Tag Archives: Wisconsin

Ohio Sen. Portman to Retire

By Jim Ellis

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R) surprisingly announced his retirement Monday.

Jan. 27, 2021 — Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R) surprisingly announced Monday that he will not seek a third term next year, opening the third Senate seat for the 2022 election cycle.

Addressing reporters at a news conference in Cincinnati yesterday, Sen. Portman said, “Our country’s polarized right now. It’s kind of shirts and skins. That makes it more difficult to find that common ground. Elected officials aren’t rewarded for that. What they’re rewarded for is throwing red meat to the talk show.”

The two-term senator indicated that the “partisan gridlock” is one of the reasons for his retirement. He further said in explaining his retirement decision, “we just keep pushing out to the right and to the left, there’s not going to be much left in the middle to solve the real problems we face.”

For the Republicans, they now have three big state open seats to defend as Sen. Portman joins Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Pat Toomey and North Carolina’s Richard Burr as incumbents who have already made their 2022 retirement plans public. Several others could be on the horizon.

Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) will be 88 and 89 years of age, respectively, at the time of the next election, and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R) originally took a two-term pledge when he was first elected in 2010. None of these three lawmakers have made their future political plans public to date, however.

Ohio, once a bedrock Republican state, developed a swing image beginning in 1992 when the state deserted GOP President George H.W. Bush and backed Democrat Bill Clinton. They did so again in 1996. In 2000 and 2004, Ohio returned to the Republican column awarding George W. Bush with its electoral votes. In 2008 and 2012, the Buckeye State ventured back to the Democratic side of the political ledger, supporting Barack Obama in both of his national elections.

Therefore, rather than being cast as a swing state during this 20 year period, Ohio may actually have been a microcosm of the national electorate since the state’s voters chose the winning candidate in each of the presidential elections during that time span, and had done likewise for the three previous decades.

Continue reading →

Early House Outlook – Part II

By Jim Ellis

Jan. 21, 2021 — Continuing with our electoral stage preview for the US House, today we look at 12 states in the country’s central region. Tomorrow and the following Monday, we move further east.

• Arkansas – 4 Seats (4R)

Arkansas holds four Republican districts, and the GOP controls the redistricting pen. They will obviously attempt to draw a new map that protects all four incumbents, and they should be able to do so with relative ease as the state continues to move toward the ideological right.

Arkansas had previously received Justice Department approval to draw a map where all of its 75 counties whole within the individual congressional districts, and thus exceeding the plus-or-minus one individual congressional district population variance requirement.

• Iowa – 4 Seats (1D – 3R)

Iowa has a hybrid redistricting system. The legislature voluntarily cedes power to a particular legislative committee, which then draws the four congressional districts based upon a mathematical population algorithm without regard to incumbent residences or political preferences. The legislature must then approve or reject the map without amendment.

The current map has produced competitive districts as is evidenced in the 2nd District being decided by just six votes in the 2020 election. Three of the state’s four CDs have seen both Republican and Democratic representation during this decade. It is likely we will see the process produce a similar map later this year.

• Kansas – 4 Seats (1D – 3R)

Both parties have seats at the redistricting table as Republicans control the state House and Senate while Democrats have the governorship. Republicans will attempt to at least protect the status quo but Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly can be expected to hold out for a 2R-2D plan. Any prolonged impasse will send the map to either a state or federal court in order to produce an interim map for the coming 2022 election.

• Louisiana – 6 Seats (0D – 4R; 2 Vacancies)

The more immediate political task Louisiana sees is filling its two vacant congressional districts. The New Orleans-Baton Rouge 2nd District has no representation because Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-New Orleans) resigned to accept a White House appointment from the Biden Administration. Rep-Elect Luke Letlow (R) tragically passed away after his election and before he was officially sworn into office. Therefore, both seats will be filled in a two-tiered March 20/April 24 special election calendar.

Republicans control the legislature, but Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) holds the veto pen. The number of seats will remain constant since the population appears relatively even through the state’s six districts. The 1st (Rep. Steve Scalise-R) and the 6th (Rep. Garret Graves-R) are over-populated while the 4th (Rep. Mike Johnson-R) and the 5th (Letlow vacancy) will need to gain residents.
Continue reading →

Comparing 2020 & 2016

By Jim Ellis

Jan. 15, 2021 — Now that the presidential numbers are final and certified in all 50 states, we can begin to draw comparisons between the two Trump election years and see the states where movement was most significant.

The 2020 election results show interesting parallels in the race between President Donald Trump and President-Elect Joe Biden and the 2016 race between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

A total of 158,507,118 people are recorded as voting in the 2020 election, an all-time record. In 2016, by comparison, 136,792,535 individuals cast ballots. The current total represents an increase of 15.9 percent. Even those forecasting a turnout of just above 155 million, which seemed outlandish at the time, were low as the 2020 aggregate final vote widely cleared all previous electoral participation records.

As you will see from the following charts, most states performed similarly in 2020 as they did in 2016. In the preponderance of places, both President Trump and President-Elect Joe Biden posted better percentages in 2020, though Trump recorded slightly lower 2020 percentages in 13 states as compared to Biden falling below 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in only one (Mississippi).

The change factors are largely due to lesser independent and minor party candidates on the 2020 ballot as opposed to 2016 and an increase in first-time voters.

Nationally, as determined in all 50 states, President Trump’s numbers increased an average of one percentage point per state, while Biden saw a mean average four percent jump over Clinton’s standing.

The first charts depict President Trump’s state totals in alphabetical order. To reiterate, his per state average gain was 1.0 percent. The second chart shows the states in order of the largest gains.

The succeeding Democratic charts illustrate Biden’s increased performance over that of Clinton. Though his national per state victory margin over President Trump was low in comparison to 2016 – changing Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin and the 2nd District of Nebraska would have changed the national outcome and the aggregate vote margin was only 65,009 – his standing in every state was significantly better than hers. The Biden average per state gain was 4.0 percent.

REPUBLICAN

Alphabetical

STATE	2016 R	2020 R	AVG GAIN
Alabama	62.1%	62.3%	0.2%
Alaska	51.3%	52.8%	1.5%
Arizona	48.7%	49.1%	0.4%
Arkansas	60.6%	62.4%	1.8%
California	31.6%	34.3%	2.7%
Colorado	43.2%	41.9%	-1.3%
Connecticut	40.9%	39.2%	-1.7%
Delaware	41.7%	39.8%	-1.9%
Florida	49.0%	51.2%	2.2%
Georgia	50.8%	49.2%	-1.6%
Hawaii	29.4%	33.9%	4.5%
Idaho	59.3%	63.8%	4.5%
Illinois	38.8%	40.6%	1.8%
Indiana	56.9%	57.0%	0.1%
Iowa	51.2%	52.8%	1.6%
Kansas	56.6%	56.2%	-0.4%
Kentucky	62.5%	62.1%	-0.4%
Louisiana	58.1%	58.5%	0.4%
Maine	43.5%	43.6%	0.1%
Maryland	33.9%	32.2%	-1.7%
Massachusetts	32.3%	39.1%	6.8%
Michigan	47.6%	47.8%	0.2%
Minnesota	44.9%	45.3%	0.4%
Mississippi	57.9%	41.1%	-0.3%
Missouri	56.8%	56.8%	0.0%
Montana	56.2%	56.9%	0.7%
Nebraska	58.7%	58.2%	-0.5%
Nevada	45.5%	47.8%	2.3%
New Hampshire	46.5%	45.4%	-1.1%
New Jersey	41.4%	41.4%	0.0%
New Mexico	40.0%	43.5%	3.5%
New York	36.1%	37.5%	1.4%
North Carolina	49.8%	49.9%	0.1%
North Dakota	65.1%	31.8%	2.1%
Ohio	51.7%	53.3%	1.6%
Oklahoma	65.3%	65.4%	0.1%
Oregon	40.4%	56.5%	0.7%
Pennsylvania	48.6%	48.8%	0.2%
Rhode Island	38.9%	38.6%	-0.3%
South Carolina	54.9%	55.1%	0.2%
South Dakota	61.5%	61.8%	0.3%
Tennessee	60.7%	60.7%	0.0%
Texas	53.2%	52.1%	-1.1%
Utah	45.5%	58.1%	12.6%
Vermont	29.8%	30.9%	1.1%
Virginia	44.4%	44.0%	-0.4%
Washington	36.8%	38.8%	2.0%
West Virginia	68.6%	68.7%	0.1%
Wisconsin	47.2%	48.8%	1.6%
Wyoming	67.4%	69.5%	2.1%

Performance Increase

STATE	2016 R	2020 R	AVG GAIN
Utah	45.5%	58.1%	12.6%
Massachusetts	32.3%	39.1%	6.8%
Hawaii	29.4%	33.9%	4.5%
Idaho	59.3%	63.8%	4.5%
New Mexico	40.0%	43.5%	3.5%
California	31.6%	34.3%	2.7%
Nevada	45.5%	47.8%	2.3%
Florida	49.0%	51.2%	2.2%
North Dakota	65.1%	31.8%	2.1%
Wyoming	67.4%	69.5%	2.1%
Washington	36.8%	38.8%	2.0%
Arkansas	60.6%	62.4%	1.8%
Illinois	38.8%	40.6%	1.8%
Iowa	51.2%	52.8%	1.6%
Ohio	51.7%	53.3%	1.6%
Wisconsin	47.2%	48.8%	1.6%
Alaska	51.3%	52.8%	1.5%
New York	36.1%	37.5%	1.4%
Vermont	29.8%	30.9%	1.1%
Oregon	40.4%	56.5%	0.7%
Montana	56.2%	56.9%	0.7%
Arizona	48.7%	49.1%	0.4%
Louisiana	58.1%	58.5%	0.4%
Minnesota	44.9%	45.3%	0.4%
South Dakota	61.5%	61.8%	0.3%
Alabama	62.1%	62.3%	0.2%
Michigan	47.6%	47.8%	0.2%
Pennsylvania	48.6%	48.8%	0.2%
South Carolina	54.9%	55.1%	0.2%
Indiana	56.9%	57.0%	0.1%
Maine	43.5%	43.6%	0.1%
North Carolina	49.8%	49.9%	0.1%
Oklahoma	65.3%	65.4%	0.1%
West Virginia	68.6%	68.7%	0.1%
Missouri	56.8%	56.8%	0.0%
New Jersey	41.4%	41.4%	0.0%
Tennessee	60.7%	60.7%	0.0%
Mississippi	57.9%	41.1%	-0.3%
Rhode Island	38.9%	38.6%	-0.3%
Kansas	56.6%	56.2%	-0.4%
Kentucky	62.5%	62.1%	-0.4%
Virginia	44.4%	44.0%	-0.4%
Nebraska	58.7%	58.2%	-0.5%
New Hampshire	46.5%	45.4%	-1.1%
Texas	53.2%	52.1%	-1.1%
Colorado	43.2%	41.9%	-1.3%
Georgia	50.8%	49.2%	-1.6%
Connecticut	40.9%	39.2%	-1.7%
Maryland	33.9%	32.2%	-1.7%
Delaware	41.7%	39.8%	-1.9%

DEMOCRAT

Alphabetical

STATE	2016 D	2020 D	AVG GAIN
Alabama	34.4%	36.6%	2.2%
Alaska	36.5%	42.8%	6.3%
Arizona	45.1%	49.4%	4.3%
Arkansas	33.6%	34.8%	1.2%
California	61.7%	63.5%	1.8%
Colorado	48.2%	55.4%	7.2%
Connecticut	54.6%	59.2%	4.6%
Delaware	53.1%	58.7%	5.6%
Florida	47.8%	47.9%	0.1%
Georgia	45.6%	49.5%	3.9%
Hawaii	61.0%	63.1%	2.1%
Idaho	27.5%	33.1%	5.6%
Illinois	55.8%	57.5%	1.7%
Indiana	37.8%	41.0%	3.2%
Iowa	41.7%	3.2%	3.0%
Kansas	36.0%	41.6%	5.6%
Kentucky	32.7%	36.1%	3.4%
Louisiana	38.4%	39.8%	1.4%
Maine	46.4%	52.5%	6.1%
Maryland	60.3%	65.4%	5.1%
Massachusetts	59.0%	65.1%	6.1%
Michigan	47.3%	50.6%	3.3%
Minnesota	46.4%	52.4%	6.0%
Mississippi	57.6%	40.1%	-1.0%
Missouri	38.1%	41.4%	3.3%
Montana	35.7%	40.6%	4.9%
Nebraska	33.7%	39.2%	5.5%
Nevada	47.9%	50.1%	2.2%
New Hampshire	46.8%	52.7%	5.9%
New Jersey	55.5%	57.3%	1.8%
New Mexico	48.3%	54.3%	6.0%
New York	58.4%	60.4%	2.0%
North Carolina	46.2%	48.6%	2.4%
North Dakota	63.0%	27.2%	4.6%
Ohio	43.6%	45.2%	1.6%
Oklahoma	28.9%	32.3%	3.4%
Oregon	39.1%	50.1%	6.4%
Pennsylvania	47.8%	50.0%	2.2%
Rhode Island	54.4%	59.4%	5.0%
South Carolina	40.7%	43.4%	2.7%
South Dakota	31.7%	35.6%	3.9%
Tennessee	34.7%	37.5%	2.8%
Texas	43.2%	46.5%	3.3%
Utah	27.5%	37.7%	10.2%
Vermont	55.7%	65.5%	9.8%
Virginia	49.7%	54.1%	4.4%
Washington	52.5%	58.0%	5.5%
West Virginia	26.5%	29.7%	3.2%
Wisconsin	46.5%	49.4%	2.9%
Wyoming	21.6%	26.4%	4.8%

Performance Increase

STATE	2016 D	2020 D	AVG GAIN
Utah	27.5%	37.7%	10.2%
Vermont	55.7%	65.5%	9.8%
Colorado	48.2%	55.4%	7.2%
Oregon	39.1%	50.1%	6.4%
Alaska	36.5%	42.8%	6.3%
Massachusetts	59.0%	65.1%	6.1%
Maine	46.4%	52.5%	6.1%
New Mexico	48.3%	54.3%	6.0%
Minnesota	46.4%	52.4%	6.0%
New Hampshire	46.8%	52.7%	5.9%
Idaho	27.5%	33.1%	5.6%
Kansas	36.0%	41.6%	5.6%
Delaware	53.1%	58.7%	5.6%
Nebraska	33.7%	39.2%	5.5%
Washington	52.5%	58.0%	5.5%
Maryland	60.3%	65.4%	5.1%
Rhode Island	54.4%	59.4%	5.0%
Montana	35.7%	40.6%	4.9%
Wyoming	21.6%	26.4%	4.8%
North Dakota	63.0%	27.2%	4.6%
Connecticut	54.6%	59.2%	4.6%
Virginia	49.7%	54.1%	4.4%
Arizona	45.1%	49.4%	4.3%
Georgia	45.6%	49.5%	3.9%
South Dakota	31.7%	35.6%	3.9%
Oklahoma	28.9%	32.3%	3.4%
Kentucky	32.7%	36.1%	3.4%
Michigan	47.3%	50.6%	3.3%
Texas	43.2%	46.5%	3.3%
Missouri	38.1%	41.4%	3.3%
Indiana	37.8%	41.0%	3.2%
West Virginia	26.5%	29.7%	3.2%
Iowa	41.7%	44.7%	3.0%
Wisconsin	46.5%	49.4%	2.9%
Tennessee	34.7%	37.5%	2.8%
South Carolina	40.7%	43.4%	2.7%
North Carolina	46.2%	48.6%	2.4%
Alabama	34.4%	36.6%	2.2%
Nevada	47.9%	50.1%	2.2%
Pennsylvania	47.8%	50.0%	2.2%
Hawaii	61.0%	63.1%	2.1%
New York	58.4%	60.4%	2.0%
California	61.7%	63.5%	1.8%
New Jersey	55.5%	57.3%	1.8%
Illinois	55.8%	57.5%	1.7%
Ohio	43.6%	45.2%	1.6%
Louisiana	38.4%	39.8%	1.4%
Arkansas	33.6%	34.8%	1.2%
Florida	47.8%	47.9%	0.1%
Mississippi	57.6%	40.1%	-1.0%

Key States: President By CD

Daily Kos Elections – presidential results by congressional district. Click on image to see full interactive map at Daily Kos.

By Jim Ellis

Dec. 14, 2020 — The Daily Kos Elections organization is rapidly going through the election returns to provide a presidential vote depiction for every congressional district. At this point, they are only about a quarter of the way through the country but have already recorded some critical battleground states such as Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Dividing the national presidential vote into individual congressional districts portends better analysis because patterns are easier to decipher and analyze in smaller geographic segments.

In the aforementioned five-state region, 46 congressional districts are housed. Turning to the November election, Republicans won 28 of the US House seats in these states while Democrats recorded 18 victories. Just two of the CDs, both in Iowa, switched parties, and went from Democrat to Republican.

In these decisive states, several interesting patterns became evident. What appears clear, in most instances, is President Trump improving upon his 2016 vote percentages and former vice president Joe Biden surpassing Hillary Clinton’s totals of four years ago in all but four of the 46 congressional districts.

Trump exceeded his 2016 percentage performance in 35 of the 46 districts and failed to do so in 11. This despite the fact that he would lose three of the five states studied in this exercise.

Perhaps the most indicative finding centers around President Trump’s standing when compared with the various Republican congressional candidates in all of the tested districts. The fact that he finished under the GOP congressional candidate’s percentage in 32 of the 46 CDs is significant and the key to understanding why he lost two of the states that he carried in 2016. The totals suggest that Republican elasticity in these 32 districts was greater than what the President achieved.

Such is particularly true in the state of Wisconsin, a place Trump lost this year by just over 20,000 votes of almost 3.3 million ballots cast, or only half a percentage point. When examining the eight Wisconsin federal districts, we see Trump running behind the Republican congressional candidate in all five of the GOP-held districts and in two of three Democratic seats.

Continue reading →

The Early Vote Predictor

By Jim Ellis

Dec. 3, 2020 — While it became clear that the plethora of polling data published during the 2020 election cycle again proved to be a poor predictor of eventual campaign outcome in most states, another resource was discovered that might be the more reliable prognosticator.

The states releasing early voting numbers before the election – not the actual election results, of course, but the numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and Unaffiliated voters who had returned their ballots – provided the opportunity of charting possible race outcomes. As a predictor, the early voting numbers, largely because they are actual votes and not extrapolations and estimates as found in polling, look to be a more reliable gauge.

Let’s examine the results in the key battleground states and compare them to both the 2020 and 2016 early voting numbers as compiled by the Target Smart organization. Target Smart monitored, categorized, and published the early ballot return numbers throughout the acceptance period in every state that publicly released such data. Unfortunately, for purposes of our exercise, the Georgia 2020 numbers are among the states not currently available.

In Arizona, we see a difference in the 2016 and 2020 early vote numbers that indicated a small shift in the voting patterns. Detecting that Democratic early vote participation had increased several points from four years ago while Republicans were down slightly did prove indicative in relation to the final Arizona result that yielded an official 10,457 vote Biden victory.

In Florida, we see the Democratic early vote numbers dropping slightly. This is a bit surprising in that 2020 featured a record voter turnout. The fact that Republicans gained a bit in the swing was a predictor of President Trump’s stronger performance in the Sunshine State as compared to the result from four years previous.

As we can see from the Michigan numbers, Democrats increased their early voting participation while Republicans saw a decrease. Unaffiliated voters substantially increased. Considering the final result, it is apparent that most of the Unaffiliateds voted Democratic in the presidential contest.

The North Carolina early vote numbers gave us our first clear indication that the pollsters were mis-casting the state’s electorate. The clear indication that Democrats were missing their marks in early voting while Republicans were exceeding their expectations was the first indication that the final vote would produce a different result than the plethora of polls were suggesting.

Pennsylvania featured drastic changes in not only the partisan early vote pattern, but also in volume as early voting increased by more than twelve-fold in comparison to 2016. The stark difference in Democratic versus Republican participation levels did forecast a swing to the former party, though the final totals were not as drastically different as the early voting yields.

Continue reading →

Presidential Polling Report – Part I

By Jim Ellis

Note: All the best for a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday. Political Updates will return on Monday, Nov. 30.

Former VP Joe Biden

Nov. 25, 2020 — Now that the states are certifying their election results and the numbers are becoming clearer, we can look at the key battleground regions and assess the cumulative polling community’s accuracy.

Today we look at the key Great Lakes region and the states that turned away from President Trump and landed in former vice president Joe Biden’s camp. Polling had predicted Biden to win all four of the key states, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which he did, but they largely missed the mark when it came to margin. In three of the five instances the pollsters predicted substantial wins for Biden, not the close result he ultimately recorded.

In each place, we take the five publicly released polls conducted closest to the election and analyze whether the cumulative and individual survey research firms came close to the final result or missed beyond the polling margin of error.

Michigan

In Michigan, where Biden scored a 50.6 to 47.8 percent victory, the final five pollsters were the Trafalgar Group, Insider Advantage, CNBC/Change Research, Emerson College, and Mitchell Research. Insider Advantage came the closest, predicting a Biden two-point victory. Three pollsters missed beyond the polling margin of error. The Trafalgar Group actually predicted a Trump win.

Michigan – Biden 2.8 percent

Trafalgar Group	10/30 – 31	1033 LV	46	48	Trump +2
Insider Advantage	10/30 – 31	500 LV	49	47	Biden +2
CNBC/Change Research	10/29 – 11/1	383 LV	51	44	Biden +7
Emerson	10/29 – 30	700 LV	52	45	Biden +7
Mitchell Research	10/29	817 LV	52	45	Biden +7

Minnesota

Though Minnesota is the most loyal state to the Democrats in the presidential race, it appeared for a time that the state could become close, just like in 2016 when President Trump came within 1.5 percentage points of capturing the domain. In 2020, however, Minnesota returned to form and awarded Biden a 52.5 to 45.4 percent win. Here, the final five pollsters were Survey USA, the Trafalgar Group, KSTP/Survey USA (two separate polls), and Minnesota Post. All fell within an acceptable accuracy range.

Minnesota – Biden 7.1 percent

SurveyUSA	10/23 – 27	649 LV	47	42	Biden +5
Trafalgar Group	10/24 – 25	165 LV	48	45	Biden +3
KSTP/SurveyUSA	10/16 – 20	625 LV	48	42	Biden +6
MinnPost	10/12 – 15	1021 LV	49	44	Biden +5
KSTP/SurveyUSA	10/1 – 6	929 LV	47	40	Biden +7

Pennsylvania

The Keystone State has been the site of the most strenuous voter fraud lawsuits, which included a Trump legal victory. In the end, however, the victorious lawsuit(s) would not be enough to overturn the projected result, which was a close 50.0 – 48.8% finish. Polling was inconsistent with Rasmussen Reports coming closest to the final result. Three of the five firms actually predicted a Trump victory. The pollsters were: Susquehanna Polling & Research, Rasmussen Reports, the Trafalgar Group, NBC News/Marist College, and Insider Advantage.

Penn – Biden 1.2 percent

Susquehanna	11/1 – 2	499 LV	48	49	Trump +1
Rasmussen Reports	10/31 – 1	800 LV	50	47	Biden +3
Trafalgar Group	10/30 – 31	1062 LV	46	48	Trump +2
NBC News/Marist	10/29 – 11/1	772 LV	51	46	Biden +5
Insider Advantage	10/30 – 31	500 LV	47	49	Trump +2

Wisconsin

The Badger State was the closest of the four regional entities that touch a Great Lake. The final result saw the two candidates coming within just 20,608 votes, or a percentage breakdown of 49.4 – 48.8 percent in favor of the Democratic nominee. Polling from four of the five entities missed badly, all predicting a substantial win for Biden.

Susquehanna was the closest of the group, missing by just over two percentage points. CNBC/ Change Research, Susquehanna Polling & Research, Emerson College, Ipsos/Reuters, and Siena College/New York Times comprised the final group of survey research entities.

Wisconsin – Biden 0.7 percent

CNBC/Change Research	10/29 – 11/1	553 LV	53	45	Biden +8
Susquehanna	10/29 – 31	450 LV	49	46	Biden +3
Emerson	10/29 – 30	751 LV	53	45	Biden +8
Reuters/Ipsos	10/27 – 11/1	696 LV	53	43	Biden +10
NY Times/Siena	10/26 – 30	1253 LV	52	41	Biden +11

NE-2

For the second time in the past four presidential elections, the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska went against the statewide trend and awarded an electoral vote to the candidate losing the statewide count. In addition to this year, the same pattern occurred in 2008 when then-Sen. Barack Obama carried the district but not the state.

This time the Biden victory was substantial with FM3 Research projecting the correct margin of 11 percentage points. The other pollsters, while forecasting a Biden win, significantly missed the actual winning spread. The five pollsters were: UNLV Business School, Change Research, Emerson College, FM3 Research, and Siena College/New York Times.

NE-2 – Biden 11.4 percent

UNLV Business School	10/30 -11/2	191 LV	50	44	Biden +6
Change Research	10/29 – 11/2	547 LV	50	47	Biden +3
Emerson College	10/29 – 30	806 LV	50	48	Biden +2
FM3 Research	10/1 – 10/4	450 LV	53	42	Biden +11
Siena College/NYT	9/25 – 9/27	420 LV	48	41	Biden +7

Election Day Results & Analysis

By Jim Ellis

Nov. 4, 2020 — Last night’s national election, as predicted, is now it in political overtime.

The presidential race won’t be decided for more than a day, and possibly not until all ballots are received and counted in Pennsylvania, which as of this writing could drift into Friday. The state’s post-election ballot reception deadline, is Nov. 6, at 5:00 pm.

It appears that former vice president Joe Biden (D) has the inside track to unseat the president, but Trump still has a narrow path to victory.

It is likely that the Republicans have held the Senate majority despite what appears to be a close loss at the top of the ticket. Defending 13 of the most vulnerable 16 Senate seats, the GOP may break even. Converting Alabama and leading in Michigan offsets the loss of seats in Arizona and Colorado. Four races remain undecided.

Republicans had a much better night in the House than expected. With 43 races still uncalled, a reasonable projection suggests the Democrats will return to the House with a majority margin approximately seven seats less than in the current Congress. This would make the new majority 226D-209R, and certainly put House control front and center for the 2022 election cycle.

In the 11 governor’s races, we saw one state flip from Democrat to Republican, the open Montana race that completed a Republican sweep of the top four statewide offices. At-Large Rep. Greg Gianforte (R) was elected the state’s new governor, replacing term-limited Gov. Steve Bullock (D) who lost the Senate race to incumbent Steve Daines (R).

Continue reading →