I remain convinced that a Presidential ticket led by Kamala Harris gives Democrats a chance to retain the White House and moves the House/Senate landscapes in Democrats’ direction.  I do, however, feel the urge to throw a wet blanket – or at least a damp one – on the current Democratic euphoria.  Of course I do.

This Sunday marks 100 days until Election Day with even fewer days before the start of early voting.  While European countries manage to conduct their elections quite well within that timeframe, it’s not been the American tradition.  Democrats have a massive amount of work to do within a very compressed calendar.

Harris does inherit the Biden campaign infrastructure, but that is nowhere near the same as building her own infrastructure.  Biden unsurprisingly based his campaign in Delaware – which isn’t exactly home territory for Harris.  Biden also hand-picked his campaign staff with people he knew – people who would speak in his voice and play to his strengths.  It turned out (IMHO) that they were remarkably bad at both of those things, but that’s not the point anymore.  The campaign wasn’t incompetent, but it did seem to insist on using old-style political tactics for a Biden in his 60s.  It was not a winning strategy.

Unfortunately, while Harris had little input into the selection of Biden’s campaign staff, she doesn’t have the luxury of making too many changes to it now.  Not only does she not have the time, but she also can’t afford the bad-will associated with a wholesale campaign reorganization.  People still remember the considerable dysfunction of her campaign during the 2020 Democratic primaries, and no one wants to repeat those mistakes.

Harris can and should, however, bring in her own senior campaign advisors to augment the existing campaign staff.  Here are just a few of the areas of campaign focus where new blood might well be appropriate.

VP Selection

The VP selection process is already in full-gear and it is extremely important.  Not only does the selection itself matter, but it is also Harris’ first major decision that is hers alone to make.  She unfortunately needs to make that choice before August 7 to avoid any GOP games with respect to ballot access in some states.  That’s very quick.

As I previously discussed, MI Gov. Whitmer remains my first choice for VP, and I continue to think that PA Gov. Shapiro would be a good choice as well.  However, I’ve now personally elevated AZ Sen. Kelly to be my second choice.  There are just too many upsides to Harris sharing a ticket with a retired Navy Captain and former astronaut who flew combat missions in the Gulf War and flew four shuttle missions to the ISS.  Take that, guy who wrote “Hillbilly Elegy”.

Also, assuming that Harris does the smart thing and picks a VP that directly helps her collect at least some Electoral Votes, she needs to let her choice have a major say in how the campaign functions within their geographic sphere.  This includes letting the VP choice add at least one senior campaign advisor from their own successful campaign staff.

Platform

Harris is a bit hamstrung as she is still Biden’s VP.  She needs to walk a fine line on policies – taking partial credit for Biden/Harris accomplishments while still establishing her own positions that may differ from Biden’s.  For example, she should probably let Biden lead the parade to convince Netanyahu to sign a Gaza cease-fire while positioning herself as less willing to write Israel a blank check if she wins the presidency.

Given the short timeframe, I’d still recommend that Harris try to stay out of the weeds on the major issues – staking out broad policy positions while mostly promoting Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  She doesn’t need to be championing specific CO2 emission levels nor pressing for specific Chinese tariffs.  She needs to be a sane, competent, uplifting, inclusive alternative to the convicted felon.

Social Media

There is no reason that the Harris campaign shouldn’t OWN social media, particularly as a means of connecting with younger voters. Harris isn’t a youngster herself, but she’s two decades younger than Trump.  The campaign may already be off to a good start here, but they need to identify some Gen-Z hotshot to lead this parade and drown out Trump’s electronic diarrhea.

Traditional Media

The Harris campaign does still need a robust conventional ad strategy, but those ads need to be targeted to specific markets and demographics.  At least some of these ads – FOR THE LOVE OF GOD – need to display a sly sense of humor.  Well-produced ads can get away with so much more with a little wit behind them.  Also, a touch of self-deprecating humor can take Trump’s best attack lines and turn them to her favor.

While some Harris attacks ads are appropriate, it’s the fun ads that are more likely to get shared on social media and replayed on traditional media for free.  Free is good.

Debate Prep

I’d make an exception here.  Whoever led Biden’s debate prep needs to be fired.  If I was running the Harris campaign, I’m not sure I’d even bother with a debate.  I have no doubt that Harris would win a fair debate against Trump, but if Fox is sponsoring it, it won’t be fair.  I don’t see how a debate helps Harris with swing-state voters and, frankly, it’s not worth the necessary prep time.  She has better things to do.

Data Analytics

Sure, I may be a bit biased on this point, but the Harris campaign absolutely needs to make data analytics a major focus.

Harris has opportunities to expand Democrats’ advantages with college-educated voters, young voters, female voters, Black voters, Latino voters, and undecided voters.  Unfortunately, it’s not a one-size-fits-all problem.  It’s also not a “gut-feeling” problem.  It’s a data analysis problem.

Targeting each specific group in specific counties in specific swing-states requires detailed analyses of multiple sets of voter data.  I suspect that the DNC has most of the necessary data, but I also suspect that the Biden campaign has not made any serious analysis of that data a priority.  That needs to be corrected now.  I’ve heard rumblings of bringing back some of the team that helped the Obama campaign in this regard.  That may be fine, but the technology they used to great effect is now almost two decades old.  The Harris campaign needs to make sure they’re not migrating to only slightly newer methodologies.  This is another arena where new blood can act very quickly with the latest technologies.  There are good companies that do this as a business.  They need to find one.

I’ll eventually try to re-collect the necessary data for my own amateur attempt at analytics related to the Presidential, Senate, and House races, but I need to let things settle a bit before I start that tedious process.  In particular, I want to wait until after Harris picks her VP.  The Harris campaign, however, should be running simulations with each possible VP candidate prior to a selection.

In any case, data needs to be the driving force behind swing-state campaign strategies, particularly with respect to publicity and Get-Out-The-Vote efforts.

Regional Managers

To that end, the Harris campaign likely needs four distinct campaign strategies.  There is, of course, the overall campaign which will likely be a slightly updated version of the Biden campaign.  While this national organization would function as an umbrella and would be directly responsible for the blue states, there are also three swing-state regions that would seem to merit their own independent strategies.  It is in these regions that Harris may need to refocus campaign efforts and where some new senior advisors could undoubtedly help.

The three regions of swing-state interest are:

• The Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, & Wisconsin with 34 Electoral votes.
• The Western Sun Belt states of Arizona and Nevada with 17 Electoral votes.
• The Eastern Sun Belt states of Georgia & North Carolina with 32 Electoral votes.

What works well in one region won’t necessarily translate to others.  The Harris campaign needs political strategists that truly understand each region and its voters.  These people must have proven histories of winning statewide elections in the regions.  The Biden campaign might already have one or more of these; they might not.  But they are necessary, nonetheless.

Within each region, each state has their own voting requirements, their own early-voting processes, their own media landscapes, and their own nuances for organizing on-the-ground efforts to get Democratic voters to the polls.  The regional managers need to have the power and resources to essentially run their own mini-campaigns – coordinating with the national campaign for scheduling and budgets and with existing party organizations in each state. A centrally-controlled campaign can work perfectly fine, but the Harris campaign just doesn’t have the time to build one.

The regional managers would be in the best position to quickly determine what joint appearances and campaign coordination make the most sense with the various Governors, Senators, & Representatives in the swing states – including popular sitting Democrats and Democrats concurrently running for office this year.  Trump doesn’t seem to care much about his party’s success; he’s only worried about his own.  Democrats need a much broader focus.

Rapid-Response Team

At the risk of being a black cloud, some unfortunate event is likely to happen before the election.  It may be related to an overseas conflict, a natural disaster, a mass shooting, a terrorist strike, a stock market plunge, or a localized riot.  It will hopefully be something considerably less major than these possibilities.  In any case, it’s best to be ready.  While an appropriate agency of the Biden/Harris administration will hopefully be on top of an actual disaster response, the Harris campaign needs to be able to independently respond as well.  While it can’t plan the response itself, it should identify and pre-fund a rapid-response team with direct, real-time access to Harris.

MONEY

The above are just the things that occur to me!  I may be a bit of a political junkie, but running a campaign is certainly not in my wheelhouse.  I’m sure I missed something important.  The Democratic political class needs to get their act together, avoid in-fighting, follow Joe Biden’s lead, and devote themselves 100% to defending democracy in November.

The best assistance that we mere mortals can provide at the moment is to help fund the campaign’s efforts.  The next deadline for Federal Election Commission reports is July 31.  Campaign donations made on or before that date will be reported to the FEC and that fundraising number is the one that gets the most media attention as indicative of a campaign’s strength.

I’ll update my previous target suggestions for Senate and House races at a later date.  For now, however, you can (and should!) donate directly to the Harris campaign via the ActBlue links on the campaign’s website.

My previous post apparently convinced Biden to drop out of the Presidential race.  You’re welcome.

So now what?

It appears that VP Harris will be the new Democratic nominee.  She was immediately endorsed by Biden and numerous other party leaders.  No one has yet volunteered to challenge her and even those of us who would prefer another candidate haven’t suggested that they wouldn’t support her.  Let’s just call it done.  Harris will be the new Democratic nominee.

With Harris at the top of the ticket, the basic electoral map doesn’t immediately improve for Democrats.  Harris does, however, stop the hemorrhaging.  At least for the moment.  Democrats, led by Harris, have a major opportunity to restart this election season, motivate their voters up and down the ballot, and dominate a month of news cycles until the Democratic National Convention on August 22.  Not that Democrats couldn’t easily squander this opportunity.  Unfortunately:  Yes We Can!!

First, let me quickly dismiss the notion that a ticket change is somehow illegal (as recently suggested by House Speaker Johnson).  It’s not.  There will most definitely be numerous legal challenges, but they will have no basis in law.  The party nominating process is a political construct, not a legal one.  If party rules disallow something, the party can simply change those rules. Legally, until the nominating convention, Democrats can do whatever they want.  There are one or two exceptions where state laws require candidates to be named a bit earlier, but those are all red states.  Any efforts to keep Harris off the ballot in red states – even efforts that eventually fail – would give Democrats a ready-made campaign issue (“Republicans fight against Democracy!”) while giving Republicans zero potential electoral upside. I don’t think even our partisan SCOTUS would find a majority to support keeping Harris off of any state ballot (although 2 to 4 votes would be more than happy to simply declare Trump the winner right now).

Second, I’ll suggest that Harris has to come out of the gate with some solid policy proposals.  They don’t have to be immediately detailed, but she has to position herself as her own person.  She can’t just say that all of Biden’s policies are peachy keen with her.  In my opinion, she also has to strike a conciliatory tone to try to unite America.   She can’t; but she has to try.  The top of the Democratic ticket shouldn’t be constantly negative.  Her speeches need to be all freedom and apple pie, leaning into her own backstory.  Harris needs to let surrogates, led by her VP pick, be the campaign’s primary attack dogs.

Which brings me to her choice for Vice President.

It’s not in Harris’ interest to immediately name her VP pick.  A ton of names have already been floated and pundits have been tripping all over themselves trying to handicap the choices.  I’m about to do the same.  Harris should let the news cycles speculate all they want and keep Trump/Vance as a secondary story.

From my perspective, the Democratic VP selection is a math problem.  Period.  Democrats already know the Republican choice and Vance brings next to nothing to their electoral count.  He’s not well-known outside of his home state and Ohio was already solidly red.

I’ll eventually get around to another detailed analysis of the Electoral College.  It’s tough to do serious analytics when the world is moving so fast.  In the meantime, I’d hazard to guess that a current Harris/TBD vs. Trump/Vance map looks remarkably similar to the Biden/Harris vs. Trump/TBD map that I described in mid-April. The trick now is to see how a Democratic VP pick might tilt that map toward Democrats.  Nothing else matters with respect to the VP choice and everything else is noise.  As a high school math teacher used to scream at us if she thought our minds were wandering:  “Is it math?”  If a pick doesn’t demonstrably help Harris get to 270 electoral votes, it’s not at all interesting.

Let’s examine a few choices.

While I’d personally prefer to have MI Gov. Whitmer at the top of the Democratic ticket, I’ll stand by my previous support for a Harris/Whitmer ticket.  An All-Woman ticket would be historic and would provide a massive contrast to the Republican All-Rich-White-Idiot ticket.  Whitmer has said she doesn’t want to be VP, but she needs to be convinced.  She wants to be President someday and, win or lose, this race would give her the national exposure that she currently lacks.  Most importantly, she moves MI to solid Democratic; WI and PA to Lean Democratic.  Even just those three states, in addition to the states I previously put in the Solid or Lean Democratic column, give Democrats exactly 270 electoral votes.  That’s a win, but it’s way too close.  In this scenario, I’d cede FL to Republicans, make sure the Lean Democratic states stay that way, spend some money in GA and NC, and concentrate on adding NV and/or AZ as a cushion:

Democrats actually have an impressive bench, but other VP choices aren’t as solid from an electoral standpoint.  In descending order of my preference after Whitmer, here’s a few options:

• PA Gov. Josh Shapiro has a bright future, but he might not be ready for the national stage.  He would move PA from Toss Up to Solid Democratic. He might also help move WI and MI to Lean Democratic – just not as much as Whitmer.  Still, the math looks similar to Whitmer’s, making Shapiro a decent backup choice.
• AZ Sen. Mark Kelly would make an excellent VP, but he doesn’t help enough from an electoral standpoint.  His Democratic Senate seat would unfortunately become vacant if a Harris/Kelly ticket won, but the Democratic AZ governor would at least appoint a Democrat for a two-year term.  Kelly could move AZ and NV from Toss Up to Lean Democratic, but that only puts the Solid+Lean Democratic number at 233 – which isn’t nearly enough.  This ticket would have to move a few more Toss Up states to win the election.  Interestingly, though, Kelly’s background as an astronaut gives him some history in FL and TX.  That background wouldn’t be enough to win either state but could be very useful for fund-raising and it could force Republicans to spend some money there to counter him.
• NC Gov. Roy Cooper does have a history of winning in a Republican state and he could move NC from Lean Republican to Lean Democratic.  However, that’s about all the help he gives the ticket.
• KY Gov. Andy Beshear also has a history of winning in a Republican state, but he likely wouldn’t even carry KY in a Presidential election.
• CA Gov. Gavin Newsome, IL Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and NJ Gov. Phil Murphy, all good people from solidly Democratic states, bring little to the electoral count.
• Secretary Pete Buttigieg would make a great VP and an exciting candidate, but he wouldn’t carry his home state of IN.  Sadly, he even likely moves the rust belt swing states from Toss Up to Lean Republican.

Dear Democrats:  This is way too important and you now have a chance.  Please don’t screw it up.

Democrats need a new Presidential ticket.

Initially, I was adamantly opposed to a change and I even chided many of my friends for over-reacting to the debate fiasco and for feeding a Republican narrative.  However, as I’ve considered reality – and the data supporting that reality – I have re-examined my initial knee-jerk opposition.  Yes, that’s right.  I changed my mind.  Mark your calendars.

I’ll expand on my epiphany in a moment.  First, however, please allow me a slight digression…

The Republican Candidate

I’ve often accused the vast majority of Republicans of backing Trump regardless of any and all facts.  I haven’t changed my mind about that.

I don’t even need to discuss the numerous issues I have with Republican policy positions.  I can accept that reasonable people might have vastly different political opinions than the ones that I personally favor.  Trump himself, however, is not a reasonable person.

The man has denegrated the sacrifices of American soldiers, derided American prisoners of war, mocked disabled people, cheated on his pregnant wife, incited a mob to storm our nation’s capitol, bragged about grabbing women’s vaginas, verbally attacked the spouses of his adversaries, and sold branded Bibles for personal profit.  I could easily go on. And on. And on.

Trump is everything that mothers teach their children not to be: a petty, immoral, narcissistic, uninformed bully.  He is the embodiment of megalomania: a twisted amalgam of the worst traits of Iago, Bill Sykes, Sauron, Mr. Potter, Jabba the Hutt, and Voldemort (although most of these fictional villains were written to possess considerably more intelligence).

He has villainized immigrants to the point that I’ve been reminded of an interview that Gustave Gilbert conducted with Hermann Goering, former Nazi Reichsmarshall, in Goering’s Nuremberg cell in 1946.  Gilbert pointed out that, in a democracy, the people have a voice in their government.  This was Goering’s response:

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Yes, it apparently does.

While there was once some hope that our judicial system might save us from Trump, that hope is now gone.  The federal election interference case is toast, the Georgia election interference case has been paused, the classified documents case has been completely thrown out, and, of course, the insane SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling gave Trump a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for anything and everything.  Trump has thus managed to dispose of his outstanding legal issues based mostly on rulings from judges that he personally appointed.  While some cases are pending prosecutorial appeals, there is little hope of success given Trump’s control of the Supreme Court.  At the very least, there is now a zero chance that any of these cases will make it to trial before the November elections.

Not that it matters.  While Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of fraud in New York and was found liable for sexual assault in a civil trial, Republicans cannot be convinced to escape the cult that was once a proud political party.

Thus, a truly vile human being is now the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Which brings me back to….

The Democratic Candidate

Our only hope now is that Democrats can retain the White House.

I personally think that Biden has done a good job as President.  Others may disagree.  However, on a personal level, the difference between the two candidates is readily apparent:  Joe Biden is a decent person; Donald Trump is not.  It’s really that simple.

That said, I cannot in good conscience accuse Republicans of blindly supporting their candidate while I concurrently refuse to see any issues with the Democratic candidate.  And I do have issues.  Post-debate conversations regarding a Democratic ticket change were squeezed out of the headlines by recent events.  Those conversations need to be revived.

I’m only moderately concerned about Biden’s debate performance – although that was definitely tough to watch.  I wouldn’t claim to be an expert, but I do have some personal exposure to people with Sundowner’s Syndrome.  Biden seemed to be exhibiting some related behavior during the debate, most notably late-day confusion.  However, Trump has demonstrated similar behavior.  Both are old men, neither are exactly at the top of their game, and arguing about which candidate is less mentally challenged isn’t how we should be choosing the President of the United States.

I’m more concerned about the truly horrible campaign that Biden has run thus far.  He has an impressive resume upon which to run but he’s not getting that message out.  His campaign seems to expect him to be a much better communicator than he is.  Biden is simply not a great speaker and he never has been.  A good campaign would play to Biden’s strengths with well-produced, recorded political ads with a touch of humor.  Surrogates should be doing the heavy lifting at rallies.

I’m most concerned about the electoral math.  I no longer believe that Biden can win a second term.  Sure, the election isn’t until November and things can always change.  However, at this point, I don’t see a reasonable path to 270 electoral votes.  Winning the undecided voters is a great goal but it’s less important than people think. There just aren’t that many undecided voters in the swing states.  Democrats already have a solid base that certainly doesn’t like Trump but they’re also not particularly excited about their own candidate.  The whole game is swing-state turnout and Biden is making his voters less engaged every single day.  It’s not that they’ll vote for Trump; they just won’t vote.  And that’s just as bad.  Furthermore, Biden could not only lose all of the swing states; it currently appears that he could lose a couple of blue states as well.

Also concerning is the impact of a weak candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket on down-ballot races.  It’s probable that a landslide loss by Biden would be accompanied by a Democratic loss of the Senate and would make a Democratic takeover of the House impossible.

A new ticket would be a hard reset.  It would give all Democrats a reason to be excited again and would leave Republicans feeling like they’re stuck with yesterday’s leftovers.

The process of changing the ticket isn’t hard and there’s still time to do it.  However, the only way this works well is if Biden voluntarily steps aside before the Democratic National Convention on August 22.  While he’s made it quite clear that he doesn’t plan to do that, Biden’s not an idiot and he’s not immune to reality.  If enough folks can get past Biden’s inner circle (mostly Jill) and convince him that he has no chance of winning, I do believe that he’ll do the right thing.  The message to Biden isn’t “You’re old and feeble.”  The message is “You’re a patriot and it’s time.”

Everything would start with Biden issuing a brief statement, such as:

“While I continue to believe that I could win a second term, I acknowledge the voices of Americans that are ready for the Old Guard to pass the torch of governance to a new generation of leaders.  I have always put my country above my own personal desires and I will continue to do so.  To that end, I am withdrawing my name from consideration as the 2024 Democratic nominee for President of the United States and I will provide whatever support I can to the Democratic candidate chosen to succeed me.  For now, it remains my honor to serve as your President.  God bless you and God Bless America!”

Then the fun starts.  We don’t have time to hold new primary elections, but then, we never really had them.  It was a foregone conclusion that Biden was going to be the Democratic nominee.  However, no one actually voted for a candidate; they voted for a slate of delegates that would choose a candidate.  While they are pledged to Biden, that pledge is void if Biden withdraws.  In that case, the DNC becomes an actual nominating convention as opposed to just a media event.  There may be some drama, but that will only serve to drive viewership and interest.  In the end, Democrats would come together to support a new ticket to defeat Trump.

Of course, Biden should then be given the prime-time nominating speech at the DNC to formally pass the torch to the new nominee in front of a national TV audience.  Biden then goes out as an Elder-Statesman Extraordinaire and Democrats get a campaign jumpstart.  Win-win!

So who should be on the new ticket?  Party leaders, including Biden, will hold a lot of sway over the DNC delegates.

The obvious choice for the top of the ticket is Kamala Harris.

Biden’s campaign money would simply transfer to Harris since her name is on the current ticket.  That shouldn’t be a deciding factor, though, since the money could otherwise be transferred to a PAC and/or major donors could have their money refunded to be re-contributed to a new campaign.  Also, a new ticket would open the floodgates for new campaign donations.

Of greater concern would be the horrible optics of jumping over a black woman to lead the ticket.  That scenario would only work if Harris was full-throated in her support of an alternative candidate.  She might be convinced to do so with an unspoken agreement that a new Democratic President would give her a plum ambassadorship and would then nominate her for the first Supreme Court opening.

While Harris would be the likely candidate, my personal choice would be Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.  She’s smart, well-liked, and is a great campaigner.  She would also eat Trump’s lunch in a debate.  Most importantly, she would likely bring Democrats two swing states: Michigan and neighboring Wisconsin.

For either Harris or Whitmer, I’d pair them with another woman as the VP candidate.  That would highlight Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as just another rich white guy and it would reward a major Democratic constituency.  Whitmer would be an excellent choice for Harris’ VP.  For Whitmer, my choice would be Susan Rice (former UN ambassador, National Security Advisor, Domestic Policy Advisor, etc.).

Do let me be clear:  The two candidates we have at the moment are not equally bad.  I’d prefer another option, but I’ll certainly vote for Biden if he’s the Democratic candidate.  In a perfect world, our choices would be between filet mignon and prime rib.  However, in our world, it’s not that difficult to choose between ground beef and horse manure.

To complete my snapshot look at the 2024 elections, here’s my current and still-too-early take on the Presidential election. [No, you don’t need to point out that this isn’t really my third take on the topic. But go ahead and send the email if it makes you feel better.]

My Electoral College projections don’t look much like what you’re reading elsewhere. While professional political pundits have cleaner access to more and better data than I can painstakingly pull and normalize from numerous public sources in weird formats, most seems to overweight their own omniscient opinions and the results of questionable polls.

Could I be dead wrong while the pundits are universally brilliant?  Absolutely.  But until the data tells me something else, I’m going with what I have.

Here’s my model’s current take:

For this round, my model says that 41 states aren’t at all in-play, leaving only nine swing states worth following.  Of those nine, one state leans Democratic, two states lean Republican, and only six states are true toss-ups.  While the pundit class might have Democrats contemplating that Canadian citizenship, my analysis says the Presidential election is pretty much a toss-up at the moment.  Frankly, I’m not sure I understand how that could be a huge surprise to anyone.

I’ll dig into each state as things progress, but here’s a few general observations that are applicable across the board:

• Realignment of Electoral College votes between the states for 2024 tilted the math slightly in favor of the GOP.  Demographic changes in swing states, however, slightly favors Democrats.
• The GOP does start with a better hand than Democrats.  By my math, considering only the six toss-up states as being truly winnable by either party, Republicans have 14 paths to 270 Electoral votes; Democrats have 10 paths.
• Third-party candidates – specifically Kennedy and Stein – could have impacts in all nine swing states.  It’s just too soon to tell how big those impacts will be and which major party loses more votes to third-parties in each state.  The only given is that these races all look tight, implying a high probability of a third-party spoiler in multiple states.
• The Biden campaign and the DNC should continue to have a major cash advantage… particularly since much of the RNC’s money will apparently be paying for lawyers.
• The GOP’s vice-presidential choice could have an impact.  If Republicans were smart, they’d pick someone that could deliver a swing state all by themselves and then simply park them there for the duration of the general election.  Fortunately, the Orange Guy doesn’t think he needs help, and he could well pick a non-factor sycophant.
• The Orange Guy’s legal issues could have an impact in the swing states.  Unfortunately, it appears that the NYC fraud case is the one most likely to resolve before the election – and that’s the weakest of all the cases.  A rogue Florida judge and the U.S. Supreme Court have effectively delayed everything else.
• The status of the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East could have an impact, but it’s unclear who benefits from a political standpoint.  I’m pleasantly surprised that neither party seems to know how to turn out war votes.
• Women voters could again be a decisive factor.  Abortion – rebranded as women’s rights – could be a winning issue for Democrats.  Related ballot initiatives in Florida, Arizona, and Nevada could help deliver Democratic votes.
• Younger voters could again have a huge impact.  While they pay almost no attention this early in the game, they tend to eventually vote Democratic.  However, Democrats need to pay serious attention to their concerns.  The GOP doesn’t need to actually win their votes; they just need young voters to stay home or vote for Stein.

Things have changed a bit since I last weighed in on the Senate races in 2024.  Things will change again.  However, here’s my current snapshot:

The above table is sorted by the likelihood that the seat will be held by a Democrat in 2024. I was frankly surprised that my current model turned out to as favorable to Democrats as it is.  Almost all professional pundits put the Senate completely out of reach for Democrats in 2024.  My model says it’s a VERY tough road, but Democrats at least have a fighting chance to maintain a 50/50 split and, if Biden/Harris wins the Presidency, a 50/50 Senate is good enough.  By “tough”, I mean that Democrats would have to run the table on all Senate contests in which my model says they are slightly favored AND win both contests that my model says are Toss Ups.

There’s even an outside chance of Democrats maintaining their current 51/49 majority.  By “outside chance”, I mean “tough” plus Democrats would also need to win the one race that my model says is Lean R.

Here are brief, subjective looks at each state contest above:

• California:  Democrat Adam Schiff will beat Republican Steve Garvey in the general election.  The problem is that two House Democrats in addition to Schiff resigned to run for this Senate seat.  Katie Porter will be sorely missed in the House and her district is now in-play to be flipped Republican.  Barbara Lee’s district isn’t at risk, but we lost a competent legislator. Sigh.
• Maryland:  This is an open 2024 seat.  Larry Hogan, the popular former Governor of Maryland, unfortunately changed his mind about running and will be the Republican nominee.  David Trone, the founder of Total Wine & More, could mostly self-fund his campaign and has a slight polling lead for the Democratic nomination.  Given a competent campaign, Trone should be able to defeat Hogan in deep-blue Maryland, even given Hogan’s name recognition advantage.  Hogan’s popularity is mostly related to state issues that likely won’t apply as well to the national stage.  In a sense, it’s sad.  Hogan is actually a sane Republican – a rare breed these days.  However, Democrats cannot afford to lose this seat and they’ll be forced to spend some money here.
• Pennsylvania:  Current Democratic Sen. Bob Casey is well-liked in PA and should win re-election.  However, the likely Republican nominee, David McCormick, is a former Army Ranger and hedge-fund CEO who will put up a good, well-funded fight.
• Michigan:  This is an open seat in a purple state.  U.S. Rep Elissa Slotkin is the presumptive Democratic nominee but there are about a dozen candidates competing in what could be an ugly GOP primary that won’t be resolved until August. The Orange Guy recently waded into this race by endorsing former Rep. Mike Rogers, immediately making him the current favorite.  Rogers has been out of politics for about a decade and it’s unclear at this point how competitive he will be against Slotkin’s popularity and formidable fundraising abilities.
• Wisconsin:  Current Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin is popular in WI but this purple state is never a sure thing.  Likely Republican nominee Eric Hovde, the multi-millionaire CEO of Sunwest Bank, certainly has the bankroll to make this a competitive race.  He has the endorsement of the Orange Guy – which might prove to be mixed bag in Wisconsin.  Already, Hovde is trying to walk a tightrope that could well backfire with both the MAGA crowd and the anti-MAGA crowd.  Also, while both Baldwin and Hovde were born and raised in Wisconsin, only Baldwin can claim continuous residency.  Hovde lived in Washington, DC for most of his adult life, works for a Utah company without a presence in Wisconsin, and owns a $7M California estate.  He moved back to Wisconsin just to run for the Senate and Wisconsinites aren’t generally fond of carpetbaggers.
• Ohio:  Current Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has been the rare Democrat to win state-wide in red-leaning Ohio over the last decade.  Brown is popular in OH but a good GOP candidate would have made this a very competitive race.  Thankfully, Republicans settled on Bernie Moreno, the Orange Guy’s favorite candidate, who has wasted no time sucking up.  State Sen. Matt Dolan would have been a much tougher opponent for Brown but he didn’t sufficiently genuflect to the MAGA gods to appease the GOP base.  That said, this race is most certainly not a slam dunk given Ohio’s demographics.
• Arizona:  Current independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema decided against running in 2024, leaving this race a likely contest between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake.  Lake is a far-right conspiracy theorist who has alienated pretty much everyone in Arizona except for the fire-breathing MAGA crowd.  Unfortunately, Gallego is a unapologetic progressive who doesn’t have a stellar history of playing well with the center, either.  This race will be narrowly won by whoever is most successful at rebranding between now and November.  My money’s on Gallego. Lake’s ego will make this all about her past grievances and Arizona is very tired of that story.
• Nevada:  First-term Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen is in for a tough re-election contest in a purple state.  Republicans haven’t quite settled on a challenger yet, but it looks like Sam Brown will win the GOP nomination over far-right nut-job Jim Marchant.  That’s not good news for Democrats. Brown is a retired Army officer and a purple heart recipient for severe injuries in Afghanistan.
• Montana:  Current Democratic Sen. Jon Tester has survived since 2007 in deep-red Montana and he still has a powerful brand.  However, Democratic hopes of a repeat contest against far-right idiot Rep. Matt Rosendale have been dashed and retired Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy will be his opponent.  Sheehy is wealthy enough to self-fund his campaign and has proven himself to be a competent politician. Crap.
• Florida:  Current Republican Sen. Rick Scott isn’t particularly well-liked nor is he a particularly talented politician.  However, Scott is a rich incumbent in an increasingly red state.  The current surprise is just how well Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is doing at the moment.  Even with almost no statewide name recognition, she’s polling well.  While Florida is one of the most expensive states in which to run an insurgent campaign, Democrats should spend some money here.
• Texas:  As a Texan, I’d love to declare that current Republican Sen. Ted Cruz can be beaten.  However, while U.S. Rep. Colin Allred might get within low single digits of Cruz and could easily do better than Beto O’Rourke did against Cruz, I unfortunately see no reasonable path to an actual win.  I’ll admit that I considered tweaking my Democratic turnout projections in Texas to make this race closer. I just can’t force myself to believe that possibility.  I’ll still be writing a check, though, just to make me feel better.  And miracles do happen!
• West Virginia:  With current Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin deciding against a run, this seat is a slam-dunk pickup for the GOP.  Anyone with an (R) beside their name would beat any Democrat in this race.  The fact that Republican Jim Justice is popular will just make the margins larger.

Lest anyone thinks I’m being a Pollyanna (in which case we’ve never actually met), allow me to be clear.  At the moment, it’s more likely than not that Democrats will come up slightly short of maintaining a Senate majority.  It’s just not quite time to panic about it.

So what can we do now? If you feel strongly about individual states, I suggest finding your candidate’s campaign website and donating directly to their campaign.  Sadly, the DSCC, the independent Blue Senate PAC, and numerous other groups appear to be way too egalitarian – spreading money evenly across Senate races that matter, races that don’t need help, and races that aren’t winnable.  Democrats.  Geez.  Don’t waste your money.  If you want a one-stop donation site to help maintain a Democratic Senate majority, here’s my recommendation:

• Senate Majority PAC:  This is an independent group associated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.  Schumer really wants to remain the Majority Leader and he has excellent political instincts.  The PAC has a ton of money already and they seem to be using it wisely in states where the money will be put to the best use.

While predictive analysis is fun, prescriptive analysis is more useful.  To that end, I again focused on identifying which races might be the most important to a Democratic effort to retake the House.

As before, I first identified the House races that were even worthy of further analysis.  That pass eliminated those seats that are safely Democratic or Republican in 2024.  I next ignored those races that are likely to be won by whoever wins either the Democratic or Republican nomination.  While a few of these races could turn out to be important, limited resources should be directed toward those races in swing districts that appear to be somewhat close.

At the moment, that leaves only 39 races of interest for the 435 House seats.  Of the rest, my analysis is not particularly good news for Democrats. Republicans are likely to win 203 seats; Democrats are likely to win 193 seats.  In the 39 interesting races, Democrats are also defending more seats than Republicans and thus have a steeper climb than Republicans to a 218-seat House majority.

Democrats were not helped by a number of factors:

• 2024 Congressional redistricting efforts did not generally favor Democrats.
• Democratic retirements significantly hurt the chances of holding several current D seats.

On the other hand, things are not all doom and gloom for Democrats:

• The current 118th Congress has been one of the least productive in history.  In 2023, Congress managed to pass only 34 bills into law, the lowest number in decades.  Republicans controlled the House and thus shoulder that blame.  Democrats need to constantly remind voters that their Republican representatives were incredibly incompetent at their jobs.
• The OG lost to Biden in 2020 in 14 of the 18 districts where the Republican candidate won the 2020 House race!  Democrats need to coat those 2024 Republicans with bright orange paint.
• The Orange Guy is raiding the coffers of the RNC to pay his legal bills at the expense of down-ballot races, including House races.  In close contests, party money could easily make a difference.
• Since party primaries are still in-progress, many of the candidates are not yet set in stone for these races.  I’ll update things when I can discuss actual people.  At the moment, though, the candidate quality factor looks like it will favor Democrats by a fairly wide margin.  While admittedly subjective, the Democrats in many of the close races have impressive resumes – doctors, teachers, military veterans, etc.  Others have long, well-respected histories of working across the aisle in their respective state legislatures.  The Republican field, however, looks to once again be dominated by MAGA extremists whose primary qualifications are fealty to the OG, insistence that the 2020 election was stolen, an aversion to compromise, and a dedication to conspiracy theories and fear-mongering.  While that resume might motivate the GOP base, close races are mostly won in the center.

Here’s my current take on the 39 races:The strategy is straight-forward:

1. Democrats first need to defend the 21 seats above that they currently hold.  That’s not an easy task since 8 of them are currently Toss Ups.  Win all of these, and Democrats would have 214 seats – which is still not a majority.
2. Democrats next need to flip the 11 Republican seats that are currently forecast as Lean D or Toss Up.  Win all of these, and Democrats would have a 225-seat majority – a workable margin.
3. Democrats finally need to target at least a few of the 7 Republican seats that are currently forecast as Lean R – both to allow for some losses above and to make Republicans spend money defending their seats.

So what can we do now?  As the candidates come more into focus, I’ll try to post some individual campaign donation links.  In the meantime, I’ll suggest two DCCC programs that might be worthy of consideration for some hard-earned cash:

• DCCC Frontline:  This program distributes money to current Democratic members of Congress that the DCCC deem to be in competitive 2024 races. Frontline has identified 29 members while I identified 21.  I think they missed a couple of close races and they’re throwing money at several races that likely don’t need the help.  Still, Frontline’s overlap with my list is significant and I have no problem recommending this program for a one-stop donation to help hold the line.
• DCCC Red to Blue:  This program distributes money to Democratic candidates that the DCCC deem to have a decent chance of flipping a Republican-held seat.  Red to Blue has identified 20 races while I identified 18.   Again, I think they missed a couple of close races and I think they’re throwing money at a few lost causes.  While Red to Blue’s overlap with my list isn’t quite as large as Frontline, it’s still a decent set for a one-stop donation to help grow a Democratic majority.

Democrats have been absolutely soiling themselves over a New York Times / Siena College poll released this past weekend.

Granted that a front-page headline reading “Trump Leads Biden in 5 Key Battleground States” – in a newspaper that Democrats intrinsically trust – certainly provides a sufficient stimulus for an abrupt outbreak of explosive diarrhea.

So okay.  That happened.  But while Democrats are cleaning themselves up, perhaps they should consider some background before they overdose on Imodium.  In particular, I suggest that folks consider both the methodology of the poll and the timing of the poll.

Methodology

I’ll start by giving some credit to these pollsters for at least recognizing that national polls are useless.  Swing state polls can provide the only interesting data since we can be assured that the Electoral College votes in something north of 80% of the states are preordained and victory margins in those states are less than meaningless.  The states that the NYT polled – Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – are a decent set.  At this point, I’d have added Virginia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina to the potential swing-state list, but that’s a nit.  The poll claims to have had 600 respondents in each state, attempting to cover various demographics (age, race, income, education, & party).  That’s all fine.

Unfortunately, that’s all the credit I’m going to give.

First, it took some digging to derive their methodology.  I’ll begrudgingly admit that they did at least publish it (unlike many other pollsters), but they certainly didn’t highlight the potential issues.  Raise your hand if you even thought to look beyond the headline into the methodology details.  Yeah, thought so.  Only data geeks would do that.  And one of them happens to have a blog.

The most glaring problem is that the poll intentionally over-sampled Republicans!

In an apparent attempt to avoid underestimating Republican support (as this poll did in 2016), the pollsters decided to over-sample Republican voters and then statistically adjust the results.  That approach “could” work with a large dataset and a low oversampling rate.  This sample, however, isn’t nearly large enough to accurately reflect reality with statistical weights.  And the over-sampling rate was way too high.

Only 20% of respondents self-identified as liberal or somewhat liberal while 36% self-identified as conservative or somewhat conservative.  No amount of mathematical magic in a 600-person poll can properly adjust the demographic coverage when one ideology has almost double the representation.

Swing states are called swing states for a reason:  The electorate in each is divided between Democrats and Republicans with a significant number of independents. In any given election, either party has a chance to prevail.

While this same poll over-corrected in both 2020 and 2022, underestimating Democratic support, they made a conscious decision to keep making the same mistake for 2024.  Go figure.

Furthermore, the poll’s definition of “likely voter” seems rather suspect.  The model uses a proprietary turnout-probability formula modified by a weighted version of self-reported voter intentions.  Wow.  Methinks the complexity of that math far exceeds the limitations of the minimal, statistically-adjusted data.

A valid poll today shouldn’t even try to weight the sample.  It should focus instead on identifying the most representative voter sample possible and stay far, far away from math tricks.

At the VERY least, it is inexcusable for these facts to have not been noted upfront in the New York Times’ coverage of the poll.

Timing

Even if we make the massively questionable assumption that the NYT poll provides an accurate snapshot, we still have another huge issue:

The poll was taken over a year out from the 2024 elections!

That’s an eternity in today’s political environment.  Here’s just a few related observations:

• The general election campaigns haven’t really started, and Biden’s re-election messaging is still a TBD. He’ll hopefully focus again on sanity and an improved economy.  He also needs to remind the electorate that his opponent is only four years younger… and is certifiable.
• As the campaigns progress, Biden will be Biden and will continue to be gaffe-prone.  He’s been that way for decades.  He’ll warm up when necessary but, more importantly, his Democratic surrogates will debate circles around what’s left of media-savvy Republicans with a multi-digit IQ.
• Biden’s opponent might be in jail.  Or at least under house arrest.  Seriously, I have to believe that any felony conviction will have an impact on the polls.  Also, a continued emphasis on revenge as a campaign message should wear very thin for those not already in the cult.
• We don’t yet know who will mount serious third-party campaigns nor what their impacts will be in the swing states.
• Younger votes simply don’t pay attention this early in election cycles.  Their impact will show up much later in the polls.
• Shit happens.  We have a couple of ongoing wars, an unpredictable economy, and a Congress that can’t handle the basics of governance.  There’s even a non-zero probability that the party nominees won’t be who we think they’ll be.  Oh, and locusts.  Swarms of locusts.

Bottom Line

The NYT poll mostly tells us that the 2024 election will likely be tight.  We already knew that.

Should Democrats be concerned?  Absolutely.  It would be much better to have such a commanding lead in the polls that timing & methodology problems are irrelevant.

Should Democrats panic?  Absolutely not.  This election has the highest stakes of any in my lifetime and some moderate levels of anxiety are certainly healthy.  However, there’s no current need for either Imodium OR Prozac.  While Chicken Little’s genes are in the Democratic Party’s DNA, we all need to just chill.  If necessary, we can always panic later.