Clear as Crystal

The other day, a senior analyst for the highly regarded Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Alan I. Abramowitz, wrote a detailed breakdown of the Mid-Term elections.  It used charts and graphs and a wide range of research data, and looked at all the various ramifications of gerrymandering.  And his conclusions was how well Democrats would do, even with gerrymandering, and why.  

Not shockingly, this was wonderful to read for several reasons, of course, but mainly because I feel so strongly about my own position from last November that Democrats would pick up 30-40 seats (which doesn’t even remotely make it right…) that I’ve been wary about what the actual high-end experts who actually know actually what they’re talking about would say.  And what they say here comes across with overlaps to much of that.  And all the better since they do meticulous scientific research and are major experts.  As opposed to guessing.  No matter how many reasons accompany the guesses.

They have a line that’s in my article from November (though it’s a basic one that gets repeated a lot by many people).  “The president’s party almost always loses seats in the House in midterm elections.”  But more than the line, I’ve long felt it’s critical why the exceptions happened that make the exceptions meaningless in today’s context.  So, to put the Abramowitz/Sabato comment in greater perspective, it isn’t that the party in power “almost always loses seats” -- it’s only happened twice in the past 80 years -- but that the reasons when it did happen are so special and not just that the public decided to vote for the party in power.  Each was a unique reason -- The first time was when Republicans were about to impeach Bill Clinton, and the public hated that so much (indeed, his approval skyrocketed to 73%!), and the second time was after 9/11 during the Iraq War.

Another point in stood out in the Sabato analysis.  (For the sake of simplicity and clarity) I’m going to call it that with the well-known brand name.)  It wrote -- “With President Trump’s approval rating falling below 40% and Democrats leading by 6-7 points on the generic ballot while needing to pick up only three seats to reach the magic number of 218, a Democratic majority in the next House seemed almost assured.”  As I’ve written more recently, Democrats don’t need to pick up 30-40 seats (though, even after gerrymandering, I’ve noted that I still think they’ll pick up 20-30), they only have to win one more than MAGOPs do.   (And Sabato’s analyst here is predicting picking up 23 seats!)

A few other passages leap out for me –

I’ve long discussed dummymandering, first bringing up the term (for when gerrymandering backfires) last July.  Almost a year ago.  And the Sabato analyst makes that very point, that MAGOPs are not likely to pick up all the seats they’ve gerrymandered.  He writes – “Based on our simple but highly accurate forecasting model, adding the equivalent of 10 Republican districts prior to the election is only expected to reduce Democratic gains by about five seats.”  (Emphasis added.)  Yes!  And I love his qualifying comment “…but highly accurate forecasting model”.

(Furthermore, he even says that if the worst happens and MAGOPs do pick up all those 10 seats…it doesn’t matter.  “But even if one starts the Republicans with 10 more seats than they currently hold because of redistricting gains, the model still suggests Democrats are favored to win the House unless their lead in House generic ballot polling, now about half a dozen points in polling averages, evaporates.”)

Note that he doesn’t say if the lead drops, but…”evaporates.”  And of course that’s true in any election.  If your lead evaporates, you’re in trouble.  The way things are going, though, with Trump creating more problems for this party (witness his “slush fund for insurrectionists” debacle), being surrounded by unqualified incompetents and having dementia, which is degenerative, while the Democratic lead could “evaporate,” I would suggest it’s more likely to increase.

I also loved that with Democrats ahead on a generic ballot right now by a huge six points, he writes (somewhat similarly, but with more specifics) in his conclusion, “To have a reasonable chance of maintaining control of the House, Republicans would need to be tied or leading on the generic ballot prior to the election.”  Again, to repeat, that’s not him saying that Democrats’ lead has to drop – but completely disappear to zero.  I know that races tend to tighten as an election nears, so that early generic lead often narrows…but as I’ve noted, this year that might be the exact opposite – for the reasons stated above:  Trump’s dementia and unqualified, incompetent people around him.  I think it’s more likely that things get worse for MAGOPs than closer.

By the way, as extremely positive as this Sabato Crystal Ball analysis is, I also think there are three factors that will come into play that aren’t a part of their normal modeling.  Not that they’re “wrong,” but that what they’re writing is just the foundation of a standard analysis that I think Democrats are likely to build on.

The first is that I’ve found that generic ballots are only effective in looking at directions, not specifics.  People vote for candidates, not general parties.  And that’s one reason polling tends to narrow as the actual candidates begin to campaign.  (“I don’t like MAGOPs overall this year…but I like ‘my’ guy.”)  But this year, “candidates beginning to campaign” means that MAGOP candidates will have to defend Trump, who is hated by the public.  And if they try to distance themselves from Trump, the Trump-cult base will turn their backs on them.  Which is why I think margins will be bigger for Democrats.

The second is I’ve read enough to convince me that “strongly” approve or “strongly” disapprove is much more important than polls just showing basic approve/disapprove.  Because those are the people most motivated to actually vote.  Which is always critical in any election, but most-especially in low-turnout Mid-Terms.  And strong “disapproval” of Trump this year is overwhelming any strong “approval” of him.  Like by almost five to one.

And finally, the MAGOP base hates politics and doesn’t follow it, but they idolize Trump.  However, he’s not on ballot in the Mid-Terms, so there’s a reasonable likelihood that at least some will stay home.  Similarly, some middle-range MAGOPs who are so depressed by Trump policies and the economy and the war – but can’t see themselves voting for a Democrat – might just stay at home and not vote.  I’m not suggest all or even most – but just a 3% drop-off would be devastating.  It turns a razor-thin 51-49 margin to 54-46 landslide.  So, I think “likely voters” have a good chance to be slightly higher (let alone perhaps much higher) for outraged Democrats and Independents (who only give Trump a 20% approval), most of whom would crawl on glass to vote than MAGOPs.  Which is why that 6-point generic ballot margin for Democrats is not likely to meaningfully evaporate when it comes to actual voting.

And as a bonus reason, I think a president with dementia and out of control, making things worse and surrounded by unqualified incompetents is not something on the standard Sabato Crystal Ball model.  And it therefore will be even worse by November.

But – that’s just my totally amateur guess, based on reasons.  However, if we just go by this highly-regarded Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball analysis of a pick-up of 23 House seats even with gerrymandering…that’s pretty great enough.