Obama Extends His Lead, Gingrich to Formally Drop Out, On Behalf of the 1%

Obama Extends His Lead
In my poll tracking, we have 4 new national polls and 5 state level polls this week and they show a distinct trend in the second week of the general election campaign - the Obama campaign is gaining steam.  Now, let's not overstate this case - this is week 2 of what will be a 29 week campaign, so we are sure to see lots of ups and downs.

But in the scheme of a week that saw disappointing economic growth (2.2% GDP growth in Q1 versus an expectation of 2.5% growth), disappointing unemployment claims (388,000 new claims versus an expectation of 365,000) and no real positive news for the President, his gaining ground against Romney is certainly a good thing.

Here are our latest changes:
National Poll Average of Averages: Obama +2.9% (up 2.0% from last week)
State Changes:

Louisiana - moves from Safe Romney to Strong Romney
West Virginia - moves from Safe Romney to Strong Romney
South Carolina - moves from Strong Romney to Likely Romney
South Dakota - moves from Strong Romney to Likely Romney
Arizona - moves from Strong Romney to Likely Romney

Florida - flips from Lean Romney to Lean Obama

Michigan - moves from Likely Obama to Strong Obama
Wisconsin - moves from Likely Obama to Strong Obama
Rhode Island - moves from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Delaware - moves from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Maryland - moves from Strong Obama to Safe Obama

Electoral Count: Obama 331, Romney 207 (Obama +28 versus last week)

 

Gingrich to (Finally) Drop Out

Newt Gingrich is set to formally drop out of the Presidential race this Tuesday, leaving Mitt Romney and Ron Paul as the only official candidate for the Republican nomination.  Gingrich's status as a serious candidate for the Republican nomination has been gone for quite some time now.  Since winning an upset victory in South Carolina, his only victory was in his home state of Georgia and Gingrich came in third in states like Mississippi, where a serious GOP Southern candidate should win.

We've all sort of moved on to the general election, so Gingrich's departure will be to very little fanfare.

In the most technical sense, Romney is still yet to clinch the nomination.  My current delegate count puts his total at 865 delegates out of 1,144 needed to clinch the nomination.  But with only Ron Paul to deal with, Romney should make short work of gaining the remaining 279 he needs.  132 delegates are allocated in the three races on May 8th, 63 on May 15th, 81 on May 22nd, 155 in the Texas Primary on May 29th, 299 on June 5th and 40 in the closing Utah primary on June 26th.

Assuming Romney gets at least 65% of the delegates from here on, he should clinch by May 29th.

 Game on to the general.

In Defense of the 1%

I am not a member of the 1%, as defined by the (now dwindling) Occupy Wall Street protesters.  I have been successful enough in life that my household income is in the top 5% of all households, but not in the top 1%.  I hope to join the 1% as soon as possible, however.

The 1% have been much maligned by the left as of late.  They profit at the expense of the working class.  They don't pay their fair share of taxes.  They looted our economy and gave themselves golden parachutes.

There are certainly members of the 1% for whom there can be no defense.  Bernie Madoff is a criminal.  The actions of the leaders of financial institutions to take massive risks on high-risk loans that ultimately led both to the housing bubble and the financial collapse are incompetent and best and criminal at worst.  Hedge fund managers being taxed at a lower rate than working Americans is inexplicably bad policy.

But there are plenty of things that the 99% does that are as bad or worse.  Medicaid fraud is rampant.  So is Social Security Disability fraud.  There are scores of people taking public handouts who aren't even attempting to find work or go to school.  Alexandra Pelosi's documentary video (featured on Bill Maher's show Real Time) around a New York City welfare office that showed able-bodied people who had decided they didn't want to work asking for a hand-out turned my stomache.

In 2011, I paid a total federal income tax rate of 20.0%.  I additionally paid 4.4% of my income to New Jersey state income tax.  Payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare and New Jersey unemployment taxes) added another 3.2%.  Property taxes on my home (a fairly modest one in the Philadelphia suburbs) amounted to another 3.1% of my income.

So, even excluding state sales taxes, gas taxes, tag fees, etc., my total tax bill amounted to 30.7% of my income.

47% of the country pays no income tax.

Should my taxes be higher?

You could argue that they should - I could certainly live off less than 69.3% of my income.

But the truth of the matter is that raising my taxes won't solve our current economic situation.  I'm in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making over $250K, as President Obama has advocated.  But those cuts are a mere 10% of the cost of the Bush Tax cuts.  The other 90%?  The reductions in middle class taxes and the increased deductions that dropped many lower income tax payers from the roles.

You may think it's wise or unwise to tax the rich more.  But to be intellectually honest, it really doesn't matter.  If you are going to raise a meaningful amount of revenue for the government, you are going to have to tackle higher middle class taxes.

I don't deny that I have been lucky in life - good genes, being raised in a strong household, having access to an excellent public school system and the right opportunities have aided me in my path to being in the top 5%.  There is no doubt that a kid in rural Mississippi or Compton will not in general start life with the same advantages that I did.  That's why I don't mind paying a little more to try to help even the playing field.

But don't be mad at me for my success...I got there through the combination of luck (above), hard work and discipline.  I don't make my money firing people or raiding old ladies bank accounts (although firing people, on occasion, is a part of most management jobs.)  I do an honest days work and think that shareholders in my company get a good deal at the amount I'm paid.

I don't mind contributing, but I think my story, and most of the 1%ers too, are stories to be studied in how to succeed in America, not stories to be lambasted as greedy and arrogant.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

The 2012 Presidential Map: Structural Advantage - Obama, Why Did Americans Elect Fizzle?

Almost Two Weeks Into the General, Obama Holds an Electoral College Lead

As we have now effectively entered the general election phase of the 2012 contest, we are getting real red meat for those of us who love analyzing polls and trends.  We have 9 new national polls within the past week and state-level polling in 42 of the 50 states, including virtually all of the states that could reasonably be considered contestable (North Dakota being the only state that is conceivably contestable where there isn't a poll and even North Dakota isn't likely to be close unless Obama wins by quite a hefty margin.)

Crunching through the numbers, I see two trends emerging:

(1) Abnormally Large Poll Divergance
The CNN/Opinion Research poll had President Obama leading Mitt Romney nationally by 9%.  The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had the race at 6% lead for Obama.  Both the Rasmussen and Gallup Tracking Polls have Romney in the lead, albeit by only 1%.

What explains this large poll divergence?  There could be multiple reasons.

The first obvious reason would be the sample the pollsters are attempting to represent.  Rasmussen targets Likely Voters, using a voter screen to determine who among the polled is likely to actually show up on election day, whereas all of the other polls are targeted Registered Voters, a self-selected group that may or may not vote.  Virtually all polls move to a Likely Voter model close to election day, but most start with Registered Voters early in the season when it is typically very hard to project turnout.  But Rasmussen had it at Romney +1%, the same total as Gallup, who is using Registered Voters.

The second possible reason is that the race isn't very well decided at this early stage.  Despite the long primary season, the truth is that most general election swing voters haven't been closely watching the Republican primaries and debates and probably don't know that much about Mitt Romney yet.  In this situation, small changes in the news cycle and poll timing can have outsized effects on the results.

The third is sample size.  The Rasmussen, Gallup and Quinnipiac polls have large sample sizes (1500, 2200 and 2577 respectively) and have a much tighter clustering of poll data at Romney +1, Romney +1 and Obama +4, where all of the other polls have sample sizes of 910 or less.

At any rate, utilizing my weighting methodology, which considers sample size in the weighting of the polls, at this point I have Obama at +0.9% in the aggregate of all the polling, a lead, but certainly a very small one (for reference, in the two closest elections in recent history, Al Gore's popular vote margin over George W. Bush in 2000 was 0.5% and Bush's margin over John Kerry was 2.4%.)

(2) Structural Advantage - Obama
It is very early to make this kind of projection, but the state-level polling data indicate that the way the demographics are breaking, President Obama has a structural advantage in the electoral college in a close race.  With a less than 1% lead nationally, the President leads in many of the key swing states, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan.

As things stand today, I project a 303-235 electoral college lead for President Obama, in spite of being narrowly behind in the State of Florida.

The map is below (created with the help of our friends at 270towin.com)

For the state-by-state numbers, I have utilized a combination of state-level and national polling data, depending on the number of state-level polls available.  For states where no polling is available, I've used the 2008 election results as a baseline, modified for the difference between current national polls and the 2008 national results.

In terms of the contested states, here is where we stand:
Safe Romney (51 Electoral Votes)
Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama,  Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia

Strong Romney (116 Electoral Votes)
Mississippi, Nebraska, Kentucky, North Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona

Likely Romney (14 Electoral Votes)
Montana, Indiana

Lean Romney (54 Electoral Votes)
North Carolina, Missouri, Florida

Lean Obama (41 Electoral Votes)
New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa

Likely Obama (70 Electoral Votes)
Pennsylvania, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin

Strong Obama (97 Electoral Votes)
New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Connecticut, Maine, Illinois, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island

Safe Obama (95 Electoral Votes)
California, New York, Vermont, Hawaii, District of Columbia

Of worthy note, there are presently no states that John McCain won in 2008 that are meaningfully in play for 2012.  Missouri is the closest at a 4.1% lead for Romney, which makes sense, if you recall that John McCain won it by the narrowest of margins in 2008.  Montana and Arizona are the next closest at 9.2% and 10.2% leads for Romney respectively, which puts them only on the fringe of being contestable.

Meanwhile, Romney, as things stand today, would pick up 3 Obama states from 2008: Indiana, North Carolina and Florida.  Obama won Indiana and North Carolina by very narrow margins in 2008 and Florida, while he won decisively, he won by significantly less than his national margin, making it a logical flip in a close race.

But Romney would need to do much more to pick up the Presidency.  The easiest path for the winning 270 Electoral Vote total for him to win both Virginia and Ohio (both presently lean Obama states) and 1 of either New Hampshire or Iowa (winning just New Hampshire would give him 270, winning just Iowa would give him 272, winning both would boost his total to 276.)

Alternatively, he could take John McCain's (unsuccessful) strategy from 2008 and swing for the fences in Pennsylvania.  If he won his current states plus PA, he would have 255 electoral votes as a base, meaning that just winning Ohio would put him over the top (at 273) or combining a win in Virginia with a smaller state such as New Hampshire (Pennsylvania, Virginia plus New Hampshire would give him 272 electoral votes.)

Clearly, Florida, where Romney leads by 0.1% as things stand today, is critically important to his election bid.  It's virtually impossible to draw a feasible map for Romney that doesn't include Florida's 28 electoral votes.  Give him Florida and he has all those options in the mid-west.  Take Florida away and you could give Romney New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa AND Pennsylvania and he still falls short with only 268 Electoral Votes.

So, in my rank order of importance to the race, considering the closeness of states, their electoral vote contribution and their relative impact on the possible scenarios, I think the most hotly contested states will be as follows:
1. Florida
2. Ohio
3. Virginia
4. Pennsylvania
5. North Carolina

If Obama wins Florida (a toss-up) or North Carolina (a tougher haul, but he did it in 2008), it is virtually impossible for Romney to win.  If Romney takes both, the other three states become huge in deciding the outcome.

Below is the state-by-state spread as things stand today.

Third Parties Falter Again in America
American's Elect sounded like such a great concept.  A well-funded organization with the mission of bringing a qualified third party candidate to the American voters, using a web-based, democratic process to bring a true choice to America.  American's Elect was well-enough backed that they appear likely to get on the ballot in all 50 states and constructed a slick website and good marketing campaign, attracting press from major national news organizations such as CNN.

You'd think with the seeming hatred most American hold for both our major political parties that 2012 would be fertile ground for such an effort.  Gridlock, partisanship and public disapproval for elected officials are at generational highs.

Yet, American's Elect is flopping big time.  A check of their website shows that two weeks from their online convention, no declared candidate has even reached 4,000 supporters, FAR less than the 50,000 spread over 10 states that the site had originally set as a bar for candidates.  And the candidates are less than enthralling, with the leaders being Buddy Roemer (3,639 supporters), an ex-Governor who couldn't even get on the stage when he tried to run as a Republican and Rocky Anderson (2,073 supporters), a former liberal mayor who has never even been a Congressman, Senator or Governor.  Hardly the resumes of highly-qualified centrist candidates that Americans Elect had hoped to recruit, such as Michael Bloomberg or Jon Huntsman. 

It strikes me that while we all talk of the need for a third-party, we aren't particularly serious.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

The Long Road to November

Just like that, the Republican nomination process effectively ended this week with Rick Santorum's withdrawal from the race.  Sure, Mitt Romney technically is yet to secure the necessary delegates to win the nomination, but with just the chronic 10%er Ron Paul and the near-broke Newt Gingrich to contend with, he should very easily make short work of wrapping up the nod.  I'd expect there won't even be much coverage of the primaries a week from Tuesday in Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware, which Mitt will easily win.  It is certainly possible that as a protest, Newt Gingrich might carry one or more of the very conservative states voting in May, but it won't matter.  Romney is the guy.

So it's game on to the national election in November.  Mitt Romney - who is either a Massachusetts moderate, a severe conservative or perhaps both depending on who you believe versus Barack Obama who is either a center-left Democrat or a raging socialist, again depending on who you believe.

Interestingly, as much as both candidates will try to draw a stark contrast - in Romney's case highlighting President Obama's economic record, in the President's case, it appears, Romney's more socially conservative views towards women's issues, among other things, the contrast in how both would govern is, perhaps, the smallest that it has been in any cycle that I can recall since 1992.

Obama has Obamacare, which, whether Mitt Romney likes it or not, is more or less a carbon copy of Romney's plan in Massachusetts.  Obama has his foreign policy record which, let's face it, looks a lot like the last GOP President.  Romney's tax policy when he was governor looks a heck of a lot like Obama's tax policy as President, even if Romney tries to draw contrast now.  President Obama and Mitt Romney are both in favor of civil unions and against gay marriage.  They both supported the bailouts.  They both are for the payroll tax cut.  It goes on and on.

So we may have a very emotional election over very limited differences.  But don't think that there won't be big passion involved on both sides.  Republicans have been dying for a chance at "anybody but Obama" virtually since the day he took office.  And Democrats are still loyal, even though some are upset at the timid pace of change the President has pursued.

Romney has seen a bump in the polls since effectively wrapping up the race, so I'll do a complete rundown on the now-tighter battleground in my next post.

But, rest assured, over the almost 7 month general election campaign that we are about to embark on that may include up to $2 billion spent, probably 3 or 4 debates and hundreds of daily cable news cycles, whatever I post next will change a lot before the actual voting begins.

So game on and here's to the greatest game in global politics.

Circling the Wagons for Romney, A Preview of the Downticket Races

Romney Looks to Seal the Deal
As I discussed last week, the Illinois really did change the conversation in the Republican Party.  I can't say exactly why - certainly it was a state that Romney should have won and Santorum won Louisiana the next Saturday decisively, continuing his pattern of winning in the deep south and the center of the country.

But I think, for whatever reason, the conservative parts of the establishment woke up to the fact that Santorum probably isn't going to have a break through outside of the regions he has been winning and that absent such a breakthrough, he cannot win.

Also contributing to the need to circle the wagons is the fact that they have seen President Obama look stronger and stronger in heads up match-ups against a potential nominee and see the possibility of a winnable general election race slipping away from them if the fight for the nomination continues.

A long nomination fight is not always a bad thing - certainly President Obama and then-Sentaor Hillary Clinton had a long process - through all the primaries and caucuses and beyond, and certainly there was ill will between the two camps even after the race (does anyone remember that PUMA = "Party Unity, My Ass!")  But Hillary and Barack weren't really that far apart on the issues.  That wasn't a fight for the core of the party, it was a fight between two candidates carrying the same center-left mantle.  And Republicans are no doubt sensing that a civil war playing out on the news every night through June would not help their general election chances.

So circle the wagons they have.  Jeb Bush has endorsed Mitt Romney.  So has Marco Rubio.  So has George H.W. Bush.  So has Paul Ryan.  Jim Demint didn't officially endorse Romney, but basically said Republicans should unite behind him.  It was actually a very impressively orchestrated parade of endorsements coming out at smartly timed increments throughout the course of the week.

Romney appears poised to win all three contests on Tuesday, with Maryland and DC firmly in his corner and Romney holding a high single-digit lead in Wisconsin.  He wants to win all three decisively, then have his inevitability be the story in the 3 week gap between those races and April 24th where he should, at minimum win 4 out of the 5 states that hold contests (New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware) and hopes to win the fifth (Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania.)

If Romney can effectively close the show in April, he avoids having to face down what would likely be a string of losses if the race stays competitive, in unfriendly territory: May's contests include: North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Kentucky, Arkansas and Texas.  In a close race, he'd likely lose 7 out of 8, making the news story all about how Republicans still aren't sold on him.

In a race that is no longer close, he could win 5 or 6 out of the 8 (he probably still loses a few in Kentucky, Arkansas and Nebraska, but the rest are winnable.)

Romney will close it out for sure in June, when his California/New Jersey/Utah winner-take-all firewall goes up.  But he'd rather not spend two months plus spending money and defending his reputation.

What's Going on in the Senate and House?
I looked at the electoral map last time, so I thought I'd bring things up-to-date in the key Senate races and a first look at how the newly-redistricted House races will shape up.

The Democrats have a lot of turf to cover as this is an "echo" of the 2006 race, where they made huge gains, including in some states that traditionally aren't that friendly to Democrats.  All of those seats are up for grabs this cycle.

The current composition of the Senate is 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents.  Since the two Independents - Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democrats, this gives them a working majority of 53 to 47.

The Democrats have 21 seats up for re-election as well as both of the seats held by Democratic-leaning independents.  The Republicans are only defending 10.

Here is a run-down of the races as they stand today.  The one disclaimer that I'd give at this stage in the game is that even seats categorized as "Safe" could still shift between now and the election.  Just look at Scott Brown's upset to see what is possible in allegedly safe races.  But as of now, these are 20%+ races.

Safe Independent Hold (1)
Vermont

Safe Democratic Holds (6)
California, Maryland, New York, Delaware, Minnesota, Rhode Island

Likely Democratic Holds (5)
New Jersey - Bob Menendez faces a couple of possible GOP opponents, but New Jersey (my home state) has not proven favorable to GOP Senate candidates in a long time and Menendez is still popular.
Pennsylvania - Pennsylvania may be a swing state of sorts, but Bob Casey Jr., the man who beat Rick Santorum for his Senate seat is extremely popular and the Casey name is gold in Pennsylvania.
Washington - Maria Cantwell is running for re-election in this solid blue state that appears likely to stay that way.
Hawaii - Hawaii is not safe for the Democrats for two reasons - it is an open seat and Linda Lingle, who has proven her ability to win statewide is running.  But this is still the bluest of blue states and Lingle trails all possible opponents in the polls by double-digit margins.
Michigan - Debbie Stabenow runs for re-election in a state that has turned more and more blue over the past decade as Republican voters have left the state.  She leads by double digit margins against possible opponents.

Lean Democratic Holds (4)
West Virginia - popular ex-Gov Joe Manchin would appear to be the favorite in this race, but West Virginia has been moving more and more Republican.  Manchin's moderate conservatism should help here, but President Obama is likely to be a drag in a state he lost badly in 2008.
New Mexico - expect a tight race for this open seat in a swing state.  Rep. Martin Heinrich appears likely to be the Democratic nominee and leads by low single digits against the likely GOP opponent, Rep. Heather Wilson.
Ohio - incumbent Sherrod Brown faces a stiff challenge in this traditional swing state from popular Ohio Treasuer Josh Mandel, but still holds a small lead at this stage.
Florida - Bill Nelson is still well liked in Florida, but so is likely opponent Connie Mack.  It should be a close race, with Nelson sporting a modest lead at this point
Virginia - probably the closest contest in the nation at this stage, former Governor Tim Kaine appears to hold a miniscule lead over former Senator George Allen for this open seat.  Watch this race as the bellweather of how the race will go.

Lean Democratic Pick-Up (from Independent 1, from Republican 1)
Connecticut - Joe Lieberman is retiring.  If former Rep. Chris Shays is the GOP nominee, it will be a fight.  If WWE heir Linda McMahon gets the nod, Chris Murphy will cruise to victory.
Maine - a pick-up in Maine appears likely with Olympia Snowe's departure from this heavily Democratic state.  The parties are scrambling to field candidates, so this one could swing in one direction or the other, but appears more likely than not to go blue in November.

Lean Republican Pick-Up (3)
Missouri - Incumbent Claire McCaskill appears to be in trouble in this traditional swing state which has been trending red.  She trails all three potential GOP opponents by small margins.
Montana - Jon Tester faces a stiff challenge in this traditionally red state that he won in the 2006 Democratic sweep from Rep. Denny Rehberg, who leads modestly at the moment.
Wisconsin - popular former Governor Tommy Thompson being in the mix for this open seat tilts it to favor the GOP, even in this blue-leaning state.

Lean Republican Hold (3)
Massachusetts - Scott Brown has been an effective moderate and is surprisingly, leading liberal darling Elizabeth Warren by a small margin in the majority of polls, although this race is among the closest in the nation.
Nevada - appointed incumbent Dean Heller holds a small lead over Rep. Shelley Berkley in this seat that was vacated in disgrace by its previous GOP occupant.
Arizona - this open seat is still taking shape, but on face would favor the GOP in this Republican-leaning state.


Likely Republican Pick-Up (2)
Nebraska - Ben Nelson's departure from this traditionally Republican state gives a golden opportunity to the GOP, who should win this race handily.
North Dakota - this is probably the easiest pick-up this cycle, with long-time Senator Byron Dorgan headed out, the GOP should win easily in this conservative state.


Likely Republican Holds (1)
Texas - an open seat is the GOP's only barrier to this seat being safe, but Lt. Governor David Dewhurst appears to have a comfortable lead against all the potential Democratic candidates.

Safe Republican Holds (5)
Indiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Tennessee, Utah

This leaves us with a projected Senate composition of:
51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 Independent (51-49 working Republican majority)

Best case for Democrats (win all leans):
45 Republicans, 54 Democrats, 1 Independent

Best case for Republicans (wins all leans):
57 Republicans, 42 Democrats, 1 Independent

So, there are a wide range of possibilities, but Republicans appear slightly favored to gain control of the Senate in November.  Intrade puts their odds of winning control of the Senate at 58%.  Of course, in the event of a 50-50 split, the party winning the Presidential (and therefore Vice-Presidential) race would have working control.

In the House, redistricting will give a significant structural advantage to the GOP.  This is largely for three reasons:
(1) Gerrymandering - in most states, legislatures control drawing the district lines.  The GOP controls more state houses than the Democrats do and can therefore design districts most favorable to GOP candidates.
(2) The Voting Rights Act - ironically, legislation that requires the creation of black majority voting districts, which was designed to bring more black voices to the table in Congress, actually dilutes black Democratic voting power by concentrating black votes in a few districts where they are a majority.
(3) Natural demographics - cities tend to be heavily Democratic while suburbs tend to be modestly Republican.

This leads to situations where you have a few solidly Democratic seats and a lot of leaning Republican seats.  Here are a few easy case studies:
Colorado - is a classic swing state, exactly mirroring national voting patterns.  But of its six congressional seats, 2 heavily favor Democrats and 4 favor Republicans, because Democrats in Denver are concentrated within 2 of the 6 seats.
Florida - Florida is only modestly Republican (+2% more than nationally) but the GOP is favored in 18 out of 25 House races because of concentrating Democratic votes in Miami within a few districts.

All of this gives us a situation where if the parties exactly evenly split the vote in the 2012 elections, it appears likely that the GOP would win at least 234 of the 435 House seats.

Based on this district-by-district model and generic congressional polling results, we can predict overall House election results.

The current composition of the House is:
242 Republicans, 193 Democrats

Republicans are currently +1.8% in generic polling, which would imply the following post-election results:
252 Republicans, 183 Democrats (Republicans +10)

So, at this stage in the game, I would project a strongly Republican congress, a modestly Republican Senate and a Democratic President.  The classic ticket split.

Note: House races projected with the help of the Cook Partisan Voting Index analysis of congressional districts.

Will Democrats stage a comeback in the Senate?  Will the Republicans rally to take the Presidency?  Stay tuned for the next 7 months.

If you like this site, tell your friends.