BTRTN Midterms Snapshot: For Dems, House is All But Lost, Senate Now a Toss Up

Tom with BTRTN’s latest on the race for control of Congress.

Our latest BTRTN midterms update highlights are as follows:

·        Electoral environment.  The electoral environment has swung back to the GOP, indicated by the generic ballot, which is now R+3, and by individual race polling, which has moved consistently toward GOP candidates. 

·        Senate.  At this point, control of the Senate could go either way, though indicators still, on balance, very slightly favor the Democrats. 

·        House.  The odds of the Democrats maintaining control of the House have fallen to single digits and the question is not whether the GOP will take the House, but by how much. 

·        Governors.  We expect the Democrats to flip two state houses rather easily, but there are only five competitive races that offer other realistic flip opportunities; if there are no other flips, state houses would be split 25/25.

·        Priorities.  Democratic volunteers and donors should focus their efforts on the highest leverage Senate races, which could come down to three pivotal contests.

Here are the latest BTRTN’s odds of the Democrats maintaining each of the two chambers, the expected number of seats that will change parties, and some key metrics, all compared to prior updates.

Why has the political environment gone so sour for the Democrats in these last two weeks?  GOP messaging has sharpened around two issues that seem to be resonating among the persuadable, inflation and crime.  The October 10 inflation report – the last before Election Day – put to bed any Democratic hope that there was evidence that inflation was being tamed.  GOP candidates have gleefully kept the economic struggles of Americans front and center (even as the stock market has rebounded significantly over these two weeks, and gas prices have fallen). Crime has surged ahead of abortion in overall import to voters (the economy is still the top issue) and the GOP is viewed as the party more likely to deal with it effectively..

There is still time for this picture to change.  Remember, these assessments are “snapshots,” not “predictions,” based on today’s conditions and data.  (We’ll get into the prediction business on November 7, the day before Election Day.)   But time is running short for late-breaking “surprises” that could stop or reverse GOP momentum, and, of course, early voting is well underway in some states.

THE SENATE

Senate battleground race polls have tightened considerably over the past four months, and the Democratic candidates’ collective lead over their GOP counterparts is now nearly negligible.

We have made five ratings changes in the Senate, all five in the direction of the GOP, though none have resulted in a change in the party in the lead. 

Democrats have to be alarmed at the narrowing of two races that seemed reasonably secure (if not solid) in New Hampshire and Arizona.  Both have followed similar trajectories and neither Democratic candidate (Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly) has committed any particular gaffe; their woes are simply a vestige of a political environment gone bad for the Democrats.

Pennsylvania is somewhat different.  The race was narrowing even prior to the only debate scheduled between Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz.  Oz relied heavily on the crime issue and heavy media spending to reduce the Fetterman lead to about three points.  But the debate was perhaps just short of a prime time disaster for Fetterman, who exhibited the effects of the stroke he suffered in May with his halting, repetitive and at times inarticulate delivery.  It remains to be seen whether the debate proves damaging to him, as Oz himself made the rather remarkable claim that abortion decisions should be left to “women, doctors, local political leaders…”, a gaffe that is already running in heavy rotation in pro-Fetterman ads.

The two GOP Senate incumbents expanded their leads, with Ron Johnson of Wisconsin opening up daylight over Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes, and Marco Rubio all but putting away Val Demings, elevating the Florida race out of battleground status with his high single digit lead. 

There are thus now eight “battleground” Senate races (races in which both parties have a legitimate shot of winning) and the Democrats remain nail-bitingly ahead in five of them.  They need to win four to maintain control of the Senate, so this current “snapshot” continues to point to the Democrats holding the Senate, even flipping one seat (Pennsylvania).  But that belies how tenuous their position has become.  Each new poll seems to demonstrate continued GOP momentum, and with fully five races in the “toss-up” category, and three others in play, the Democrats could also lose big.

The full range of potential outcomes is demonstrated below; there is a 58% chance the Democrats will maintain the Senate by controlling 50 or more seats, but the chart also shows the potential for a range of adverse outcomes.

The chart below lists all the Senate races, with a focus on the eight battleground between the two purple lines.

For Democratic volunteers and donors, our guidance would be to prioritize the races as follows

·        Control of the Senate might very well come down to whichever party wins two out of three of George, Nevada and Pennsylvania – those three would be the top priority.

·        The next tier would be to bolster New Hampshire and Arizona, to prevent race dynamics from slipping any further (the GOP candidates have made significant inroads in both thus far)

·        Volunteers should probably stop there, but if one is inclined to go beyond, Ohio might be the next bet, followed in turn by North Carolina and then Wisconsin.

THE HOUSE

To understand the dynamics of House races, the best indicator, by far, is the “generic ballot.  This polling question has, over the years, been very highly correlated with how many seats each party will win or lose, especially in the midterms (as opposed to presidential election years).

That is bad news for the Democrats, because the generic ballot took a sharp and material turn in the direction of the GOP, who now lead by +3 points, back to where it was in June.  If the election was held today, the Democrats would have only about a 1 in 10 chance of holding on to the House, according to our models.

As we have pointed out before, even when the generic ballot was a dead heat, as it was just a few weeks ago, that did not mean the race for control of the House was a dead heat as well.  Given the disproportionate GOP representation in the House (due to overrepresentation of small states and effective gerrymandering), the Dems need to do much better than even in the generic ballot to have the upper hand in controlling the House.  For this race to become truly competitive, the Dems need to build their generic ballot advantage to D+3 or even D+5.  Clearly, the Dems are a long way from that, and are moving in the wrong direction.  Should there be no change in the last 10 days, the Dems are looking at a 25-30 seat loss. 

The GOP is in a commanding position.  To hold onto the House, the Democrats have to win not only all of the toss-ups, but also most of the races that are currently leaning to the GOP.

Here is a breakdown of all the races that are potentially in play, arrayed across the categories above.  For the Democrats to maintain control of the House, they need to win all of the Toss-up R races, and most of the Lean R as well.

GOVERNORS

As we have noted before, Governors became national figures with the onset of Covid as well as with the GOP push for more state control of electoral processes in the wake of The Big Lie.  A number of governors figure prominently in 2024 presidential speculation.  Thus more attention is being paid to gubernatorial races in 2022 – and there are a whopping 36 of them at stake.

There are only five races that are truly competitive at this point, but four of them are toss-ups.  The other tight race, in Kansas, has had little public polling overall and none at all in October, so it is difficult to assess exactly where it might stand right now.  This snapshot has the governor outcome at 25/25, another reflection of the polarized nature of our country.

Among the races that are not competitive are the only two states where we see flips in this snapshot, Maryland and Massachusetts.  Both are blue states but have GOP governors who have termed out, Larry Hogan of Maryland and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts.  Both will almost surely be replaced by the Democratic candidates in the races to succeed them, Wes Moore (in Maryland) and Maura Healy (in Massachusetts).

 

Here are the details on those five battleground races.  The focus should be on those toss-up races and Kansas.

 

We’ll be back with more updates in the final 10 days, and our official predictions on November 7.  Stay tuned.

BTRTN: How Much Do We Really Care About Saving Democracy?

Americans believe that our democracy is under threat. But are they willing to do the hard work to protect it?

Last Tuesday, The New York Times’ lead story headline was “Most Voters Say U.S. Democracy is Under Threat.” Bad enough… but then came the killer sub-head, “But Few Feel Urgency.”

My heart sank, and not only for the obvious reason. Sure, it is a depressing headline, but it happened that I was well along on a BTRTN essay on the exact same subject. It is an occupational hazard of blogging: you think of a topic for a post, do your research, think you’ve got an interesting angle, write your story, and then – boom! – you find The New York Times has the exact same story idea in their lead, front page, right column.  

However, the angle of the Times piece was different from the question I wanted to understand. The Times was focused on the attitudes that had been revealed in a recent proprietary Times/Siena College poll. That is: their primary measure of the “lack of urgency” was the high number of respondents who rated other problems as more urgent: “Seventy-one percent of all voters said democracy was at risk, but just 7% identified that as the most important problem facing the country.”

The article had startling revelations about the voter mindset, most notably the number of people open to voting for candidates who were “election deniers,” (71% of Republicans, 37% of Independents, and a very surprising 12% of Democrats). 

There was a particularly striking quote from a man who appeared unconcerned about whether candidates claimed past elections were fraudulent, noting “I’m far more concerned about their stance on policies that actually matter.” (Italics mine). His implication: claims of election fraud don’t “actually matter.”

Terrifying: this fellow failed to grasp that if we no longer have free and fair elections, he won’t have the opportunity to vote on the policies that "actually matter." Indeed, the right to free and fair elections is the bedrock freedom that enables all others. Good luck disagreeing with Donald Trump about his policies after he has declared himself the Kim Jong-un of Pennsylvania Avenue, Imperial Majesty of the United States.  

Still, though, the essential measure of voter apathy in the Times piece was about the perilous state of our democracy was attitudinal. I was curious about actual behaviors.  I’d rather understand what people do, not what they say. We do indeed face a very real, sizeable, and near-term threat from authoritarian extremists who are determined to negate the will of the voters, and I wanted to understand the most simple and obvious manifestation of political action: how many Americans are working on behalf of candidates who are determined to preserve democracy?

Across the United States, there are crucial elections that are too close to call… races that will decide whether Republicans or Democrats control Congress, State Houses, incredibly important races for Governors and State Attorneys General who will have extraordinary control over future elections, and countless local elections that will determine what textbooks will be used in our schools, whether coaches can lead athletes in prayer, and who can use what bathroom.  

Across the nation, authoritarian Trump wanna-bees are claiming that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. Republicans are running for office on claims that our voting systems are flawed and rigged. Their objective is crystal clear: to delegitimize future elections, and to put legislation in place that allows state legislatures to overturn the outcome of free and fair elections.

On October 7, The Brookings Institute reported that “well over 300 candidates across a variety of races this fall are perpetuating former President Trump’s assertion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him and that American elections are deeply flawed.”

Laws already exist in Georgia that create the opportunity for the legislature to reach into local precincts and replace election officials. Republican candidates for Attorney General and Governor in Arizona parrot Donald Trump’s view of the 2020 election. If such efforts to overrule the popular vote were in place in 2020 in these two states and, say, Wisconsin, it could have triggered a Constitutional crisis on a scale our country has not witnessed. Had the election been decided by the Supreme Court, it could have led to Donald Trump remaining in office. And we are left to imagine the outpouring of outrage and civil unrest that would have followed such a decision.

It doesn’t take much to figure out what’s behind the decision of 300 candidates to support an utterly baseless, completely unproven and unsupportable claim of a stolen election. Many Republican candidates have simply accepted that cow-towing to Trump’s claims of a stolen election is the cost-of-entry in the modern Republican Party. So, too, is the abdication of any sense of principle or integrity. To be a modern Republican is to outsource one’s beliefs to one of the most prodigious liars in human history.

There is, of course, a second reason Republicans feel the need to sabotage American confidence in our elections. Estimates range about the true size of the Trump “hard core base,” but most polls and pundits put that number in the mid-30% range of the nation. It is a minority. It can win in one of two ways: (1) by moderating views to attract independents -- exceedingly unlikely in a party increasingly dominated by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kari Lake -- or (2) by disenfranchising Democratic voters and figuring out how to negate the votes they do cast.

Republicans aren’t moderating views. They hard at work doing what they can do: strangling access to the vote and creating mechanisms to overrule the vote.

Indeed, the most recent Republican President demanded that one Secretary of State “find 11,780 votes.” He entertained notions of seizing voting machines, mused about declaring martial law, and incited a violent attempted coup of the Federal Government. Republicans remain in lock-step behind this traitor, calling January 6 “legitimate political discourse.”

It is necessary to pause and reflect on the fact that Republicans say that democracy is under attack, too. For wildly different reasons. Polling data varies slightly, but generally confirms that a sickening 70% percent of Republicans have bought into Donald Trump’s psychotic fantasy that he won the election.  

Do Americans generally believe that there is a clear and present threat to our democracy? In addition to The New York Times/Sienna College data, a recent CBS/YouGov poll provided additional insight into that question: Yes, most Americans do. Overwhelmingly.

The poll, conducted among 2,085 U.S. adults between August 29 and September 31, 2022, found that 72% of Americans believe that democracy and the rule of law are “somewhat threatened (38%)” or “very threatened (34%).” Asked to rank the major threats to democracy, 86% cited the influence of money in politics, 69% said the potential for political violence, and 67% thought that “people trying to overturn or change elections” constituted a major threat.

Predictably, the reasons behind the perceived threat varied by party and ideology. 79% of Trump voters thought that “people voting or casting ballot illegally” was a major threat, but only 9% of Biden voters shared that view. Not surprisingly, a full 86% of Biden voters felt that “people trying to overturn or change elections” was a major threat, but the number of Trump voters who felt the same way was also quite high at 56%.

And just when you thought we were polarized on every possible issue, here is the topic that you can safely bring up at the cocktail party: 88% of Biden voters and 89% of Trump voters believe that “the influence of money is politics” is a major threat to democracy and the rule of law.

Well, that’s resounding: an overwhelming percentage of Americans believe that democracy and the rule of law are under serious threat in the United States.

Which brings us to the difficult question of the day: Do Americans really care enough about their democracy to do something about it?

Let’s start with one action that is available to every adult U.S. citizen: the right to vote. How many do? In the Presidential election of 2020, only 66% of adult U.S. citizens even bothered to vote. That number, by the way, was the high-water mark for voting in the 21^st century.

Traditionally, the mid-terms have lower turn-out than Presidential elections. The organization FairVote notes that Presidential elections in the United States “generally hover at 60% and midterms at 40%.” In fact, there was a surge of voter turn-out in the 2018 mid-terms, reaching 50%.

On October 20, 2022, CNN ran an article entitled “Why Very High Turnout is Likely This Midterm,” citing polls that showing that 66% of Americans believe “voting this midterm is more important than past midterms.”

So there’s good news and bad news: let’s say that mid-term voting in 2022 actually equals the same percentage as the 2020 Presidential election of 66% -- which would be a shocking, unprecedented level for mid-term voter turn-out. Even in this best-case scenario, one out of every three eligible voters in the United States doesn’t show up to vote.

Said another way: 72% (CBS) of Americans think that “democracy is at risk,” but the highest turn-out ever recorded for a Presidential election brought out only 66% of voters. 

Voting, of course, is not the only action American adults can take. People can of course support candidates by donating money, advocating in private conversations, or by posting online. 

But there is a difference between supporting candidates and actively working for candidates – volunteering for the tough, grimy work of getting a candidate elected.

Political operatives know that in a radically polarized electorate, the single most important thing a candidate can do is “get out the vote.” There is far more leverage in spending time to get the voters in your party to the polls than in trying to convince independents or – crazier still – members of the other party -- to vote for your candidate. Don’t waste time trying to persuade the unpersuadable, and don’t even spend that much time trying to persuade the persuadable. The smart money is figuring out how to get the “already-persuaded” into a car and usher them to the polling place.

Fighting for democracy in 2022 is hand-to-hand combat. Stuffing envelopes. Writing post-cards. Cold-calling voters. Walking door-to-door and asking for votes. This is the hard, gritty, smelly, sometimes very unpleasant work of democracy. In close races, it is what makes the difference.

There is no current data measure the number of people who are currently actively volunteering to help political campaigns during these mid-terms. However, a very good measure of the “order of magnitude” of volunteering can be found in a 2020 study of “political engagement” conducted by the Pew Research Center. In this study, Pew reported on the extent of involvement in six different political activities over the past six months, including contributing money to candidates, attending political rallies or events, or working for campaigns.

Dig into the Pew data, and you find that the number of people who actually work on political campaigns is miniscule. Tiny. Only five percent of those surveyed worked for a political campaign, but the survey was limited to voters – 66% of the population at large – so the real the percentage of American adults who are doing the hard, gritty work of democracy was about 3% in 2020.

It would be lovely to believe that this number has risen dramatically as a result of the “Big Lie,” the cacophony from election deniers, and the January 6 Committee’s work to expose Donald Trump’s overt efforts to end democracy in America.

All we know is this: 72% of Americans believe that our democracy is under threat. And in the most recent Presidential election, only three percent of our population was actually taking the most important action to do something about it.

Not since Churchill defined the impact of the Royal Air Force has it been more true: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

Between the findings of The New York Times/Siena College poll, the CBS/Gov poll, and the Pew data, we are forced to accept one of two unsavory conclusions about our citizens:

--Either Americans say that they believe our democracy is under threat, but do not really believe that threat is real, imminent, and could result in America becoming an authoritarian state run by despots…

--Or, they are keenly aware of the reality and imminence of that threat, but can’t be moved to take real action to defend it.

Maybe – we can hope -- there is a third option: that citizens may simply not understand that the most important thing we can be doing now to save our democracy is to get the vote out this November. That citizens have never been fully educated about how they can best defend their democracy. That there is urgent work to be done by all able-bodied citizens.

The most effective way ordinary citizens can protect our democracy is to volunteer to work for a candidate who believes in our democracy, and whose victory will keep the election deniers, the liars, and the authoritarians out of power.

The same Tuesday night that The New York Times appeared to have scooped my story, I attended a fund-raiser for a Congressional candidate. One of the event’s organizers was an amazing woman, a charming veteran of many a political campaign.

I had the opportunity to ask her about her long involvement in political campaigns, and she cheerfully reflected on years of piling into station wagons in caravan formation with like-minded friends, driving to distant states where important races were being decided. She, and her friends, showed up. They were directed to banks of rotary phones. They were assigned addresses to knock on doors, and they drove people to polling places.

She told me that late in those evenings, the days’ work of campaigning finally done, the volunteers would come together over cold sandwiches, potato chips, and – if they were lucky -- a bottle of wine, and they would swap stories about the days’ adventures. They would laugh, joke, and make lasting friendships.

Her overarching memory was not the hardship or sacrifice or exhaustion. It was the thrill of shared purpose, idealism, and it was – in her words -- an enormous amount of fun.

Fighting for democracy was a labor of love.

And now, on this past Tuesday night, she was still at it, as organizer of a very serious, inspirational, and very successful fundraiser.

She is doing the hard work of democracy. For her candidate, her vision of America, and so that the next generation of Americans would have the opportunity to vote for their vision of America.

My generation of Americans, I fear, is a whiny bunch, more talk than action, appropriately labeled “The Me Generation” fifty years ago and ever more the indictment today. We hold our hands over our hearts when they play “The Star Spangled Banner” before the kick-off. We solemnly mourn on Memorial Day. Most of us claim to “love our country.”

But the hard work of defending it in its hour of need?

Working to defend its bedrock right must be the labor of love of every citizen.

In articles like this, it is normative for the author to “minimize the friction” between reading and acting by providing links to zillions of campaign organizations that need help, or simply provide the ActBlue URL to make it easy to donate money. Indeed, the site you are reading right now – Born To Run The Numbers – provides constant updates on the closest races and the ones that are most crucial for preserving Democratic majorities. (And, yes, here is an invaluable link to the most recent such post: http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2022/10/btrtn-midterms-snapshot-where-should.html.)

But, in some ways, to conclude by offering a broad list of candidate websites to make it even easier for readers to act is undermine the finding of the article. It’s not that hard to find the work if you really want to do it.

Google John Fetterman. Rafael Warnock.  Mark Kelly. Tim Ryan. Catherine Cortez Masto. Maggie Hassan. Mandela Barnes. Val Demings. Google your local school board candidates.

If you really see the threat to our democracy, you’ll see how many candidates, organizations, and causes are eager to sign you up.  

We must do the hard, messy work of democracy.

And consider it a labor of love.

 

If you would like to be on the Born To Run The Numbers email list notifying you of each new post, please write us at borntorunthenumbers@gmail.com.

BTRTN Midterms Snapshot: Where Should Democratic Volunteers and Donors Focus Their Resources?

Tom with BTRTN’s latest on the 2022 midterm elections.

Our latest BTRTN update highlights modest changes versus our last one two weeks ago, and also offers specific guidance on which races Democratic volunteers and donors should focus their efforts and funds in the final 25 days until Election Day.  The high level summary is as follows:

·        The electoral environment is largely unchanged, as President Biden’s approval rating remains in the low 40% range, slightly higher than in August, but not showing any continued momentum from that time, while the generic ballot has slipped back from D+1 to even. 

·        The Senate races overall have continued to tighten, enough to slightly reduce the odds of the Democrats maintaining control of that body, though those odds remain good.  However, the two rating changes we have made are a split verdict: in Georgia, revelations about GOP candidate Herschel Walker appear to have damaged him materially, while in Pennsylvania, the race continues to tighten. 

·        In the House, the Democrats continue to be long shots to maintain control, and need to win virtually every toss-up and leaning race, including those leaning to GOP candidates right now. 

·        We can expect the Democrats to flip two state houses rather easily (that is, both are rated "Solid D"); there are seven competitive races out of 36 that provide further flip opportunities for both parties, though in this snapshot all of those others appear to favor the incumbent party. 

·        Democratic volunteers and donors should focus their efforts on the highest leverage Senate races, which could come down to three pivotal races. 

Here are the latest BTRTN’s odds of the Democrats maintaining each of the two chambers, the expected number of seats that will change parties, and some key metrics, all compared to prior updates.

 

There is still time for this picture to change.  Remember, these updates are “snapshots,” not “predictions,” based on today’s conditions and data.  (We’ll get into the prediction business on November 7, the day before Election Day.)   October and November surprises could give races a jolt, as one did in Georgia.  But with early voting underway in some states, and only 25 days to go, time is short. 

THE SENATE

We have made two ratings changes in the Senate, but both remain in the Democrats’ column:

The revelation that GOP (and staunchly pro-life) candidate Herschel Walker paid for an abortion for a girlfriend in 2009, a claim she backed with ample evidence, has shaken up the Georgia race.  Further revelations have occurred almost daily, including savage criticism of Walker by his son.  There have been seven polls since the shocker came to light, more than enough to demonstrate that Democratic Senator Rafael Warnock has benefited from the disclosure, despite the GOP leadership shamelessly closing ranks behind Walker.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidate John Fetterman continues to have a material lead over Dr. Mehmet Oz, but the lead is narrowing, primarily due to attacks on Fetterman on the issue of crime.  Fetterman is also being called on to spend more time in Democratic strongholds firing up the base rather than attempting to woo the middle.  Fetterman’s health after suffering a stroke and missing time on the campaign trail, is also a nagging issue for the Democrat.

There are nine “battleground” Senate races (races in which both parties have a legitimate shot of winning) and the Democrats are ahead in five of them.  They need to win four to maintain control of the Senate.  They appear to be successfully defending four seats held by incumbents (although one, Nevada, is extremely close), and have a good chance, at this juncture, of flipping Pennsylvania.  The GOP is ahead in four seats that it is defending, though three of them are extremely close as well.

The chart below lists all the Senate races, with a focus on the nine battleground between the two purple lines.

 

For Democratic volunteers and donors, our guidance would be to prioritize the races as follows

·        Control of the Senate might very well come down to whichever party wins two out of three of George, Nevada and Pennsylvania – those three would be the top priority.

·        The next tier would be to bolster New Hampshire and Arizona, to prevent race dynamics from slipping any further (the GOP candidates have made slight inroads in both thus far)

·        Then North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, all within reach as flips, in that order of priority

·        And finally, Florida, where we remain highly skeptical that Marco Rubio can be beaten

THE HOUSE

Unlike the Senate, House election outcomes are far more driven by the macro election environment than by individual candidates.  The most important number to watch in terms of predicting how many seats the Democrats will lose is the generic ballot.  This polling question has, over the years, been very highly correlated with gain/loss outcomes, especially in the midterms (which do not have a presidential race to affect turnout and down ballot preferences). 

The Democrats have made progress in the generic ballot over the past four months, from a GOP lead of +3 to a dead heat, albeit with recent slippage from D + 1.  The problem is, given the disproportionate GOP representation in the House (due to overrepresentation of small states and effective gerrymandering), the Dems need to do much better than even to have the upper hand in controlling the House.  For this race to become truly competitive, the Dems need to build their generic ballot advantage to D+3 or even D+5. 

Given that that has not happened, as yet, we have made little change to Democrats’ prospects for holding the House, with the odds remaining in the low 20% range, or one in five, according to our models, and the mode number of seats lost in our model simulations has dropped to -17.

Here is how the races line up.  As you can see, even to achieve this rather modest level of loss, the Democrats have to win the vast majority of toss-up races.  To hold onto the House, in the last several weeks the Democrats have to win not only all of the toss-ups, but also most of the races that are currently leaning to the GOP.

 

Note: we have slightly narrowed the specification for defining "toss up" races, so there are somewhat fewer of them than in our last update.

There is an argument to be made that volunteers and donors should abandon the House and focus only on the Senate.  Biden would, of course, largely lose his ability to create dramatic legislative triumphs in the next session of the Congress if the Democrats lose the House.  But, if the Democrats hold the Senate, they would continue to have the ability to reshape the judiciary by appointing federal judges to fill vacancies, including new Supreme Court justices.  That is a huge consolation prize, and worth fighting for.

But while it may be too early to throw in the towel on the House, volunteer efforts to bolster the House should be secondary to maintaining the Senate.

To the extent that volunteers and donors want to focus on the House, here are the races that are toss-ups or leaning Republican.  Again, the Democrats have to win virtually all of these races to maintain control, which underlines the long odds facing them, so the focus should be on the races in the right-hand column.

GOVERNORS

Governors became famous during Covid, wielding authority with impunity once it was clear that Donald Trump was content to leave major decisions to the states.  Andrew Cuomo of New York was perhaps the most famous of all, experiencing an astonishing rise and fall, achieving a national following as the voice of reason and empathy, demonstrated badly needed leadership in the early days of Covid, only to be forced to resign in a sexual harassment scandal months later.  But other governors made a more lasting impression in their Covid management and some, including Ron DeSantis of Florida and Larry Hogan of Maryland, seem poised to translate their newfound celebrity into a run for the presidency.  Not only that, but there is a new realization, in the wake of 2020, on the importance of state elections in controlling the integrity of election processes.

So more attention is being paid to the gubernatorial races in 2022, and there are a whopping 36 of them; two-thirds of all governors’ mansions are on the line.  Of those 36 races, most appear to be solidly in one camp or the other, with only seven that are truly competitive.

Among the races that are not competitive are the only two elections where we see flips, in Maryland and Massachusetts.  Both have GOP governors, in blue states, who have termed out, the aforementioned Hogan and Charlie Baker in the Bay State.  Both will almost surely be replaced by the Democratic candidates in the race to succeed them, Wes Moore (in Maryland) and Maura Healy (in Massachusetts).

While at this point we see no other flips, there are four toss-up races that, by definition, could go either way, and three other races that are classified as “lean” or “likely.”  The snapshot now has the governor outcome at 25/25.

 

Here are the details on those seven battleground races.  The focus should be on those toss-up races and Kansas.

We’ll be back in two weeks with another update.  Stay tuned.