Fox News Poll Shows Trump Trailing In Swing States

Three new Fox News polls sampled voters in the swing states of Arizona, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The news in all three states was not good for the president. Mr. Trump, who won all three states in 2016, now trails Joe Biden in each case.

In the Arizona poll, the president trails his Democratic challenger by a 42-46 margin. On the issues, the economy was the only area in which Trump scored better than Biden (by 48-41 percent). Shockingly, Biden even edged out Trump on immigration in this border state by one percentage point. Trump’s net approval rating in Arizona was negative-six points.

The poll also showed that Arizona is a likely spot for a Senate pick-up for Democrats. The poll showed Republican incumbent Martha McSally trailing Democrat Mark Kelly by 13 points.

In Ohio, which has seemed increasingly Republican, the Fox poll showed Biden with a two-point lead (45-43 percent). This is well within the 3.5-point margin of error for the poll. In Ohio, Trump’s 50-percent approval rating gave him a net approval of two points.

Moving to Wisconsin, the poll found Trump trailing Biden by nine points (40-49 percent). The president’s net approval in the state was negative-nine points, closely mirroring the difference in the head-to-head matchup.

President Trump’s poor response to the three crises of Coronavirus, the recession, and the race riots seemed to be driving much of the opposition to his re-election. While Trump scored best on the economy in all three states, Biden rated better on race relations and Coronavirus in all three cases. On immigration, the only other issue tested, Biden was preferred in Arizona (which was a statistical tie on the question) and Wisconsin. Ohio voters liked Trump’s approach to immigration.

As I frequently point out, individual polls are a single data point and should be treated with caution. There are also additional swing states to consider. In addition to the three surveyed by Fox News, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania are likely battleground states this year. For a more complete look at polling in all seven swing states, all of which were won by Trump in 2016, here is a rundown based on Real Clear Politics averages:

Arizona: Biden leads by 2.8 points

Florida: Biden leads by 3.4 points

Michigan: Biden leads by 4.2 points

North Carolina: Biden leads by 0.8 points

Ohio: Biden leads by 1.0 point

Pennsylvania: Biden leads by four points [As a caveat, Trump held a four point lead in the only May poll, but Biden has led in every other recent poll.]

Wisconsin: Biden leads by 3.4 percent

Based on these polling averages and assuming that the tossup states of North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania go to Trump, Joe Biden would win the electoral vote by 288-250 if the election were held today.

I frequently hear from Trump supporters who are skeptical of all polls since polling pointed toward a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016. In most cases, the surprise states of 2016 were polling within the margin of error by Election Day, and the final Electoral College result hinged on about 70,000 votes. It is whistling past the graveyard to assume that Donald Trump can repeat that performance this year. If Biden still leads in all swing states in November, Trump will have to defy the odds and run the table to keep his job.

Increasingly, the polling for 2020 is not close. On the contrary, more and more red states seem to be moving towards battleground status. For example, the Real Clear Politics average shows Trump only holding a two-point lead in Texas. Likewise, Arizona used to be reliably Republican.

The polling does not predict with certainty that Trump will lose in November, but it is a warning sign that his re-election campaign is in trouble. To turn the tide, the president must change his image, but he seems incapable of doing so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republican Governors Gamble On Reopening Early

The pandemic has become somewhat of a partisan issue. Many Republican states are reopening early while Democratic states are playing it cautious. The resulting differences in both the impact of the Coronavirus and the local economies are likely to play into this year’s elections.

Several weeks ago, the White House put forth a proposed plan for reopening the country. Triggers for the plan included a 14-day downward trajectory of cases reporting influenza and COVID-like symptoms, a 14-day downward trajectory of confirmed COVID cases or positive tests, the ability of hospitals to treat all patients with crisis care, and having a robust testing program in place. I’m not sure that any state meets these benchmarks, particularly the call for robust testing.

There are fundamental, nonpolitical differences between the majority of red and blue states. Blue states, which are congregated along the coasts, have higher population densities and more urban. This may be why, as Axios points out, blue states have so far had higher rates of both infection and death from COVID-19.

That doesn’t mean that red states are out of the woods yet, however. In the last half of April red states saw higher percentage increases. Statistically this makes sense because an increase of the same number of cases will yield a higher percentage increase where the total number of cases was lower. For example, the addition of 10 cases would be a 10 percent increase in a state that had 100 cases previously, but it would be a one percent increase where there were 1,000 old cases.

Red states, which tend to be more rural and sparsely populated, are more difficult territory for Coronavirus to spread through. That doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. When rural people congregate, the virus can spread rapidly if it is present. Here in Georgia, some of the worst outbreaks outside of Atlanta were spread through religious services.

Where COVID-19 takes hold in red states, it can be deadly. Residents of nonmetro areas tend to be both older and have more underlying health problems than city dwellers. Often age and health problems go hand-in-hand. Both categories are high-risk for COVID-19. Further, demographic data from many southern states show that blacks are far more at-risk for negative outcomes from COVID-19 than whites.

When it comes to reopening, new cases are a more useful metric than deaths. Because COVID-19 takes about three weeks to kill on average, deaths are more of a form of historical data, hinting at the number of infections several weeks ago. New confirmed cases are more useful in determining how fast the virus is currently spreading.

Despite the bad press regarding Georgia’s reopening, Gov. Brian Kemp has handled the situation relatively well. Although the state did not meet the recommended 14-days of decreasing numbers when it reopened, Georgia’s seven-day moving average of Coronavirus cases has now been sharply trending down since April 22. On May 4, Georgia reported only 44 new cases. This is a positive sign that the state has seen the worst of the first wave of cases.

The downside is that many Georgians seem to be no longer following social distancing guidelines. Gov. Kemp lifted the general shelter-in-place order but encouraged Georgians to stay home when possible, but social distancing guidelines and shelter-in-place for “medically fragile” and elderly Georgia residents are still the order of the day. However, many residents seem to think that social distancing and mask recommendations are yesterday’s news. On my recent trips to town, I’ve noted that people congregating more closely and fewer are wearing masks.

In Florida, another hot-button state, cases peaked in late March but have trended down slowly. Per the Florida Department of Health, the Sunshine State is still recording 4,512 new cases per week, more than 600 per day. Yet, Florida began its phase one of reopening on Monday, as it recorded 819 new cases in one day.

The difference between the two states likely reflects a different strategy on reopening. There are at least two schools of thought on when to reopen. One is to move the IHME trend line down to the point where hospitals can cope with the surge of cases. The second is to move the trend line down even further to the point where transmission of the virus is drastically reduced and a secondary flareup is unlikely, at least in the short term. In Florida’s case, the state has achieved the first goal per the current IHME modeling for the state. It is possible that Georgia has achieved the second.

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas is also taking an aggressive approach. Texas State Health Services reports a stable level of new cases, which increased slightly in late April and early May. Unsurprisingly, the highest levels of Texas cases are in Houston’s Harris County and Dallas County. KHOU reported that there were hundreds of complaints in the days following reopening that Houston businesses were not following the social distancing guidelines established by the governor’s office.

At least two other red states have taken a more conservative approach. In Mississippi, Republican Gov. Tate Reeves delayed the state’s reopening last week after a spike in new cases. The state’s Department of Health website shows a downward trend but notes that recent data may not be complete. Yesterday, Gov. Reeves amended his emergency order to allow some restaurants and businesses to reopen on May 7 if they follow strict social distancing and sanitary guidelines.

In Ohio, the Department of Health reports a 21-day average which has been declining since May 1. At 560 on May 4, the state is far off of its April 19 peak of 1,380 new cases. As a result, Gov. Mike Dewine, a Republican, plans to open about 90 percent of the state by next week.

Governors of both parties are walking a tightrope between rekindling the pandemic and mitigating economic damage. The situation is made all the more difficult by a vocal minority of citizens who are demanding that states be reopened immediately. Recent polling shows that a large majority of Americans, including most Republicans, support social distancing, however, and are more concerned about reopening too quickly than too late.

The rush to reopen states paired with a growing abandonment of social distancing measures at the grassroots level has led to an uptick in projected Coronavirus deaths. In early April, forecasted deaths were revised down to 60,000 following the implementation of the mitigation strategy. The US hit the 60,000 mark last week, however, and, as mitigation strategies are jettisoned, death estimates have more than doubled to 134,000.

To put that number in perspective, it would be more than the number of American soldiers killed in World War I, a number which incidentally included a large number of casualties from the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. This year the US has had to relearn many lessons of past pandemics such as the Spanish flu. One of those lessons is that reopening too early leads to more loss of life.

“One clear lesson of the 1918 pandemic is to be wary of that kind of thinking,” said James Leloudis, a history professor at the University of North Carolina. “Letting down the guard, in that case, turned out to be disastrous. It’s the same situation we are in now.”

In the midst of the emergency, it is difficult to see what the correct moves are because we don’t have all the information. We don’t know how many people are infected and not tested. We don’t know if there will be additional waves of infections. We don’t know if or when effective treatments and vaccines will be discovered. We don’t even know how many asymptomatic carriers are spreading the disease. What we do know is that reopening earlier will cost an unknown number of lives.

Republican governors are gambling that the disease has largely run its course and that the loss of life from reopening will be minimal enough to be acceptable to the majority of their state’s voters. We won’t know for some time, possibly years, whether these gambles were correct. In November, voters will begin to rule on whether those gambles a good bet.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Swing State Polls Look Bad For Donald Trump

A new round of head-to-head polling from the swing states came in yesterday and the results are somewhat encouraging for Republicans. While Donald Trump trails the leading Democrats in national polling, many of the swing state races are too close to call.

Due to the large number of candidates and states to examine, for clarity, I will present each state separately and give Trump’s net poll rating with each candidate based on the Real Clear Politics average. A negative rating means that Trump is behind and a positive rating means that he is ahead. For reference, I’m also including the latest state-level Trump approval numbers from Morning Consult, which were taken as the Ukraine whistleblower scandal was breaking in late September.

National

Trump vs. Biden               -10

Trump vs. Warren            -7.3

Trump vs. Sanders           -7.9

Trump vs. Buttigieg         -4.5

Trump vs. Harris               -5.3

Trump approval                -13

Arizona

Trump vs. Biden               -1.7

Trump vs. Warren            0.7

Trump vs. Sanders           5.3

Trump approval                -4

Florida

Trump vs. Biden               -2.0       

Trump vs. Warren            0.3

Trump vs. Sanders           1.0

Trump approval                -2

Iowa

Trump vs. Biden               1.5

Trump vs. Warren            4.5

Trump vs. Sanders           1.0

Trump vs. Buttigieg         4.0

Trump approval                -14

Michigan

Trump vs. Biden               -7.7

Trump vs. Warren            -3.0

Trump vs. Sanders           -7.3

Trump approval                -10

North Carolina

Trump vs. Biden               -5.4

Trump vs. Warren            0.2

Trump vs. Sanders           -2.4       

Trump approval                -3          

Ohio (no recent polling)

Trump vs. Biden               -7.0

Trump vs. Warren            -1.5

Trump vs. Sanders           -5.0

Trump approval                -5

Pennsylvania

Trump vs. Biden               -7.3       

Trump vs. Warren            1.7

Trump vs. Sanders           5.4

Trump approval                -8

Wisconsin

Trump vs. Biden               -5.7

Trump vs. Warren            -1.0

Trump vs. Sanders           -2.7

Trump approval                -11

There are a couple of important takeaways from this polling, even though the election is still a year away. The first is that Joe Biden is a stronger candidate in the swing states than Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. In six of the seven swing states with recent head-to-head polling, Biden leads Donald Trump. Warren fares worst of the three top-tier Democrats, but Bernie Sanders is not much better.

Second, Trump approval is a pretty good proxy for how he stacks up in a head-to-head matchup in most cases, although this is dependent on individual candidates as well and the numbers don’t match up exactly. In only one of the states examined, Iowa, does Trump have a negative approval rating but leads in polling.

Finally, as we saw in 2016, it isn’t enough for the Democrats to win the popular vote and expect that to translate into an Electoral College victory. The Democrats must give Donald Trump a 5-10 point shellacking in the popular vote to be assured of winning enough swing states to secure the White House. This is especially true due to the difficulties of state-level polling in swing states.

Based on the current polling presented above (while assuming Ohio stays red), Joe Biden would win the Electoral College by 333-205 and Bernie Sanders would eke out a 273-265 victory. Elizabeth Warren would lose by 258-280, but many states are actually too close to project in a Warren-Trump matchup. Neither side could be confident of victory at this point, although Warren does seem to represent Trump’s best chance at reelection.

The election is a long way away and a lot can happen. In the current cycle, that is even more true than most years due to the breaking Ukraine scandal, impeachment, the slowing economy, and a number of other factors. While the swing states are not looking good for Donald Trump, they are looking much better than the national average, but that’s why they call them battleground states.

While many of the state-level races are not polled frequently, it will be important to watch them for trends over the next year. Significant movement in one direction or the other could represent a changing dynamic within the election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Razor-Thin Margins Make Georgia And Ohio Governor Races Too Close To Call

There are new polls in Georgia and Ohio that cement the tossup status of the two states going into the midterm elections. While the GOP candidates are not losing beyond the margin of error in either case, Democrat gains indicate that Brian Kemp and Mike DeWine have not been able to close the deal with voters and both races remain in true tossup status. The two states are among twelve Republican tossups in which gubernatorial seats are at risk of being flipped by Democrats.

In the newest poll, Democrat Stacey Abrams leads Republican Kemp by a single point. Previous polling over the past month has consistently given Kemp a two-point lead. The average of the polls puts the race well within the margin of error.

Despite the fact that Georgia is considered a deep red state, there are several factors at play that may create a perfect storm for Republican Brian Kemp. The gubernatorial race in Georgia has garnered national attention due to the allegations of voter suppression by Kemp, who is currently secretary of state. Although these allegations have been debunked repeatedly, they continue to dog the Kemp campaign.

Abrams, who is black, may benefit not only from the voter registration controversy but also from the excitement generated by a black female candidate in a state with a large minority population. In the 2016 election, blacks made up 30 percent of Georgia’s electorate. If other nonwhites are included, that number increases to 40 percent. Both groups voted Democrat by an even larger margin than the white majority voted Republican. In 2016, Donald Trump won the state by less than six percent, about 230,000 votes.

This year, there are indications that the minority share of the electorate may be increasing even further. The Atlanta Journal reported in June that the share of white voters in Georgia’s primaries had decreased as the number of minority voters increased. In 2014, Republican primary ballots outnumbered Democrats by more than a quarter million. This year, the margin was just over 50,000.

Georgia Democrats may be benefitting from an Obama effect in which a black candidate at the top of the ticket inspires black voters to get to the polls in larger numbers. White liberals may also be motivated by the historic nature of the race.

Conversely, Republicans also be suffering from Kemp’s primary strategy of appealing to the Trump base, which is predominantly white, with ads that have been used against him in the general election. Kemp doubled down on his association with Trump, electing to skip the last debate to campaign with the president. Trump has a 49 percent approval rating among likely voters.

Kemp remains a slight favorite due to Georgia’s law requiring candidates to win with a majority of the vote. With both candidates polling below 50 percent, the race is almost certain to go to a runoff in December without Libertarian candidate Ted Metz in a two-way race that should favor Kemp as Libertarian voters turn out against Abrams’ plans for a Medicaid expansion for the state and her extreme position on gun control.

In Ohio, another race for an open seat previously held by Republican John Kasich looks more likely to go blue. Ohio is a perennial swing state so the close race there should be less surprising than the one in Georgia.

Mike DeWine, the Republican candidate, trailed Democrat Richard Cordray in October polling including a new Emerson College poll that put Cordray ahead by three points. Another poll by Baldwin Wallace University found that voters favored Cordray in a two-way race by one point, but, when third-party candidates were included, DeWine held a lead of less than half a point. In either case, the polls are well within the margin of error and the race could go either way, especially considering that 15 percent of voters still say they are unsure.

The bad news for Republicans here is that Democrats hold leads in other statewide Ohio races. In some cases, the Democrat lead is significant and, in others, it is within the margin of error, but the Democrat advantage is consistent across the board. Republican candidates also are hampered by President Trump’s 49 percent disapproval in the state.

Both Georgia and Ohio will be states to watch closely next Tuesday. A win for Abrams in Georgia would catapult her to celebrity status among Democrats as a black woman who won in a red state. That would automatically make Stacey Abrams a contender for 2020. The outcome in the purple state of Ohio could give an indication of which way the state, which is vital for Republican presidential candidates, would lean in 2020.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Ohio Vote Is Warning Sign To GOP

Republican Troy Balderson is claiming victory in an Ohio special election that remains too close to call the morning after Election Day. In Ohio’s 12^th congressional district, Balderson holds a slim lead over Democrat Danny O’Connor. O’Connor, who trails by less than one percent and has not conceded, appears to be gearing up for a recount.

At press time, Balderson was credited with 101,574 votes to O’Connor’s 99,820. Balderson’s share of the vote was 50.2 percent while O’Connor received 49.3 percent with 100 percent of precincts reporting. More than 3,000 provisional and 5,000 absentee ballots are awaiting review.

Balderson’s lead was very slim despite a last-minute trip to the district by President Trump. The president’s endorsement over the weekend had no discernible effect on the polling in the race, which had been a statistical tie since July.

Balderson took advantage of his lead at the end of the night to claim victory, saying, “I’m going to promise to you that I’m going to work relentlessly for this 12th Congressional District. America is on the right path and we are going to keep it going that way.”

O’Connor said in a statement, “We always knew this was going to be a close race, and while we don’t know the results quite yet, I know that this campaign left it all on the field.” On Twitter, O’Connor asked supporters to chip in for what “could be a long and expensive recount.”

Under Ohio law, if the vote totals are within half a percent there will be an automatic recount. A candidate can request a recount if there less than a one percent margin.

Even though Republicans may hold on to the traditionally Republican seat, there are warning signs for the GOP. As a popularity contest, the election was essentially a tie between Republicans and Democrats in a district that FiveThirtyEight rated as favoring Republicans by 14 points.

Both sides spent heavily to reach the near stalemate. A total of $8 million was spent on the race per Washington Post figures. O’Connor had an advantage in local fundraising and spent $2.4 million on media ads compared to Balderson’s $600,000. O’Connor’s spending advantage was offset by Republican PACs, which spent $4.1 million on Balderson’s behalf. The DCCC and DNC spent about $1.1 million for O’Connor.

Like O’Connor, many Democrats have a fundraising advantage over their Republican opponents this year. The Republican Super PAC advantage can help some Republicans, but the PACs may be spread too thin to help every endangered Republican seat.

Although Republicans have not lost every special election of the Trump era, they have lost many voters. FiveThirtyEight’s analysis shows that recent special elections have swung toward the Democrats by an average of 16 points. The Ohio results confirm that the many Republican seats held by less than the Ohio-12’s 14-point margin are danger this November.

The final lesson for Republicans is that President Trump has no coattails and that his endorsement will not guarantee victory in the general election. President Trump often played the kingmaker in the Republican primaries, but his endorsement does not help and may even hurt general election candidates.

If current trends continue, Republicans will preserve the Ohio 12-district seat, at least until the next election in November, but the victory should make the GOP nervous. The election continued the trend of Democratic gains since President Trump was elected. The Democratic fundraising advantage and an unpopular Republican president will make it difficult for Republicans to break the pattern.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats may regain Senate majority

US Capitol (Diliff/Wikimedia)

A month ago, the GOP seemed to be the odds-on favorite to retain control of the Senate. With the tumultuous month of October behind us, the odds seem to have shifted slightly to favor the Democrats regaining control.

The Democrats have a structural advantage due to the fact that they are defending only 10 seats while Republicans are defending 24. Only one Democratic seat, the Nevada seat of the retiring Harry Reid, was considered at risk. A total of eight Republican seats, many in blue or purple states, are threatened. Many of these at-risk seats were won in the Tea Party wave election of 2010. Wave elections often allow weak candidates to win who cannot retain their seat when political conditions return to normal.

FiveThirtyEight puts the chances that the Democrats will win the Senate at over 60 percent. A recent blog post noted that four of the eight most hotly contested races have seen major shifts. Three races have shifted toward the Republicans and one toward the Democrats. Indiana, New Hampshire and Wisconsin have moved slightly toward the Republicans while Pennsylvania now favors the Democratic challenger.

Here are summaries on the battleground Senate races for Republican seats:

·         In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio’s lead over Democrat Patrick Murphy has tightened slightly, but Rubio is still the clear favorite.

·         In Illinois, Sen. Mark Kirk’s seat is all but lost. Rep. Tammy Duckworth’s lead has widened to 13 points in the Real Clear Politics average after Kirk made an embarrassing comment about Duckworth’s heritage.

·         In Indiana, a race previously considered a Democrat lock, Rep. Todd Young (R) was tied with former Senator Evan Bayh (D) in a recent poll. FiveThirtyEight’s models show Young’s chances of taking the seat surging from 30 percent to 45 percent. The seat is currently held by Republican Dan Coats, who is retiring.

·         In Missouri, Sen. Roy Blunt is in a tossup race with Secretary of State Jason Kander. FiveThirtyEight gives the race as a 55 percent chance of going to the Democrats, a slight improvement for Blunt.

·         In New Hampshire, Sen. Kelly Ayotte seems to be maintaining a margin-of-error lead over Gov. Maggie Hassan. FiveThirtyEight has downgraded Hassan’s chances of winning the seat from 67 to 56 percent. The race is still a tossup, but with slightly better odds for Ayotte.

·         In North Carolina, Sen. Richard Burr’s race with state Rep. Deborah Ross is still a tossup. FiveThirtyEight puts Ross’s chances of taking the seat at 34 percent, down nine percent from two weeks ago.

·         In Ohio, Sen. Rob Portman’s seat seems to be reliably Republican. Portman holds a double-digit advantage over Gov. Ted Strickland.

·         In Pennsylvania, Sen. Pat Toomey has trailed Katie McGinty in nine straight polls. The race is still close, with McGinty leading by an average of less than four points, but FiveThirtyEight has moved the race from a tossup to a 73 percent chance of a Democratic victory.

·         In Wisconsin, Sen. Ron Johnson’s chances are still not good. Former Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold has consistently led the race. FiveThirtyEight says that the race has moved slightly in Johnson’s favor, but Feingold still has a 90 percent chance of retaking the seat.

The sole Democratic battleground seat is Nevada. This race is a tossup between Rep. Joe Heck (R) and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Heck holds a slight advantage in the RCP average of polls, but FiveThirtyEight gives Cortez Masto almost a 60 percent chance of winning.

The current balance of power in the Senate is 54 Republicans to 46 Democrats (including independents). The Democrats need a net pickup of four seats to split control of the Senate or five seats to take a majority. In the case of a 50-50 split among the two parties, the incoming vice president can cast the deciding vote.

At this point, Democrats look likely to retain Harry Reid’s Nevada seat as well as pick up Republican seats in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. These four seats would be enough to split the Senate evenly with the Republicans.

The fifth seat, to give the majority to the Democrats, will likely come from either Missouri, New Hampshire or North Carolina. All three races are tossups and FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats the edge in both Missouri and New Hampshire.

Regardless of whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins the presidency, it has been viewed as critical for Republicans to hold the Senate. The Senate has the role of confirming judges and Supreme Court justices as well as confirming treaties. Any bills from the House’s Republican majority, which is likely safe, must go through the Senate before they are signed into law by the president.

The most recent round of polling gives little hope of preserving the Republican Senate majority. As Republican Senate hopes fade, so do hopes of everything from keeping liberal justices off of the Supreme Court to repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Can Republicans hold the Senate?

Marco Rubio (Gage/Skidmore/Wikimedia)

Lost in the furor over the presidential election is the fact that the fate of the Senate also hangs in the balance this November. Republicans, who currently hold a four seat majority, are in danger of losing control of the upper house of Congress. Republicans are defending more seats than Democrats this year and the looming prospect of a loss by Donald Trump may carry over into Senate races down the ticket. Can Republicans hold the Senate?

This year Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats as opposed to Democrats who are defending only 10 seats. Only half of the contested Republican seats are considered safe while seven of the Democrat seats are safe. Six Republican seats, enough to flip control of the Senate, are either tossups or leaning Democrat. Only one Democrat seat, currently held by Harry Reid of Nevada, is considered a likely pickup for the GOP.

Here are rundowns on the six threatened Republican seats:

• ·         Florida: Senator Marco Rubio and Rep. Patrick Murphy will likely emerge from today’s primary as their party nominees. Current polling gives an edge to Rubio.
• ·         Illinois: Senator Mark Kirk, elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010, is being challenged by Rep. Tammy Duckworth. Illinois is a deep blue state, but the race is currently considered a tossup.
• ·         New Hampshire: Senator Kelly Ayotte, another member of the class of 2010, is facing Gov. Maggie Hassan. Ayotte was one of the Republicans hesitantly endorsed by Donald Trump over the summer. She has also given him a tepid endorsement. The race is currently a tossup with Hassan favored by one point in the Real Clear Politics average.
• ·         Ohio: Current Senator Rob Portman is being challenged by former governor Ted Strickland. Polling is favoring Portman who is increasing the gap, but the race is still considered a tossup.
• ·         Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey, another member of the class of 2010, is being challenged by Katie McGinty, a former business executive and lobbyist who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2014. McGinty has held several appointed positions in Pennsylvania. The race is currently a tossup with McGinty leading by one point according to Real Clear Politics.
• ·         Wisconsin: Another Tea Party senator, Ron Johnson, is facing Russ Feingold, the Democrat that he beat in 2010. Feingold is a double-digit favorite.

In addition, Republican seats in Missouri and North Carolina are also threatened, but are currently leaning Republican. Both senators may be suffering from the association with Donald Trump, who favored by only three points in Missouri and is trailing Hillary by two points in the North Carolina average.

• ·         Missouri: Roy Blunt is being challenged by Jason Kander, the current secretary of state and an army reserve officer. The Real Clear Politics average favors Blunt, but by less than five points. 
• ·         North Carolina: Richard Burr is defending against Deborah Ross, a former state representative. Burr leads by an average of two points.

On the Democratic side, Nevada is the only tossup. The retirement of Harry Reid leaves an open seat that is being contested by Democrat Catherine Masto, the attorney-general, and Republican Joe Heck, a current congressman. The race is currently a dead heat.

Which just over two months to go before the election, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio look reasonably safe for Republicans. Wisconsin is probably lost. Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and the Democratic seat in Nevada are all too close to call. It should be noted that all three tossup states vote reliably Democrat in presidential elections. A sweep of all three states by the Democrats is not unreasonable to expect.

If Democrats can hold Nevada, they would need to sweep all three of the other tossup states plus one additional state to win control of the Senate. Victory in all three tossup states would mean an evenly split Senate. Ties would be broken by the new vice president.

At this point, there is no way to accurately predict the final outcome, which may be tied closely to the presidential race and upcoming debates. These races should be watched closely due to the high stakes of the election.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Why a hard line on immigration will lose the election

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3525/4569689892_01fd9dc66d_b.jpg

Amid the Republican battle on illegal immigration and deportation of illegal immigrants, the effect of immigration policy on the general election is lost. The general election will likely hinge on the outcome of a handful of swing states, most of which were won by Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. In order to win the White House, the Republican candidate must flip the states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado as well as win North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

The hardline stance of several Republican candidates in the primary is almost certain to make it difficult or impossible for them to win these swing states in the general election. Losing even one of these states would put Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the White House. To understand why immigration may kill the chance of electing a Republican president, let’s take a closer look at the State of Florida.

The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, recently published estimates of the racial and ethnic composition of swing state electorates. The group estimates that the largest minority voter group in Florida will be Hispanics with an estimated 20.2 percent of the electorate. Blacks are projected to increase to 15.5 percent of voters and Asians to 2.2 percent.

Pew Research puts the share of Hispanic voters for 2016 slightly lower at 18.1 percent. In either case, the Hispanic share of the electorate is steadily increasing. Exit polling also reported by Pew found that Hispanics made up 17 percent of Florida voters in 2012 and 14 percent in 2008 so a 2016 share of 18-20 percent is realistic.

While all minority groups are growing in the state, Hispanics make up the fastest growing group. In this year’s election, minority voters are likely to make up between 35 and 38 percent of the electorate. This would be a substantial increase over the 33 percent they represented in 2008.

Who do these groups vote for? Washington Post exit polls show information specifically for Florida for the past two election cycles. As is well established, Obama won virtual unanimity among black voters with 95 percent in 2012 and 96 percent in 2008.  

Among Hispanic voters, Obama won a less commanding majority. In 2008, Obama won the Hispanic vote by 57 percent to John McCain’s 42 percent. In 2012, the total was practically the same with Obama at 60 percent and Mitt Romney at 39 percent. In Florida, Romney lost by 74,309 votes out of 8.4 million votes cast. That is a margin of 0.8 percent.

Many observers believe that Romney lost the race with a comment in a primary debate in January 2012. In that debate, Romney stated that his plan for dealing with illegal immigrants was “self-deportation.” The election could have easily turned on the feeling of many Hispanics that Romney and the Republicans didn’t like them and didn’t want them in the country.

If Hispanics respond to an innocuous remark in a debate with a landslide for Democrats, the question that needs to be addressed is how they would respond to a policy of mass deportations and the elimination of birthright citizenship. Many conservatives believe that Hispanics and other legal immigrants will back conservative candidates with a hard line on illegal immigration because they resent the illegals who don’t wait their turn. Is this belief supportable by fact?

In August 2015, a Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Among Hispanics, support for what some Republicans call “amnesty,” runs even higher. Seventy-seven percent of Hispanics favor a pathway to citizenship for illegals.

thebluediamondgallery.com

On the issue of birthright citizenship, most Americans favor keeping the Constitution and birthright citizenship as is by a margin of 57-39 percent according to an August 2015 Pew poll. Among Hispanics, 73 percent oppose trying to end birthright citizenship.

The same poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States. Only 17 percent favor a national effort to deport all illegals. The survey did not give statistics on the question for Hispanics, but did note that 60 percent of Hispanics saw an increase in deportations as a bad thing and that 46 percent were concerned that a close friend or family member could be deported.

For most Americans, immigration reform is not an important issue. Last week, Gallup found that the economy was the most important issue for most voters at 17 percent. Ten percent of voters name immigration as the most important problem, placing it in a tie for third place with jobs and unemployment.

Hispanic voters agree that the economy and jobs are the most important issues according to a Univision poll from last July. Unlike most voters, Hispanics rank immigration as another “hot button” issue.

“A lot of individuals and a lot of people in the Hispanic community feel that the extreme right-wing, anti-immigration rhetoric tends to be code for anti-Hispanic rhetoric, and that’s why it has such traction,” said pollster Fernand Amandi. He added, “On the question of a pathway to citizenship, Hispanic voters that we asked say that the majority are more likely to support a candidate for president that advocates for a position that includes a pathway to citizenship, when it comes to a comprehensive immigration reform plan.”

Using the “Swing the Vote” tool from Five Thirty Eight, we can see that a shift of the Hispanic vote by three points nationally would move Florida to the Republican column. Specifically, in 2012, Obama won Florida by 74,309 votes. That means that flipping only 2.6 percent of Florida’s Hispanic vote would have flipped the state to Romney.

Winning 43 percent of Hispanics should not be an unattainable goal for Republicans. George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics nationally as recently as 2004. Chris Christie won the Hispanic vote outright in New Jersey, a solidly blue state, in 2013.

The immigration vote will be important in other swing states as well. Colorado has a Hispanic electorate that, at 15 percent in 2012, is almost as large as Florida’s. Virginia and Ohio have fewer Hispanics, but have large immigrant populations, many of whom are naturalized and can vote. These voters can be reasonably expected to oppose candidates with policies that they perceive as anti-immigration and unfriendly.

The American Immigration Council estimates that almost five percent of Ohio’s population are immigrants. About half of these Ohioans are naturalized and eligible to vote. About two percent of Ohioans were Hispanic. This is 60 percent of Obama’s margin of victory in 2012.

In Virginia, the AIC statistics show that immigrants make up 11 percent of the population. About nine percent of these are Hispanic. Again, half of these Virginians are US citizens who are eligible to vote. Again, this is more than half of Barack Obama’s margin of victory.

Almost all swing states have Hispanic and immigrant populations that could easily be decisive in the 2016 general election. By focusing on the divisive issue of immigration rather than topics that unite voters against the Democrats, Republican candidates may be making it impossible to win the election in November.

Read, comment and share on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily!