The Early Field for 2016 - Things Are Wide Open in Both Parties, Revisiting an Economic Model from July

Who Will Run in 2016?
It's classic in political circles.  The day after the election, a friend of mine, who happens to be a staunch Republican, after paying off a $20 side wager that we had on the election outcome (we had an even odds bet that in order to collect on my end three things had to happen: a. The President had to win the popular vote, b. The President had to win the electoral vote and c. Democrats had to retain control of the Senate - this is further proof that you should make bets based on facts not emotion - like a sports fan, he bet on his favorite team rather than the likely winner), said simply "just a little over 1,400 days until the next election".  And so it is.  Politics is eternal and the 2016 field is already forming.

Assessing the field at this early stage is obviously incomplete.  People can decide not to run.  Unexpected candidates can emerge.  A lot can change.

But at the same time, it's highly unlikely that someone that those of us who sit in political circles have never heard of will win either party's nomination.  In ever election cycle since World War II, the ultimate nominees have been a sitting or former Governor, Senator or Vice-President with the lone exception of Dwight Eisenhower, a phenomenally popular general.

Harry Truman was a sitting President who defeated Thomas Dewey, the Governor of New York
Dwight Eisenhower, a General in World War 2, twice beat Adali Stevenson, the Governor of Illinois
John F. Kennedy, a Senator, defeated Richard Nixon, former Governor of California and former Vice President
Lyndon Johnson, then the sitting President, defeated Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona
Richard Nixon beat Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and then Senator George McGovern of South Dakota
Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia bested the sitting President, Gerald Ford
Former Governor Ronald Reagan of California beat Carter, then defeated former Vice President and Governor of Minnesota Walter Mondale
George H.W. Bush, the sitting Vice-President, defeated Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts
Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas then bested Bush and also defeated Senator Bob Dole of Kansas
Governor George W. Bush of Texas beat sitting Vice President Al Gore and then bested Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Senator Barack Obama defeated Senator John McCain and then bested former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts

So it seems highly likely that the next two nominees either hold or have already held a Senate seat, a Governor's seat, the Vice Presidency, or some combination of the 3.

So who are the likely stars? 

Let's start with the Democrats:
Democrats have a bid of gap in good governors, thanks to some of the big Republican takeaways of Governor's mansions in 2009 and 2010.  The GOP holds 29 of 50 governors seats and the Democrats hold only 20.  Still, 20 is a pretty big field to draw from and there are some high-profile politicians with a lot of skill in that mix.

Among governors, the most likely candidates are:
(1) Andrew Cuomo of New York
The popular son of Mario Cuomo, the man who famously missed the Presidency by declining to run in 1992, a year he seemed a sure lock on the nomination if he wanted it, might go where his father didn't.  He is a strong public speaker, as was his father and brings a fantastic resume, having run Housing and Urban Development under Bill Clinton, been Attorney General in New York and now Governor of one of the largest states in the country.  Party loyalists love Cuomo and he is popular in New York.
(2) Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
In his second term as Governor of Massachusetts, Patrick successfully survived the 2010 GOP rampage that took out many of his peers.  He was one of the party's favorite speakers at the 2012 DNC, with his speech that Democratic-loyalists felt destroyed the story of Mitt Romney's success as Governor in Massachusetts.  Patrick is a likable, smart guy who is also clearly a gifted orator.
(3) Martin O'Malley of Maryland
O'Malley is the current Governor of Maryland and former Mayor of Baltimore.  He is extremely well respected in the Democratic party and well-liked in his home state, although he hasn't yet established a high profile outside of political circles.
(4) Tim Kaine of Virginia
Technically still a Governor, Kaine is about to become the United States Senator from Virginia (Virginia has a single term limit on Governors.)  He is a fierce ally of President Obama's and has performed extremely well in swing-state Virginia in some tough state-wide races.  He is also a very likable, down-to-earth guy.
(5) Brian Schweitzer of Montana
The gun-slinging, social libertarian leaning centrist Governor of Montana has an everyman appeal, a quick political wit and a proven ability to win in Republican areas of the country.  He's a rising star in the party and we should watch him.

Senators
 Interestingly, even though the Democrats have a lot of Senators, there are not a ton of viable candidates out of the Senate.  Many Democrats there are either long-standing Senators who don't appear to have an interest in the Presidency (such as Barbara Mikulski in Maryland) or poor national figures, who can win locally but would be a disaster in a national race (such as Harry Reid of Nevada.)
Here are the ones that I could see running and winning
(1) Dick Durbin of Illinois
The fiercely loyal Obama supporter and majority whip in the Senate is known for building consensus int he Democratic party and getting things done legislatively.  He's not the most inspiring of speakers, but is clearly both intellectual and pragmatic, two useful traits in the Presidency.
(2) Kirsten Gillebrand of New York
Gillebrand has been an absolute rock star in the Senate.  Plucked out of virtual obscurity from her suburban House seat by then Governor David Patterson to appointment in the Senate, many speculated that she might not make it long in office.  Instead, after winning election to a partial term decisively, she went on to be one of the big influence makers in the Senate, brokering a deal on both the 9/11 first responders relief bill and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal.  She is likable, down-to-earth and one of the hardest working Senators.  She just won a full term this year without serious competition.
(3) Elizabeth Warren
The newly-minted Senator-elect from Massachusetts in perhaps the most beloved political figure on the left and figures to be a force in the Senate.  She comes with baggage form this year's race though, including a very nasty campaign fight with Scott Brown and open questions about whether she lied about her ethnic heritage to gain an advantage in academia.

Others
Perhaps the most intriguing possibilities are neither sitting Governors or Senators.  Here are my top three:
(1) Hillary Clinton
If she runs, the former Senator and current (but supposedly soon-to-be-departing) Secretary of State would be the immediate front-runner.  She has said she isn't running, but many in political circles don't believe her.  It's hard to see her losing the nomination if she ran, but then again, it would have been hard to see her losing going into 2008 too.
(2) Joe Biden
The former Senator and current Vice President first ran for President in 1988, a full 28 years before the 2016 election cycle.  He has hinted repeatedly about running in 2016.  As sitting Vice-President, you have to put Biden in the mix, but his penchant for gaffes and his lack of ability to build support in either 1988 (when he dropped out after a plagiarism scandal) or in 2008 make him a longer-odds candidate, in my opinion.
(3) Cory Booker
The Mayor of Newark is perhaps the most intriguing wildcard in the race.  The Rhodes Scholar was seen a few years ago as a rapidly rising star on the national scene.  He has taken it slow, remaining as Mayor for 6 and a half years and building a stellar reputation for the city's turnaround.  Personal superhero stories about Booker abound, including personal pulling a person from a burning building and shoveling snow to clear snowed-in residents.  Booker is rumored to be contemplating running against Governor Chris Christie next year, which would set up an epic showdown of powerhouses from the two parties.  If Booker wins, he's definitely in the mix in 2016.  Rumors of his homosexuality (Booker has never been married and has never been seen dating) could still be a detraction on the national scene, but the voting public has shown an increasing acceptance of gay people in elected office.

On the Republican side, the field is loaded with talent, mostly from the broad range of Governor's seats they hold.

Governors:
(1) Chris Christie
The brash, straight-talking New Jersey Governor has become a national star.  He is favored to win re-election next year (although a race against Cory Booker would probably be a pick 'em race) and has received accolades nationally for both his managing of New Jersey's finances and his response to Hurricane Sandy.  Christie may be to brash for the national scene and might be to moderate for the current GOP, but he can't be ignored as a candidate.
(2) Mitch Daniels
The libertarian-leaning conservative from Indiana is the guy that many people wished had run this cycle for the GOP.  He is pragmatic and broadly-appealing in his home state, if not a particularly inspirational speaker.  He will leave office in 2013 due to term limits.  He chose not to run in 2012 and may not be interested in the office, but if he is, he is surely in the mix.
(3) Bobby Jindal
The Louisiana Governor may have finally overcome his odd and creepy State of the Union response in 2009.  He has a fantastic biography and has been a very effective Governor in Louisiana.  He has also been storming the national scene preaching GOP inclusion since the election, a message that is much needed for a party that lost virtually every constituency except older married white women and older white men.
(4) Susana Martinez
I've had my eye on the conservative, well-spoken Governor of New Mexico since she took office.  She won election in a blue state, holds views that are acceptable to the right-wing of the party while also holding the distinction as the highest-ranking elected Republican official of Mexican heritage (she was born in El Paso, in case you were wondering about eligibility.)  Watch her if she is interested.
(5) Nikki Haley
The South Carolina Governor ran an impressive campaign in 2010 that brought her to the Governor's Mansion.  She is beloved in the party, popular in her home state and a fresh face for the GOP.  Definitely one to watch.
(6) Bob McDonnell
The Virginia Governor, who will be term-limited out of office in 2014, is respected as a strong leader, an excellent speaker and a solid conservative.  He's on virtually everyone's list of potential nominees.

Senators:
The GOP doesn't have a great field of Senators at the moment, as compared to their stacked field of Governors, but there are a few worth mentioning:
(1) Marco Rubio
The Senator from Florida is already taking trips to Iowa.  He's loved by the Tea Party, has a fantastic personal story and is a great orator.  He isn't that accomplished yet, but arguably, neither was President Obama when he first ran.
(2) John Thune
The youthful-looking South Dakota Senator makes every insider's list.  He is a key influence-maker on the hill, but he is not a particularly great public speaker and is virtually unknown outside of Washington, DC.
(3) Rand Paul
It seems likely that libertarian Rand will carry forward the mantle that his father carried for super-limited government.  I can definitely see Rand running, but it's tough to see him winning the nomination.

Others:
There are a few who are not sitting Senators or Governors who intrigue me.
(1) Jeb Bush
The former governor of Florida is, in many ways, what his brother George W. was not - he is a true compassionate conservative, having taken a pragmatic, inclusive view of governing and he is a smart and articulate guy with broad appeal.  They also still love him in Florida.  His biggest issues are that he may be too moderate for today's GOP and that the Bush name may be so tarnished as to exclude him.
(2) Rick Santorum
The former Senator from Pennsylvania surprised everyone to finish second in the running this time around.  I've written extensively about how the GOP tends to nominate the "next guy in line".  Could that be Santorum next cycle?  His radical views on social issues are a problem in a general election, but Santorum has a lot of assets, not the least of which is one of the strongest work ethics I've ever seen.

Independents
Could we see a legitimate third-party candidate in 2016?  As with most cycles, it is unlikely, but let's look at the prospects:

(1) Michael Bloomberg
The Mayor of New York has the financial resources to make a go of it.  The Republican-turned-Independent has run the largest city in the US and is well liked.  He has both business and governing background.  He would get real votes.  I'm just not sure he is interested - he turned down a window to run in 2008 and 2012.

(2) Charlie Crist
The former Republican-turned-Independent Governor of Florida represents a pragmatic, moderate voice in a sea of polarized partisanship.  But he couldn't even win as an Independent in Florida for a Senate seat - so can we really think he could beat two major party candidates nationally?  And where would the money for his campaign come from?

(3) Lincoln Chafee
The Rhode Island Governor is yet another Republican-turned-independent.  Often called the "last moderate in the Senate" (not quite true), Chafee won as Independent in Rhode Island.  His long time in politics might give him the donors to get his campaign off the ground.  And his liberal social views and moderate economic views make him a great match for the evolving electorate.

The field will no doubt shift and change, but these 11 Democrats, 11 Republicans and 3 Independents represent a lot of the likely field.

Does Economics Tell Us Everything?
Back in July, I built a linear regression model based on the absolute unemployment rate and the change in unemployment rate that projected that Barack Obama would win 52% of the 2-party vote for President.

The current tally for the Presidency?
Barack Obama 63,448,632
Mitt Romney 59,634,222

Obama's % of the two-party vote? 51.5%.

Guess what?  It's the economy, stupid.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Beyond the Numbers: What I Said and What Happened

A good, credible commentator continuously examines what he or she felt confident predicting in the past for both accuracy and learning.  It was the lack of this behavior on the part of right-wing commentators that I was screaming about yesterday.  Of course, introspection is made a little easier for me this time around, as my projections came through very solidly.  But, hey, what's wrong with a little victory lap?

Let's revisit the principle arguments made for a Romney victory and the counterpoints I made to those last Friday:

1) President Obama is still under 50% in virtually every national poll.  Undecideds will break late for the challenger and give Romney the narrow victory.

I wrote:

Recent history suggest no evidence of this rule of thumb.  Undecideds in 1980 surely did break for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter late.  In 1984, they broke for Reagan again - this time as the incumbent.  In 1992, undecideds broke evenly.  In 1996, they broke for the challenger.  In 2004, they broke evenly.  There doesn't seem to be a pattern here to support the "rule of thumb" that an incumbent under 50% is in trouble - George W. Bush was under 50% in the polling and got 51% of the vote on election day. 

What happened:

Exit polling indicates that of those who decided in the final days of the election, 50% voted for Barack Obama, 44% for Mitt Romney.  This explains, to a certain extent, why my results had a slight Pro-Romney bias - I had assumed a 50/50 split (the difference is worth about a 0.5% shift in the popular vote.)  Certianly the notion that undecideds break late for the challenger is debunked.

(2) No incumbent President has ever been re-elected to a second term winning less states than he won the first time around and it is impossible to see a path to President Obama winning more states than in 1988.  It's win big or go home for incumbents and Obama cannot win big.

I wrote:

True, but irrelevant.  No one had ever won 49 states...until 1984 when Ronald Reagan did.  Candidates always win their home state - heck, even George McGovern and Walter Mondale did - until Al Gore lost Tennessee and the election with it.  The winner of Missouri always wins the election - until 2008 when Barack Obama won without it.  My point is that you can point to lots of things that are "always" true - until they aren't. 

What happened:

President Obama won re-election by a narrower margin than 4 years ago (approximately 2.5% in the popular vote versus 7.2% in 2008.)  Guess we can cross this one off the "no incumbent President has ever" list.

(3) The polls systemically overestimate Democratic turnout and the actual results will therefore differ from the polls by several percentage points.

I wrote (in a previous post):

Non-partisan pollsters only stock-in-trade, their only incentive is to get things right.  If you consistently get your polls wrong, you are out of the business.  Polls have been wrong before, but almost never because the pollster wanted to get it wrong.  The polls were very accurate in 2008.  Ditto in 2004.  In 2000, George W. Bush got less popular vote than the polls implied late, but that was principally because the release of his DWI conviction appeared to cause a late slide in his numbers that pollsters weren't able to capture in their final polls because it happened too late.

So forget the notion of a vast conspiracy.  The only reasonable way to believe the polls are systemically biased is if they are ACCIDENTALLY biased, that is, the majority of pollsters make an honest mistake in the turnout dynamics of the election.  Now clearly all the pollsters are reading and analyzing the claims on the right - and most are sticking by their guns.

What happened:

To the extent that there was any polling bias, it was Pro-Romney.  Obama outperformed 7 of the 10 polls in my final projection.  In the key swing states, Obama outperformed the projection in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin.  Only in Ohio did the President underperform the projection and there only by 0.2%.

Clearly the polls did have a systemic bias - FOR Romney.  Pollsters generally estimated a turnout model between the 2004 and 2008 models when, in fact, turnout of demographics that favored Obama met or exceeded 2008 levels in 2012.

(4) The national polls show a tighter race than the state polls and the national polls are generally conducted by better-established, more reliable polling firms.  It is therefore reasonable to believe that swing states are actually in better shape for Romney than the state-level polling data would indicate.

I wrote:

Generally, the evidence doesn't support this theory.  On average, state-wide polls have been at least as accurate and often more so than national polls on election day...see 2000 for a great example of this.  Secondly, while there are some smaller firms polling in swing states, there are also a lot of large ones - Rasmussen, CNN/OR and Survey USA are all poling Ohio and their results are actually well in line with other polls from smaller firms.

What happened:

The polls largely converged by election day and both showed a slight pro-Romney bias, rendering the argument largely irrelevant.

If you like this site, tell your friends

Early Report Card, Where Is the Accountability?, The Biggest Story of the Night, The Future of the Grand Old Party

The final votes have not been counted and Florida has not been officially called yet - it will be days and possibly weeks before I can accurately assess my performance, but based on the initial returns, we had a solid night of projections.

For the Presidency:
* 49 out of 50 states were called correctly.  Florida is still unknown, but appears likely to go for President Obama in the end, which would make it my lone miss in the state projections - if it goes for Romney, then I would be perfect.  Florida was one of three states (Colorado and Virginia being the others) that I felt were within the reasonable margin of accuracy of my projections.
* On the popular vote, President Obama currently leads by 2.3% versus my projection of 0.9% or a 1.4% absolute error if that vote total holds.  Many of the uncounted votes are in California, with another decent-sized chunk in Arizona and Oregon and a small smattering in some other states, so, on balance, the margin and my error are likely to increase slightly.
* In the Senate, I missed 2 races - in Montana and North Dakota where Democrats pulled off modest upsets.  In both cases, polling was pretty scant and the races were hard to call.
* In the House, there are a number of House races still undecided.  The current margin of 232-192 with 11 races outstanding appears to track extremely closely to my projection of a 239-196 House.  If 7 of 11 outstanding races break for the GOP, my call will be perfect.  Democrats appear to be faring slightly better than that and may win 5 or 6 of the races, which would give me an error of 1 to 2.
* Overall, my calls were highly accurate - 98% in the Electoral College, 94% in the Senate and 98-100% in the House.
* What error there was had a persistent bias in favor of the GOP - both of the Senate races, the state of Florida in the Presidential race and the likely margin in the House all represent races where I had projected GOP wins but Democrats won.  This is ironic when you consider the discussion of polling - all of which leads me to want to discuss:

When Will the Talking Heads Take Responsibility?
I can't tell you how many articles I read from conservative commentators this year about how there was a left-wing media conspiracy to "weaponize" polls by using polling samples so out of whack with what the actual electorate was going to be that they were designed to be wrong and create a false perception of a Democratic lead.

Nate Silver, a man I greatly admire (and who, incidentally, appears to have slightly bested me in the Presidential race by calling all 50 states correctly in addition to calling the popular vote nearly spot on, although he did miss the same 2 Senate races that I did - Nate does not project the House) has been pillared with personal attacks and accusations of being a shill for the left - in spite of the fact that like me, he has a logical and fully divulged model for projecting these races that is set up well before the election and not changed throughout the cycle.

These charges were irresponsible, baseless and clearly wrong.

Now, I call on the media to do its job and call on those who made these charges to explain themselves.

The polling firms did a great job this election cycle, just as they did in the past two Presidential races and deserve credit for doing a complex job extremely well.

As noted, if anything, there was a right-leaning bias in the polling, which led to my slightly right-leaning bias in my projections (apparently Nate is better than me at teasing these effects out.)

I work hard to make accurate projections and am proud of what I do.  I'd put my accuracy the last two cycles (97% of states called correctly through the past two cycles) up against their fact-free hot air. 

I call on all of those who made those charges to make public apologies.  Given how they appear to operate, I'm not holding my breathe.  But certainly we should stop having to give air time to this sort of garbage in future election cycles.

The Untold Story of the Night
In the hubbub of the Presidential race, lost except in passing mention in the media reports were some astounding and encouraging results in state ballot initiatives.

First and foremost, an issue that frequent readers know I am passionate about made a massive step forward.

In Maryland, Maine and Washington, voters chose to legalize gay marriage in those respective states and in Minnesota, voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  These are the first 4 instances of voters either approving gay marriage or rejecting an anti-gay marriage amendment.  They all happened in the same night and while Maryland is among the bluest states, Maine, Washington and Minnesota are far more mainstream.  And this is 4 victories on one night after 32 ballot box defeats for gay marriage over the past 8 years.

Does this mean that gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon?  Probably not.  But it will now be legal in 9 states and the District of Columbia and is clearly entering the mainstream.

In 2004, gay marriage was a wedge issue used by Karl Rove to win swing states for George W. Bush.  In 2012, it is well within the mainstream.  Those who are on the wrong side of history will be remembered for it.

Also of major significance was the move by voters to legalize marijuana in Colorado and Washington.  Not medical marijuana, mind you, all marijuana.  This will be a complicated and dicey issue given current federal drug laws, which have not been repealed.  But it is a major strike for individual liberties.  That such an initiative could pass in swing-state Colorado shows just how out of touch both parties are with evolving public opinion.  President Obama would be wise to keep federal hands out of this issue in these two states that have made a clear, democratic choice.

Both ballot initiatives speak to the shifting social mores and the strong belief in individual liberties of both Generation X and Millennials.  This shift speaks to an opportunity for a party to step in and be the true party of individual liberties.  Could it be:

A Reimagined GOP
Barry Goldwater once warned Ronald Reagan of the unholy alliance between economic conservatives and the moral majority.  Goldwater was never comfortable with the GOP embracing a social philosophy that so severely constricted individual liberties by opposing abortion, fighting the "war on drugs", opposing gay rights and generally trying to impose "traditional values" on the rest of society.

Reagan did not listen and from a political strategy standpoint, he was probably right for the time.
Republicans won 3 straight Presidential elections from 1980 to 1988 and it took a severe recession and a center-left Democrat to unseat.

Republicans have now lost 4 of the last 6 elections and won a majority of the vote only once.

In 2004, 75% of voters were white.  In 2008, it was 74%.  This year, it was 72%.  It seems highly likely in 2016, it will be 70% or less as hispanic populations continue to expand.

Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote, but bombed with the other groups, getting only 27% of the Latino vote, 25% of the Asian-American vote and 7% of the African-American vote.

This means that every 1% expansion in the Latino vote would translate into a 0.5% loss in popular vote margin for the GOP.  And that Latino vote is expanding by about 2% of the electorate per cycle.

So the strategy of winning a ton of white votes is a decay function.

The GOP has to figure out a strategy to reach minority voters.  Some of it is about issues but a lot of it is about outreach and tone.  George W. Bush won 40% of the Latino vote in 2004.  Ronald Reagan won 25% of the black vote in 1984.  These aren't majorities, but if Romney had won these percentages, he would have swung a 2% popular vote loss to 1.6% popular vote win, a margin that may well have swung the election.

Secondly, the GOP are getting scorched with younger votes.  Members of Gen X and Gen Y (those 44 and under) went for President Obama by 14%.

And here is the opening I am speaking of above.  These generations have been called the "me" generation.  They are starting to earn money and like the idea of lower taxes and less government involvement in their lives.  They COULD be conservatives.  But they detest social conservatism.  They are the reason that marriage equality and drug legalization initiatives are passing.

If the GOP could once again become the true party of liberty, rather than the party that wants the government out of your wallet, but in your bedroom, they might have a compelling argument to make and be able to build a coalition that could win again.

They have 4 years to figure it out.

Questions Left to Answer

The questions left to answer are mostly about the overall accuracy of my projection.

45 states have been called in the Presidential race and our projection was right on all 45.

Of the remaining 5, I'm sure to be right about Alaska (no way Obama wins there), I am likely to be right in Colorado and Nevada and I am likely to be wrong in Florida (Obama appears poised to win there), with Virginia possibly going either way.  So I think I'm probably looking at an accuracy of around 48 to 49 states, similar to our a slight improvement on 2008.

The popular vote projection will take quite some time to project.  It is very hard with the partial counts in some states and low counts on the west coast to get an accurate read on where the popular vote will land.

In the Senate,
Nebraska goes GOP, giving them their first swing state win.

Tammy Baldwin wins in Wisconsin for the Dems.

Montana, Nevada, Arizona and North Dakota have not been called yet in the Senate.  In the other 10 competitive Senate races, our projections are perfect so far.

The House is way too early to assess.

As results roll in and finalize over the next few days, I will do a full report card and benchmark on my projections for this cycle.

But tonight, I feel pretty good about the analysis and calls that I have made over the course of this election cycle.  Tonight unfolded largely as I had projected and any misses that I am going to have are ones that I expressly projected ahead of time were too close to call with certainty.

Thanks for joining the ride for the greatest exercise in democracy in the greatest democracy in the world. 

Have a great night and I hope you will join me as the country moves into Barack Obama's second term.

Obama wins Ohio - Game Over

All that is left to count is the margin.  President Obama will be re-elected.

Iowa Goes Blue

The map keeps tightening on Mitt Romney.

Obama wins the swing state of Iowa.  Assuming he also holds on in Oregon, which has not been heavily contested, he will have a base of 257.  Virginia would put him over the top.  So would Florida.  Or Ohio.  Romney needs all 3 of those plus either Colorado or Nevada.

The map is getting nearly impossible for Romney.  It may be an earlier night this night.

The Good Night for Democrats in the Senate Continues

Tim Kaine wins Virginia, one of the 3 closest Senate races in the country.  They have won all 8 of the competitive races that have been called so far, but they were all races I projected them to win. 

North Carolina goes to Romney

It will likely end closer than I projected, but North Carolina does wind up in the Romney column.

As expected, California, Hawaii and Washington go into Obama's column.

No new states projected as battlegrounds have been called although Florida surely seems to be headed Obama's way.

Erstwhile Battleground of Minnesota Goes Blue

I didn't technically have Minnesota as a battleground state, but it was right on the line and the Romney camp was investing some resources in the state.  It goes to Obama again.

So, let's assess where we are:
Decided Battlegrounds for Obama: Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania
Decided Battlegrounds for Romney: None
Undecided Battlegrounds: Florida, Virginia, Colorado,  Ohio, Nevada, Iowa
Unpredicted Close Battlegrounds: North Carolina

Barack Obama has 173 Electoral Votes in the bag.  He will almost surely win in California, Oregon and Washington, worth another 76.  That gives him a floor of 249 electoral votes.  Florida would end it.   So would Ohio and any one other state.

Close in a Lot of Places

Virginia and North Carolina show Romney leads but are tightening.  North Carolina may be out of reach for Obama, but will certainly end closer than expected.  Virginia may well still end up in the Obama camp.

Florida is very tight and the votes out in Miami-Dade may well put him over the top there.

Ohio still has too many votes out to assess.

Dems Now 7 for 7 in Competitive Senate Races, Will Hold the Senate

All 7 of the called competitive Senate races have gone blue as Missouri and Ohio send back their Democratic Senators.  The Democrats should have a working majority of at least 52 now.  All 7 of the called races were ones I had projected for the Democrats, so no surprises yet.

New Hampshire to Obama

Another swing state goes to the President.  New Hampshire is in Obama's column.  So far, so good with my state-by-state calls.

My biggest chances for a miss definitely appear to be Florida (which Obama may carry) and Virginia (which Romney may carry), but we need more ballots counted to see.

Dems 5 for 5 in Competitive Senate Races Called

Massachusetts and Indiana go blue, as projected in my Senate projection.  Joe Donnelly and Elizabeth Warren will join the Senate.

The only way the Democrats can lose the Senate now would be if they lose all the other competitive races and the Presidency, neither of which seems likely right now.

Wisconsin Breaks for Obama

A second battleground has been decided - Wisconsin goes for Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney's potential path's to the Presidency are getting very slim.  He basically needs to run the table from here.

Intrade is up to 93% for Obama.

Bob Casey Wins Third Competitive Senate Race

The Democrats are 3 for 3 in competitive Senate races that have been called as Bob Casey wins in Pennsylvania.  All 3 of these races are ones that I had called for the Democrats.

Romney's Pennsylvania Strategy Fails

Fox News has called Pennsylvania for Barack Obama.  This was expected in my projection, but was also the tipping point state.

Mitt Romney's only meaningful path to the Presidency is now to sweep in Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and some of the smaller swing states.

Intrade has jumped up to 89%.

This one is getting close to being over.

First Battleground Call

President Obama wins Michigan right out of the chute.  Not good news for Romney.  Intrade is up to 74% / 26%.  Michigan was not a state that I expected to be a tipping point state this year, but it was one where the once-native-son Romney had hoped to make hay.

It doesn't change Romney's primary path to victory but it cuts out one set of plausible alternative strategies.

Colorado is dead even in the exit polls.  Arizona is at 52-46%.  Minnesota is a tighter-than-expected 50-47%, closer than expected, so some good news for Romney there.

Intrade Trending Obama

It's not a huge move but Intrade odds are up to 72% for Obama to win.

Democratic Senate Pick-up in CT

Another good pick-up for the Democrats in the Senate as Connecticut goes blue.  That's the second competitive Senate race that has been called on our Senate map and both have gone to the Democrats, which is how they were projected in my tally.

To Recap

States/territory called by the major networks so far:
Obama - CT, DE, DC, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, RI, VT
Romney - AL, AR, GA, IN, KY, MS, OK, SC, TN, WV

No swing states involved there - all of those 20 results are true to form.