Margin of Σrror

Margin of Σrror -

Category Archives: Republicans

Can the Republicans expect a midterm election bump in 2014? | Harry J Enten

Who turns out to vote is believed to favor the GOP in midterms, but changes in the electorate may not make so much difference

Barack Obama won the 2008 presidency by 7.3pt. Two years later, his Democratic party lost 63 seats and control of the House of Representatives. Two years after that, Obama won re-election by 3.9pt. The incongruity of the middle result has led people to wonder why Democrats did better in the presidential years but did worse in the midterm election.

Did Democrats do so poorly in 2010 because of poor turnout among their core constituencies: minorities and young voters? After all, the percentage of eligible voters that turns out drops by about 20pt between midterm and presidential years. Are most of those minority and young voters? If so, Republicans would have fared far worse in 2010 with presidential year turnout and will do well in 2014.

If you look at the exit polls, the minority share of the electorate went down from 26% in 2008 to 23% in 2010. The 18- to 29-year-old percentage of the electorate fell from 18% to 12%, while the 65-year-old and older percentage of the electorate rose from 16% to 21%. But are these data correct, and what type of effect do they have?

I believe the minority share of the vote did not drop by 3pt. The Current Population Survey (CPS), which most would agree is far better at picking up changes in the electorate and matching pre-election surveys, shows a drop of only 1.2pt, from 23.7% in 2008 to 22.5% to 2010. Such a drop is not unusual and is consistent with the 1.2pt drop from 2004 to 2006, even as the Democrats romped in the 2006 midterms with an 8pt victory in the national House vote.

We can figure how much of a difference this change in the racial make-up of the electorate makes by multiplying the percentage of whites won by the Democrats by the percentage of the vote they made up of the electorate in 2008 and 2010, and doing the same for non-whites. Applying the racial turnout from the 2008 election to the 2010 election would have slimmed the Republican margin by less than 1pt from the 6.6pt victory they took in 2010. This would have been more than enough to take 50-plus seats and recapture the House.

Even if you apply the drop-off seen in the exit polls, the Republicans would have won by more than 4pt. Again, this would have been more than enough to take back control of the House.

What about the youth effect? The CPS showed a drop in the 18- to 29-year-old vote from 17.1% in 2008 to 11.3% in 2010. This 11.3% is virtually identical to the 11.2% that 18- to 29-year-olds made up in the Democratic romp of 2006. Meanwhile, the share of the 65-year-old plus vote climbed from 19.5% in 2008 to 23.9% in 2010. That may seem a lot, but keep in mind that the voting differences between age groups is far less than the differences in voting between racial groups. Non-whites voted 38pts more Republican than whites in 2010, while 18- to 29-year-olds voted only 17pt more Democratic than voters 65 years and older. So, it isn’t surprising that the total age impact of 2010 versus 2008 is about 2pt on the margin, despite the comparatively wide turnout differences between age groups.

Combining the impact of race and age, you’d be looking at a 3pt Republican gain between the 2008 and 2010 electorate. That still would have been enough for the Republicans to win more than 45 seats and win back the House. Keep in mind, though, the largest portion of the electorate that is “minority” are youth. Putting together the age and race effects, therefore, may make the presidential and midterm electorates seem more different than they are.

Perhaps the best way to check whether the electorate changes between midterms and presidential years is to look at data from Pew Research. Pew, a pre-eminent pollster that has led the way in developing sampling techniques that get full coverage of the American population, publishes registered and likely voter data just before each election. Unlike other pollsters whose likely voter electorate were a less accurate estimate of the 2012 result, Pew’s likely voter data were closer than its registered data. In fact, its likely voter data has been more accurate in every election except one since 2002. This suggests that they are picking up something very real.

We can compare the likely voter to registered voter gap in midterms and presidential elections in Pew polls to see if Republicans really do have a turnout advantage in midterm elections. The likely voter to registered voter gap in 2010 was 7pt. That is, Republicans led by 6pt in the likely voter result, while trailing by 1pt among registered voters. That may seem like a big gap, but bear in mind that the difference was 4pt in both 2008 and 2012. In the 2006 midterms, it was also only 4pt. In fact, the average difference between Pew’s likely voter and registered voter result in midterm elections over the past decade, as the Democratic-leaning millennials have joined the electorate, has been 4.3pt. The average difference in presidential years has been 4pt.

The Pew data suggest that Republicans are actually not gaining an advantage; or if there is one, it’s minimal. My own estimate is that it’s probably about 2pt when looking at all the data. That’s consistent with the idea that the current party affiliation differences between age groups has disadvantaged Democrats in midterm elections, while the differences in turnout by different racial groups likely don’t have much of an effect. This gap between midterm and presidential year electorates has developed recently, as Democrats used to be quite popular with the older voters of the “greatest generation”, though they are significantly less liked by the older voters of the “silent generation”.

Two points is certainly not nothing, yet it’s not a ton either. President Obama won by nearly 4pt in 2012. Republicans would definitely have won the House and comfortably so in 2010, even with a 2008 electorate. If Republicans win big in 2014, the difference in the electorate will only be a small part of it. But if they were to barely hold onto the House, then demographics may have made the difference.

Then again, other factors will have played a bigger difference, such as the usual “penalty” the president’s party suffers in midterm elections or a possible backlash against Obamacare.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

It Takes a Credible Candidate: Why Michigan is a More Likely Senate Flip than Iowa

Recently, I wrote a piece about the state of the 2014 races for the United States Senate. In my piece, I placed the states of Michigan and Iowa both under the category of “Open Seat Blue States.” While my categorization somewhat implies that these races are of equal competitiveness, this is not the case (or at least it no longer is the case). Due to developments over the past several weeks and months in these races, it has become clear that Michigan is somewhat more likely to flip to the Republican Party than is Iowa.

Initially, these races started out at roughly the same place; if anything, a case could have been made that Iowa was slightly more likely to flip to the GOP than was the Michigan seat. Both states featured a longtime Democratic senator who was retiring (Tom Harkin in Iowa and Carl Levin in Michigan). Both states also went for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012 (although George W. Bush won Iowa in 2004); in 2012 Mr. Obama won Iowa by a bit under 6 percent and Michigan by just over 9 percent. Furthermore, in both states, a Democratic member of Congress is running to replace the retiring senator, Gary Peters in Michigan and Bruce Braley in Iowa. Both of these Democratic members of Congress were first elected to their seats during the pro-Democratic waves of the 2000s; Braley in 2006 and Peters in 2008.

One slight difference between these two seats is the previous victory margins of the retiring incumbents. Generally, Senator Levin won reelection by a healthier victory margin than Senator Harkin. Indeed, the only time that Senator Harkin won reelection with more than 55 percent of the vote was in 2008. Overall, these results (as well as President Obama’s victory percentage in 2012) reflect the somewhat more favorable conditions for the Democratic Party in Michigan than in Iowa.

Contrary to expectations, however, it now appears that the Republican Party is in a better position to win the Michigan Senate race than they are to capture the seat in Iowa. In Iowa, potential candidate after potential candidate after potential candidate has said no to the GOP, including Representative Tom Latham (R-IA), Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey, and Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz. Even Tea Party Representative Steve King (R-IA) (who may well have ended up as an Akin-esque disaster for the party) declined to run.

The candidates left as possibilities for the Iowa GOP simply do not have the standing of the aforementioned individuals who took a pass on the race. Former US Attorney Matt Whitaker and Ex-Chief of Staff to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) David Young are running; State Senator Joni Ernst, ex-CEO Mark Jacobs, and College Professor Sam Clovis may also make the race.

While one of these candidates may end up proving to be a strong contender, the lack of a immediately credible candidate with prior experience in electoral politics in the Iowa race speaks volumes to its likelihood of this race ultimately being truly competitive. A February PPP Poll showed Braley leading even the strong potential candidates who declined to run; one can imagine his lead would be even greater against any of the weaker options mentioned above.

In contrast, Michigan Republicans have had at least some success at recruiting a credible candidate to run for the seat of retiring Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Last week, former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land announced she would run and Congressman Mike Rogers might still run. A Michigan PPP Poll from last week showed Peters with only a 5 percentage point lead over Land (Rogers trailed by 10). While Michigan Republicans could certainly ruin their chances of winning this seat by nominating Tea Party Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) were he to run, either Land or Rogers would be credible candidates for the seat (although Rep. Peters would still be favored over either of them).

Yet despite the fact that the Michigan seat appears to have become a more likely pick-up for the GOP, national political prognosticators continue to rate the Iowa seat as a better prospect for Republicans than Michigan. The Cook Political Report rates the Iowa seat as a Toss-Up while rating Michigan as Leaning Democratic. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza ranks Iowa as the 8th most likely Senate seat to flip parties, while ranking Michigan as tied for 10th. Finally, the Rothenberg Political Report says that the Iowa seat is Lean Democratic and the Michigan seat is Currently Safe Democratic. (The one exception is Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball which rates both seats as Lean Democratic.)

Overall, Democrats are currently favored to retain both the Iowa and Michigan Senate seats. It is also clear at this point, however, that the GOP has a better chance to win Michigan than Iowa. While the dynamics surrounding these races may change (such as if Tom Latham were to reconsider his decision and run in Iowa), I will depart from the conventional wisdom to declare that Iowa really should be thought of as “Likely Democratic,” while Michigan should be thought of as “Lean Democratic.” The Iowa GOP’s inability to recruit a credible candidate has placed the party in a weak position to pick up a seat in the Hawkeye State. Thus, Michigan-with a credible GOP candidate in Terri Lynn Land-leaps over Iowa to become the 8th most likely seat to flip from Democratic to Republican in the next election.

[The states more likely to flip from Democratic to Republican in order are (in my opinion) South Dakota, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, North Carolina, and Montana.]

(The title of this piece is a play on the title of Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox’s excellent book It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run For Office.)

Cory Booker is the big winner from Christie’s call on New Jersey elections | Harry J Enten

Chris Christie’s decision to hold separate polls for senator and governor may suit him but won’t please the Republican party

Chris Christie has made his decision: New Jersey will have a special Senate election on 16 October 2013. The selection comes as a surprise given that the smart money was on either November 2013 or November 2014 (given conflicting state statutes). No other election is scheduled for that date, and Christie’s move will cost taxpayers a cool $12m. Additionally, a primary has been scheduled in August. That’s another $12m.

The reason Christie chose these dates is simple enough. He was fearful of having the Senate election on 5 November 2013, when he will be running for re-election as governor. That date could have led to higher turnout – higher, that is, than the usual lower, off-year turnout, which tends to benefit Republican candidates. Christie was also likely fearful of being linked with the national Republican brand in a predominantly Democratic state.

But why not November 2014, in that case? The answer is that Christie didn’t want to push the election to November 2014 because that postponement would have led to a court battle with Democrats, who want the election in 2013. Such a date would have allowed a Republican incumbent, whom Christie will have appointed, to have time to build statewide name-recognition. Now, the seat-filler will not be able to raise his or her name-recognition by a prolonged period in office, so Democrats are unlikely to challenge Christie’s 2013 date.

Put another way, Christie is trying to have it both ways: he doesn’t want an open legal battle with Democrats over the date of the election; at the same time, he doesn’t want another Democrat on the ballot for his election. I’m not sure, though, that this is the wisest move on his part.

Christie said he “doesn’t care” about the cost of a special election. That is not exactly the type of wording fiscally-conscious national Republican primary voters want to hear. It’s also a line likely to be used by Democrats against Christie given that he had previously made a move to ensure that state elections were held on the same today precisely in order to save money.

National Republicans won’t approve the idea of an incumbent Republican senator not having time to build name-recognition either. Democrats, of course, aren’t happy that there won’t be a Senate race to help boost turnout in November, which would help their New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Barbara Buono. In addition, vulnerable Democratic state legislators may be hurt by depressed turnout because of the prior election a mere month before the state elections in November 2013.

It’s possible therefore that Christie is being too cute by half – storing up problems for himself with a national GOP that already has its doubts about the New Jersey governor’s conservative credentials.

Another question to be answered is whom Christie will now pick to fill the Senate seat before the October election. If he can persuade the relatively well-known former Republican Governor Tom Kean Sr, who had a +37pt net favorable in 2010, to run, then all might be forgiven by national Republicans. Kean would have a real chance of winning the seat and may actually benefit from a compressed election schedule. Aside from Kean Sr, it’s unlikely that other Republican candidates (who may include state Senator Tom Kean Jr, Lt Governor Kim Guadagno, or state Senator Joe Kyrillos) would stand much of a chance.

Any Republican nominee would likely have to face off against Newark’s popular Democratic mayor, Cory Booker. Booker is likely to be the real winner from Christie’s decision. He has the money and name-recognition to win both a primary and general election in a short campaign. There’s no real way that the state Democratic party can choose a different candidate.

Finally, Booker can now dismiss the possibility that a popular Christie on the same ballot might have helped a Republican Senate candidate’s odds. Barring a Kean Sr candidacy, Booker is almost certainly going to be the next senator from New Jersey. Even if Kean Sr was on the ballot, Booker would stand a solid chance in a blue state like New Jersey.

So, the election for New Jersey’s next United States senator is well under way. Chris Christie has eliminated worry about interference from a Senate race appearing on the ballot with him, yet he’s likely to face harsh questions about the cost of running two separate elections from Democrats. National Republicans, also, will be critical of his spending decision and may hold against him the fact that he has deprived a GOP Senate incumbent of a November 2014 election.

Christie is still a heavy favorite for re-election as governor, but expect his enemies to try to use this decision over when to hold the gubernatorial election against him. Cory Booker, meanwhile, gets his primary and is standing pretty.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Politically, the south and New England really are two different Americas | Harry J Enten

Rhode Island’s governor has switched parties yet again, signaling historic polarisation and state control over politics

We all know that are national politics are becoming more polarized: Democrats and Republicans are self-sorting into various regions and demographics, like north and south or urban and rural. There are few conservative Democrats and even fewer liberal Republicans. And yet few pay attention to state level politics, even though that’s where much of US policy is made that Americans care about most.

That sales tax you’re always complaining about? A local or state issue. That public school funding? Again, a local or state issue. Most of the gun control action after the Newtown tragedy has occurred only on the state level. At least 10 states where President Obama lost in November have actually relaxed their gun regulations. Meanwhile, at least five states he won will have made it more difficult to get a gun.

That’s why it’s such a big deal that Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee changed his political party, from unaffiliated to Democrat. He won the governor’s mansion in 2010 after leaving the Republicans to be “unregistered”. Over a decade ago, Chafee was appointed and then re-elected as a Republican to the US Senate in 1999 and 2000, after his father had been a Republican governor and senator for the better part of 40 years. His great-great grandfather and uncle were elected to office as Republicans. In other words, Chafee has a lot of blue Republican blood.

Chafee’s changing party affiliations tells a larger story about how polarized our country has become. It wasn’t too long ago that Republican governors roamed New England, even though Al Gore carried the whole region in a presidential election (except for New Hampshire) in 2000, and Democrats moved into governors’ mansions in the former Confederate states that George Bush won all of. Only recently, Republican governors included John Rowland and later Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Lincoln Almond and Donald Carcieri in Rhode Island, and Jim Douglas in Vermont. Democrats had governors like Don Siegleman in Alabama, Roy Barnes in Georgia, Ronnie Musgrove in Mississippi, and Jim Hodges in South Carolina.

Those days are gone; all these states now have politicians of the other party for governor, which matches how their state voted in the prior presidential election.

There is one Republican governor left in New England: Paul LePage of Maine, and one Democratic governor in the old south: Mike Beebe of Arkansas. LePage only won 38% of the vote in 2010 and would have lost had his competitors not split the vote. Polling shows he’s incredibly vulnerable in 2014. Beebe is required by term limits to step down in 2014, and Republicans are favored to win his seat.

If Republicans win Arkansas in 2014 and Le Page gets knocked off in Maine, it could be the final dent in the old coalitions of a Democratic south and Republican New England. Assuming no other changes in these regions’ governor affiliations, it would be the first time no Republican governor held office in New England and no Democratic governor did so in a confederate state since the end of Reconstruction. In other words, we’re basically back to civil war-era politics.

The inability for Democrats and Republicans to get elected to state-wide office in the south and New England, respectively, could have a significant impact on how these state governments operate. As I’ve mentioned before, and as has been well encapsulated by Abby Rapoport, state government has never been so polarized. The places where polarization is lowest are in the south and New England, in states like West Virginia – quite conservative and yet Democratic on the state level – and states like Rhode Island – liberal yet still with shades of Republicanism on the state level. It’s increasingly clear that party affiliation is trumping ideology in these states, as it’s been doing on the national level.

The policy ramifications of such a switch cannot be understated. Search Google for “Mike Beebe” and “veto”, and the first links that appear are vetoes of abortion bans and voter identification laws that Republican state legislatures tried to pass. Do a search for “Paul LePage” and “veto”, and you come up with vetoes for Medicaid expansions and cigarette bans. These governors are providing a check on legislatures that have already completed a full party conversion.

Once all the governors have switched and voters finish self-sorting, we could end with states that are very conservative and states that are very liberal. There will be little need for Democrats to play to the middle in formerly conservative New England states, and the same will be true for Republicans in the formerly liberal southern states. Whether that’s good or bad I don’t know, but it’s going to make us wonder whether we can call our states politically united anymore.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The reality is Americans aren’t that concerned about drones | Harry J Enten

Few Americans pay attention to the drone program, and the few who have largely support targeted killings abroad

President Obama is expected to discuss the use of drone strikes today in a speech on national security. For those who read this website, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to take out suspected terrorists is a hot topic, but what exactly do Americans think of the practice? Frankly, most don’t seem to care. Those that do have an opinion approve, in principle.

Following Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster aimed at shining light on the drone program, interest in the media peaked. Yet most Americans yawned – only 14% in a Gallup poll said they were following the news very closely, and 35% said they were following the news somewhat closely. Combined, the percentage of Americans following news stories about drones “closely” was below 50% (and equal to the percentage who were not following the news closely). The percentage following closely was over 10pts lower than the average percentage who follow a “big news story” closely.

You might expect that the percentage of Americans following the drone news would largely oppose the use of drones, but you’d be wrong. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans, who are most likely to support drone strikes, were following drone news at least somewhat closely, compare with only 45% of Democrats following the story. That’s in line with other data that suggests Republicans generally follow news more closely when it could possibly trouble the Obama administration. Either way, most Americans against drone strikes don’t seem to care much about it.

Indeed, most Americans at least partially favor drone strikes. Although differences in the wording of questions reveals different results, the median result falls along the lines of an April CBS News report, which found that 70% favored “the US using unmanned aircraft or ‘drones’ to carry out bombing attacks against suspected terrorists in foreign countries”.

Even the least favorable response, a Pew poll in February, found majority support for the the use of drones: 56% favoured, while only 26% opposed “conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft called drones to target extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia”.

Support for the drone program varies across demographic and political groups about like you’d expect. Across pretty much all polling, Republicans, by about 10pts, are more likely to support drone use in general than Democrats, though majorities of both parties support it. Men are more likely to favor it than women, by anywhere from 7pts to 20pts. Again, however, more women favor the drone program in general than oppose it.

Why are Democrats and women more likely to oppose drone usage? It’s not because of the program’s murky legality. Among both groups, only 35% or less are “very concerned” about legality. With regard to the drones, Americans’ number one worry is that the program endangers civilian lives. It’s the only concern that garners a majority among the American people and among either Democrats or women.

Of course, striking non-American citizens on foreign soil is only part of the picture. The polling is less conclusive when the pollster specifically mentions killing Americans citizens via drone attack. The aforementioned Gallup poll found that a tiny majority, 51%, were opposed to using drones to kill US citizens overseas, per the following question: “Do you think the US government should or should not use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against US citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?”

A Fox News poll found a majority, 60%, approved of this question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the United States using unmanned aircraft called drones to kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country if the suspect is a US citizen?”

What accounts for the difference? The Gallup poll was taken after Rand Paul’s filibuster, so that could be part of it. However, CBS News showed no changed before or after Paul’s polemic, and used consistent question wording. It’s more likely that more proactive words, like “airstrikes” and “launch”, might have raised the hackles of respondents and made a few more people oppose the program. As usual, truth probably lies between the surveys. A February CBS News poll discovered that 49%, a plurality, but not a majority, favored “the US targeting and killing American citizens in foreign countries who are suspected of carrying out terrorist activities against the US”.

The one thing all the polling agrees is that Americans are opposed to using drones to kill Americans in the United States. According to both Fox and Gallup, the majority is against this practice. Wording, again, makes a difference on the exact percentages, but Americans are strongly against this fantastical scenario.

The fact remains, however, that on drones writ large, most Americans just don’t seem to care, and aren’t paying attention to the news. Those who are paying attention mostly favor the program, which fits with the overall public support of using drones to kill non-US citizens overseas. The polling is more split on killing citizens in other counties, but it seems that more American support than oppose the policy.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A Republican Senate Majority in 2014: So Close, But Yet so Far

In a recent article for the Rothenberg Political Report on the 2014 Senate elections, Nathan L. Gonzales argues that ”the road to the Republican Senate majority is easier than you think.” Gonzales correctly points out that Republicans do not have to win a seat in a single state won by President Obama in order to win a Senate majority and posits that Republicans “have considerable room for error” in winning a Senate majority.

In this post, I provide a different interpretation of what the national GOP lean of several of these states means for the Republican Party’s chances of winning a Senate majority in 2014. Despite the fact that seven Democratic-held Senate races will take place in states won by Mitt Romney, winning a Senate majority will be an uphill battle for the GOP and the party of Lincoln has little room for error in constructing this majority.

The difficulty Republicans face at winning a Senate majority can best be illustrated in a race-by-race examination of the seats Democrats must defend in 2014. When examining potential Republican gains in the Senate, I divide possible pick ups into five categories: “Likely GOP Flips” (SD, WV), “Incumbents in Serious Trouble” (AR, LA, AK), “Democrats’ Red State Firewall” (NC, MT), “Open Seat Blue States” (MI, IA), “Potentially Competitive Blue States” (NH, MN, CO). (Although the New Jersey seat is open, that state appears unlikely to flip to the Republican Party. For the purposes of this piece, I also assume that Democrats do not gain a single seat currently held by Republicans.)

Likely GOP Flips: The retirements of Democratic Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) place these seats in serious peril for the Democratic Party. As Democrats have not yet recruited a strong candidate for either of these red state races (indeed former Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin announced last week that she won’t run for the seat). have strong candidates running in both states in former Governor Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Representative Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV).

Republicans could, as in the past, blow these fairly easy pick up opportunities by nominating too conservative candidates in primaries. For example, in the West Virginia race Shelly Moore Capito, who is pro-choice on abortion rights and holds a fairly moderate DW-Nominate score of 0.256, could be vulnerable should a credible challenge from a Tea Party candidate emerge. However, Democrats would still need a credible candidate in order to take advantage of such a situation (such as West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant).

The South Dakota race could get more interesting if either Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) or Democratic US Attorney (and son of the Senator) Brendan Johnson decides to jump in the race.

For the time being, however, let us assume that Republicans win both of these seats.

Incumbents in Serious Trouble: Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska all voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008 by double digits. These states are all home to vulnerable Democratic incumbents; in my opinion, the vulnerability of these seats is in the order they are listed above. (Also, interestingly, the fathers of all three of these Senators— David Pryor , Moon Landrieu , and Nick Begich —were accomplished politicians in their own right.)

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) faces a double threat: a state that is moving away from his party and a potential opponent with an impressive resume in Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR). While the strong brand name surrounding the Pryor name may allow the Senator to win reelection—particularly if a strong candidate such as Tom Cotton declines to run—Pryor faces an uphill battle to win reelection.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) also hails from a conservative southern state and has a strong opponent in Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). In three elections to the Senate, Landrieu has never won with more than 52 percent of the vote. I consider Landrieu to be slightly more likely to win reelection than Pryor due to the fact that Louisiana has a larger African-American population than Arkansas and has a larger core of strong Democrats than the Natural State.

New Orleans (whose mayor is Sen. Landrieu’s brother Mitch Landrieu) is also a Democratic stronghold; no comparable Democratic stronghold exists in Arkansas. Finally, of note is the fact that the November election in Louisiana is actually a jungle primary; if no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote then the top two candidates (of any party) advance to a December election. As a result, if multiple Republicans decide to run, it is possible that this race may not be decided until December 2014.

Finally the likely opponent of Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) is Republican Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R-AK) who also boasts impressive credentials. I rate this state as least likely to flip of these three mostly due to the possibility of a Tea Party challenge that could derail Treadwell’s candidacy, such as from 2010 Senate candidate Joe Miller. It is also important to note that Alaska has the third highest percentage of union members of any state and the state does not have a right-to-work law. While Alaska itself is quite rural, about two-fifths of its 731,000 people live in the city of Anchorage (population 291,000). (Mark Begich was mayor of Anchorage before being elected to the Senate in 2008). While Senator Begich is certainly in danger of losing reelection, he has a fighting chance to retain this seat.

For the time being, however, let us also assume that Republicans gain these three seats as well. This would put the Senate at 50-50.

Democrats’ Red State Firewall: Although both Montana and North Carolina went for Mitt Romney in 2012, winning either of these states presents a considerable challenge for the GOP.

While Mitt Romney won Montana by 14 points in 2012, Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) also won reelection to a second term. Democrats commonly win state-level  elections in Montana; for example Democrat Steve Bullock was elected Governor of Montana in 2012 and Democrat Denise Juneau was reelected as the Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2012. In other words, the vote for Republican presidential candidates in Montana exaggerates the Republican lean of the state in other races.

To fill the Senate being vacated by Senator Max Baucus, Democrats also have a strong potential candidate in former Governor Brian Schweitzer. Even if Schweitzer does not run, the aforementioned Denise Juneau would be a credible candidate. In contrast, the Republican bench in Montana is surprisingly weak: speculation has surrounded former Rep. (and two-time Senate loser) Denny Rehberg (R-MT), former Governor and lobbyist Marc Racicot (R-MT), and  Rep. Steve Daines (R-MT) (who wants to avoid becoming the next Rick Berg).

For Republicans, winning the Montana Senate seat is easier said than done and requires several lucky breaks for the party. (Such as having Schweitzer pass on the race and convincing Racicot to run.)

The same is true of North Carolina. Ancestrally Democratic at the state level, President Obama won the Tar Heel State in 2008 and only lost by 2 percent in 2012.  While NC Republicans are at a high point in control of state government since Reconstruction, there is no guarantee a strong GOP challenger to Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) will emerge.

Speculation on who will run has centered on House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC),  Senate President Phil Berger (R-NC), and  Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC). While legislative leaders Tillis and Berger seem like strong candidates on paper, the North Carolina legislature suffers from low favorability ratings and has become a punch line for late-night comedians due to some of the proposals put forward by conservative legislators. While another candidate like Rep. Renee Ellmers would not have this state-level baggage, defeating a decently popular incumbent like Senator Hagan is always difficult.

Overall, Senator Hagan has done well in fundraising and has a considerable base of support in the Research Triangle and other North Carolina cities; the GOP lean of North Carolina is slight enough that the senator has to be considered at least a narrow favorite for reelection at this point.

Open Seat Blue States: While the retirements of longtime Democratic Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Carl Levin (D-MI), these two Senate seats initially looked potentially competitive. However, Republicans haven’t recruited a strong candidate in either state yet; in Iowa a number of high profile candidates have said no to the race. Michigan Republicans hope to recruit Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI); if Rogers does not make the race MI Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land  is likely to run.

Regardless of who runs on the Republican side, Democrats have strong candidates in both states: Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) and  Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI). The Democratic lean of both states, along with the lack of a strong Republican candidate in either state makes both of these races long shots (at least for the time being) for the GOP.

Potentially Competitive Blue States: The states of Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Colorado went for President Obama by mid-single digits in 2012 and all feature first term Democratic Senators seeking reelection. Polls from Public Policy Polling show all of these Democrats (Sens. Franken, Shaheen, and Udall) have decently strong favorability ratings and a strong Republican challenger has not yet emerged in any of these states. It will be an uphill battle for Republicans to win any of these states.

Overall, it will be difficult for Republicans to pick up Senate seats in states won by President Obama in 2012. Furthermore, the states of Montana and North Carolina will be more difficult for Republicans to win than initially appears to be the case when looking at the vote of these two states for president in 2012.

Therefore, even if Republicans sweep the other five races in states won by Mitt Romney—South Dakota, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska—(which isn’t a guarantee) then the GOP will only achieve a tie in the Senate (which would be broken by Vice President Joe Biden). This also assumes that Democrats do not pick up any seats from the GOP (Georgia and Kentucky are outside opportunities for the party).

So while the Republican Party certainly might win control of the Senate in the November 2014 elections, winning such a majority will not be easy. Come Election Day 2014, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) might feel a lot like Sisyphus as the party once again falls just short at winning the Senate majority despite conventional wisdom in the months before the election.

 

Same-sex marriage could take decades to be legal in every state | Harry J Enten

Unless the federal government or supreme court act, southern states will most likely oppose gay marriage for the foreseeable future

The gay marriage movement is racing forward faster than ever, and with a new burst of life. This week, Minnesota became the third state to pass same-sex marriage this year, and the twelfth state overall, but most surprisingly, this was a state that, according to polls, was willing to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage a year ago.

Minnesota won’t be the last state to make do a quick turnaround. National polling indicates that the majority support for same-sex marriage is picking up by 2pt per year. Among states, gay marriage is popular in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and many others.

Indeed, demographic models indicate that if put up for a vote, same-sex marriage would become legal in all but six states by 2020! Even Mississippi is projected to be up to near 40% support on the issue, gaining a little over 1.5pt per year. So the whole thing should be over soon, right? Not likely.

Unless the federal government or supreme court acts, it could take years and years for many southern states to legalize same-sex marriage.

As Nate Cohn notes, there’s reason to believe that the demographic models are off in the south. The south has a far higher percentage of white evangelicals than any other part of the country, and these voters have been very slow to change their views. The great majority of young, white evangelicals still oppose gay marriage, unlike other young voters.

State polls show a number of southern states running behind where the demographic models indicate where they should be.

Indeed, some states have shown very virtually no change since they approved constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. At the rate Arkansas is moving, it will take more than 20 or even 30 years for the majority of voters to be in favor of same-sex marriage. In Kentucky, only 30% of voters 18-29-years-old are in favor of gay marriage.

The problem, however, is not just that it will take a while for a majority of voters to support same-sex marriage. All the southern states except for West Virginia have a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage, which requires an amendment to repeal the previous one. The process for doing so in many southern states requires a majority in the state legislature, which is to say that voters can’t just petition to get something on the ballot.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia can only get an amendment on the ballot with approval from the state legislature. West Virginia doesn’t allow referendums or initiatives to be voted upon, so it has to start in the legislature there, as well. Only Arkansas and Mississippi let voters directly pass a constitutional amendment.

The states that require legislature approval have very stringent rules, too: either a constitutional convention can be called, which is almost impossible, or the legislature can pass the amendment before sending it to the voters.

Alabama, Kentucky and North Carolina require +60% of each chamber of the state legislature to approve an amendment, just to get it on the ballot. A simple majority of voters must then approve. Right now, Republicans control over 60% of the seats in at least one chamber of all these state legislatures.

Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas require two-thirds of each chamber to approve an amendment for the ballot. Then, the amendments need a majority vote from the people. Republicans control over 55% of each house of these states.

Tennessee and Virginia require a majority of each chamber of the legislature in one session, then it must be voted upon again by the next legislature, which means an entire election must go by. In Tennessee, two-thirds of each house must then approve for it to be placed for a majority vote of the people; Virginia only needs a majority. Tennessee Republicans control 70% of each state chamber. Virginia Republicans hold two-thirds of the seats in Virginia.

The bottom line is that with the exception of Arkansas, Mississippi and Virginia, any southern state with a ban in place would need at least 60% each of their state houses to reverse the ban. Republicans have at least partial control of all the legislatures near the border and in the deep south. Many of these states were won over recently, as the last remnants of the Yellow Dog Democrats bit the dust. Change seems rather unlikely, except perhaps for peripheral states, like North Carolina and Virginia. The only one that isn’t Republican controlled, West Virginia, is so conservative that Joe Manchin, one of only two Democratic US senators who doesn’t personally support gay marriage, calls it home.

Republican control is a big deal because though the rest of the country has moved, Republicans, especially southern Republicans, have not. Only 26% of Republicans support gay marriage. The percentage of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage rose by 15pt over the past decade; the percentage of Republicans favoring gay marriage only rose by 3pt over the same period. That’s a growth rate of only 0.3pt a year.

Specific state polling is no more comforting to those looking forward to change. Support for same-sex marriage in these states is as follows: 10% of Georgia Republicans, 11% of Louisiana Republicans, 12% of Kentucky Republicans, 12% of North Carolina Republicans, 9% of South Carolina Republicans, 14% of Texas Republicans, and a quarter of Virginia Republicans.

With the exception of Virginia, it’s pretty clear that southern Republican support for gay marriage is lower than among Republicans nationally. As such, it’s difficult to see how support among southern Republicans will hit 50% anytime before 2040. It’s hard to imagine more than the stray Republican voting for same-sex marriage. Polarization is at all-time high, and politicians are more afraid about losing primaries than general elections. Republicans have no need to vote for same-sex marriage.

Thus, unless the federal government jumps in, most, if not all southern states won’t legalize same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Most of their citizens don’t want it, and by the time they do, most Republicans still won’t. Considering you’ll need a majority or supermajority of state legislators to get the bans reversed, and that Republicans have a strong hold over these chambers, same-sex marriage in the south doesn’t have much of a chance anytime soon.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Has the Millennial generation ‘overwhelmed’ the electorate? | Harry J Enten

Though they’ve drawn comparisons with the Greatest Generation for their liberal leanings, young people haven’t taken over yet

The Millennials are the most Democratic cohort in a generation. Some believe attribute their liberal inclinations to the racially diverse demographics within their generation, and while that may be partially true, I prescribe the Millennials’ (born after 1980 through the mid-90s) Democratic leanings to the fact they grew up during a strong Clinton administration and a weak Bush one. The Millennials today have mostly replaced the very white, very Democratic voters of the Greatest Generation (who were born 1910-1927) who came of age during the weak years under Hoover and a Roosevelt administration so strong it won FDR a third term.

In both the 2004 and 2012 election, almost all age cohorts voted the same relative to other cohorts, and the Millennials were as Democratic relative to the nation in 2004 and 2012. The Greatest Generation was too small a percentage of the electorate in 2012 to collect poll data, but they voted as Democratic as the Millennnials did in 2004.

Proving the cohort point further, the then +60-year-old Greatest Generation has been the most Democratic cohort all the way back in 1988, when age cohorts didn’t differ all that much in how they voted – despite even some members of the Lost Generation still voting. The Greatest Generation crowd was the most Democratic in the 1992 election, as well.

Even the most ardent critics of the cohort theory will admit that a person’s views of the presidential administration he or she grew up with will shape their political views going forward. The real question is whether or not the Millennials have a a large enough portion of the electorate to “overwhelm” the rest: would Bush have still won in 2004 with 2012 demographics, and would Obama have still won with 2004 demographics? With the release of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) voter supplement, we can find out.

The CPS is a geographically defined sample that seeks to fully represents each type of voter. Respondents are asked simple questions such as race, registration, and whether or not they voted. It is generally seen as a more comprehensive survey than network exit polls to determine the exact composition of the electorate.

There are, however, reasons to be cautious about making too much of the CPS report. The CPS doesn’t have a perfect response rate, and as my friend Sean Trende points out, there are more people who claimed to the CPS to have voted than actually did. The CPS tabulators assume that those who didn’t respond didn’t vote, which is likely not true, but there’s no perfect way to account for the discrepancies. Preliminary examination of board of election data from different states shows that fewer African Americans, for instance, voted than the numbers that the CPS finds.

Either way, the CPS is a very solid starting point, and we can still take a preliminary step in answering whether or not Obama would have won without the Millennials. We can determine this by multiplying the percent of what Obama won among Millennials by the percentage they made up of the electorate. In other words, the percentage of vote the Millennials contributed to Obama’s margin of victory. Then we compare this with the percentage of the vote the Greatest Generation contributed in prior years, and we’ll have a solid answer.

The Millennials now make up 18% of the electorate, per the CPS. That’s less than the exit poll data reports, but exits have been known to count too many young voters. Meanwhile, the CPS data is backed quite well by Pew Research, which most would agree is one of the finest pollsters out there, if not the best.

Those born between 1910 and 1927 were just 2% of the 2012 electorate. In 1996, the election before the Millennials began voting, the Greatest made up 15% of everyone who cast a ballot. By the time 2004 rolled around, Millennials were 8% of the electorate, while the Greatest was down to 7%. Thus, as a percentage of the total electorate, there was a 5pt gain in the Democratic coalition of the Greatest Generation and Millennials from 1996 to 2012, and from 2004 to 2012.

Given Obama’s +20pt win among Millennials, what percentage of the vote is that 5pt difference worth? With the 2004 electorate, Obama would have won by 2.6pt instead of 3.85pt last year. Meanwhile, if the 2004 electorate had looked like the 2012 one, George W Bush would have won by 1.2pt instead of 2.45pt. So yes, the Democratic candidate would have done slightly better with the demographic boost, but neither election would have turned out any differently.

Further comparisons to 1996 and 2004 undersell the Greatest Generation’s impact. The Greatest were 17% of the electorate in 1992, 21% in 1988, 24% in 1984, and 27% in 1980, but have dropped steeply as more of their members pass away. The Millennials, meanwhile, are still far away from 24%, let alone 27%. If other age cohorts had voted the same relative to the national vote, Obama might have actually won by more in prior years.

To me, the evidence does not suggest the Millennials have “overwhelmed” the Greatest. They are, if anything, a new “Greatest Generation” both in terms of voting patterns and, to a lesser extent, size – though we can still expect the Millennials to grow somewhat as a percentage of the electorate, since people are more likely to vote as they get older. The question going forward is whether Generation Z (born in the mid-90s and later) will follow the voting patterns of the Millennials.

His small re-election margin and his projected historic ratings mean that the Obama administration has largely been seen as mediocre, which in turn suggests that the next age cohort will walk the middle of the road. The polling data agrees that Generation Z will be less Democratic, than the Millenials, but if one believes the racial diversity theory, then the next generation should actually be more liberal, as it will have fewer white voters.

We don’t know whether the age cohort or racial diversity theory will end up being more correct in the long run. If it’s the diversity one, Republicans are in a lot of trouble. If it’s the age cohort theory, then it will be politics as usual. I’d bet on age.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Why Chris Christie’s weight loss could actually work against him | Harry Enten

Polls have shown surprisingly that when it comes to male candidates, voters look more favorably on overweight aspirants

Sometimes, Washington DC seems like Hollywood for nerds. No clearer was that the case than the media’s reaction to the news that New Jersey governor Chris Christie submitted himself to lapband weight-loss surgery. Never mind that Christie said he was simply losing weight to be healthy for the sake of his family. The first question the press, as they would in Hollywood, asked is how being slimmer would impact Christie’s future career. So do Christie’s chance of becoming president improve because he is carrying fewer pounds?

Some of us may be too young to remember that the press wondered if Christie was “too fat” to be governor from New Jersey. In fact, it was the subject of a Newsweek article and Democrat Jon Corzine’s attacks in 2009. Back then, 78% of voters said that Christie’s weight made no difference in their vote. You might think that the voters were lying until you realize that Christie became arguably the most conservative Republican governor from New Jersey in modern history. He did so while winning a larger percentage of the vote than any Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey in 24 years.

Recent polling backs up the older polling. A Quinnipiac poll taken in March 2013 of New Jersey voters found that only 21% of voters had any reservations about a generic candidate’s weight. A September 2012 Quinnpiac poll showed that 84% of New Jersey voters said it wouldn’t make a difference in their vote if a generic candidate was overweight. In New York, the percentage rose to 88%, so it’s not just a home state bias. Even after an asthma attack in 2011, only 18% of New Jersey voters said they were worried about Christie’s weight. Keep in mind that all of this New Jersey polling took place when Christie had a far lower approval rating than he sports now.

There are also signs that attacks on Christie’s weight backfire. I’m not just talking about the fact that Jon Corzine lost in 2009. I’m talking about an October 2011 Quinnipiac poll that showed that 71% of New Jersey voters said that jokes about Christie’s weight were in bad taste. This polling was consistent across political parties. Moreover, 79% of women, who Republicans have a problem with, thought that the jokes were in bad taste. Most were voters willing to go farther than just “bad taste”: 72% agreed with Christie that political commentators who brought up his weight were “ignorant”.

Some might say that the weight issue would be different in other states. I don’t buy it. New Jersey and New York are two of the slimmest states in the nation with obesity rates of less than 25%. If weight were an issue, we’d expect to be in these states. I would think it would be far less of an issue in the battleground states of the midwest given that 25% to, in some cases, over 30% of the population is overweight in these states. In a Republican primary, Christie’s weight shouldn’t deter him from winning southern states given that the majority have obesity rates over 30%.

Indeed, some of the livelier southern politicians of our day were at least at some point overweight while in office. Anyone remember Bill Clinton’s weight problem? His McDonald’s excursions didn’t stop him from becoming president. Haley Barbour was a well-liked two-term Republican governor of Mississippi. Mike Huckabee did slim down for health reasons before his presidential run, yet was popular as an overweight governor. Newt Gingrich’s health would likely benefit from losing a few pounds, but I think most would agree he didn’t lose in 2012 because of weight.

Examples and polling aside, you might think that these politicians’ weight did hurt them. That is, they would have been even more popular if they were slimmer. Given the polling, you’d have to believe the voters were unwilling to admit that weight kept them from pulling the lever for these overweight candidates.

The good news is that we actually have scientific research that seeks to control for this potential social desirability bias. A 2010 University of Missouri-Kansas City study looked at how people reacted to pictures of a potential candidate of normal weight. This control group was compared to other respondents who were shown pictures of the same candidate, except the candidate’s picture was morphed to be obese. Everything else about the candidate including political affiliation, views, and background remained the same.

And did the candidate’s weight make a difference? If the candidate was female, extra weight was a small negative. That concurs with a survey this year by Lake Research that found the mere mention of a woman candidate’s physical appearance hurt them. This was especially the case when the appearance coverage was unflattering.

For men, however, the 2010 University of Missouri study found that being obese was not a negative. It was actually a large positive! Respondents were over 20 points more likely to have a warmer feeling towards the same male candidate if he were obese than if were skinny. The obese candidate was 10% better liked than if he were skinny. The obese candidate was also thought to be more intelligent than the skinny one.

These positives for males make sense if you think about it. Society trains us to think this way. To bring it back to Hollywood, look at the Nutty Professor with Eddie Murphy. Murphy’s character Professor Klump was obese. He was, however, smart as a whip and very likable. Klump’s skinny equivalent Buddy Love was not nearly as smart and was a jerk. At the end of both Nutty Professor 1 and 2, the audience is rooting for Klump to beat his arch nemesis, and he does. Meanwhile, Klump doesn’t get together with an overweight woman. Instead, he ends up with characters played by the very attractive Jada Pinkett Smith in the first movie and Janet Jackson in the second one. These characters happen to be very kind and intelligent too.

When you take all the evidence into account, Chris Christie doesn’t need to lose weight to become president. Voters say they don’t care about weight, and their actions back them up. The research says that Christie’s electoral prospects might be better off keeping on the pounds. For now, can’t we just be happy that Christie wants to be a healthier individual?

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Yes, Mark Sanford really has a chance to beat Elizabeth Colbert Busch | Harry J Enten

South Carolina’s special election may turn into a referendum on President Obama, which is bad news for Colbert Busch

Republican Mark Sanford has closed the gap with Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in the South Carolina first district special election to take place on Tuesday. The latest poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) has Sanford jumping into to a 1 pt lead 47% to 46% after being down in the same survey 9 pts just two weeks ago. A poll from Red Racing Horses (RRH) has Colbert Busch and Sanford tied at 46%.

A Sanford win in the final two weeks after being down 9 pts would be unusual. As I noted last week, only a little less than 15% of special election polls taken in the final two weeks of a campaign over the past decade have had a 9 pts or greater error margin. Even in the quick changing special Massachusetts senate election of 2010, Scott Brown gained only 4 pts in the final 10 days.

It’s not as if voters all of a sudden like Sanford, the former South Carolina Governor who is most well known nationally for cheating on his wife. Sanford’s less liked than Colbert Busch with a 43% favorable rating compared to 50%, respectively, per PPP. They just dislike President Obama. By a 4 pt margin, though, voters have a higher opinion of Sanford than President Obama. That reflects a district that voted for Republican Mitt Romney by 18 pts.

Therefore it shouldn’t be surprising that Sanford’s comeback is entirely built upon newfound Republican support likely gained by nationalizing the race. Some Republican voters are deciding that they would vote instead of staying home in disgust of Sanford’s affair and divorce. The electorate PPP now projects voted for Mitt Romney over President Obama by 13 pts versus a projected electorate of just a 5 pt edge for Romney in their last poll. Sanford has also expanded his lead among Romney voters from 49 pts two weeks ago to 61 pts now.

The good news for Colbert Busch is that most of Sanford’s comeback occurred about a week ago. You’ll note that RRH conducted their poll in the beginning to middle part of last week, while PPP’s was done over the weekend. Despite the differences in timing, the results are almost identical. That tends to indicate that Sanford has likely leveled off. The result is a race that is at this point simply too close to call with neither candidate having too much momentum.

So just how long will we have to wait for results on Tuesday Night? We should know by 9:30pm, if the primary for this election is any guide. The polls close at 7pm EST. During the primary this year, it took about 45 minutes (7:45pm EST) after the polls closed for results to start being reported. By 8pm, about 5% of precincts had posted their results. By 8:35pm, 50% of precincts were in. By 9:20pm, we had results for all but 1% of precincts.

Where are each of the candidates supposed to do best? The district is made up of five counties: Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleston and Dorchester. In the 2012 house election for this seat, Republican Tim Scott got between 60% and 65% in all the counties except for Colleston. Colleston, however, makes up less than 1% of the district’s population.

The RRH poll forecasts that we should see greater differences between the counties in this election. In their poll, which had a tie, Colbert-Busch led by 4 pts in Charleston and 13 pts in Beaufort. Sanford grabbed a lead of 13 pts in Dorchester and 20 pts in Berkeley.

Usually this county breakdown would be bad news for Colbert Busch given the populations each of these counties make up in the district. The issue for Sanford is that some voters the more culturally conservative areas in Dorchester and Berkeley seem to still be staying home. That’s why we’re expecting to see an electorate that voted for Romney by 13 pts, not 18 pts. If these counties vote their population weight, Sanford likely wins by 3 to 4 pts.

Thus, the key for Republican Mark Sanford winning is either high turnout or over-performing the expected county breakdown. Whether or not this occurs is what will determine either Sanford or Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch wins tomorrow.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds