picking two people the governor is known to hate with a passion and one who is the person the party wants in the Senate. These states are Arizona, Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming.

In five other states, the governor has no appointment power at all. A special election is always called to fill the vacancy. These states are North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

In all the other 38 states, the governor can pick anybody who is constitutionally eligible to be a senator from that state. Party doesn't play a role. So, if the governor and departed senator are from different parties, the seat could flip. This means, for example, that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is not going to be in a Biden cabinet because then Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) would pick a Republican to replace him. Sorry about that, Sherrod.

Currently, among the states where the governor can pick anyone, 14 have a Republican governor and two Republican senators. Biden is probably not going to pick any of those 28 senators because if he wants a Republican or two in his cabinet, Toomey and Johnson make far more sense. Twelve other states have a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. Any one of these 24 senators is a possibility because that would not endanger a Senate seat.

That leaves 12 states where an appointment could shift a seat (where for purposes of this analysis, independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King, ME, are considered to be Democrats). Three of those states have a Republican governor. They are Alabama, Ohio, and West Virginia. The Democratic senators in those states can forget it. In Colorado, Maine, and Pennsylvania, the governor is a Democrat and one of the senators is a Republican.

In six states, the governor is from a different party than both senators. Three have a Republican governor. These are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, though in two of the three (MA and VT), state law requires that a special election be held very quickly. Meanwhile, Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana have Democratic governors and two Republican senators. Unfortunately, most of those six senators (like John Kennedy, Mitch McConnell, and Jerry Moran) would infuriate the base if chosen, and would probably not accept anyhow.

Six Democratic women are considered potential picks for veep or a cabinet slot. Here are the consequences of each pick.

All in all, if Biden wants to raid the Senate for his cabinet, there are plenty of choices that would not give up a seat, or would not give up a seat for long. If he wants to taunt Mitch McConnell, we still see Toomey for HUD and Johnson for Homeland Security as his best options. (V)


Back to the main page