10/30/24
PART I: THE
PRESIDENTIAL SLUGFEST
Yours truly felt more confident about the ruminations in
my 10/11/24
post, IT’S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE TRUMP 47 than I do as I pen this
final pre-election screed. While it
still looks like Trump 47, this year, the conventional wisdom is correct in at
least one aspect: This race is very
close, perhaps rivaling Kennedy/Nixon and Bush/Gore. But maybe not…
I have spent way too much time poring over such poll
summary sites as RealClear Politics, 538, and 270 To Win. The
most salient conclusion I can draw is that the time so expended would have been
better spent with Car & Driver or Motor Trend, but the most
relevant conclusion for this piece is that former President Donald Trump
is probably going to wind up being our 47th president, despite his
seemingly valiant efforts to punt, simply because Vice-President Kamala
Harris’s efforts to lose have been even more stout-hearted, the tendency to
bollix up the proverbial two car funeral comes more naturally to her, or
both. But I digress. In any case, yours truly feels neither
confident in nor all that reassured about my tepid prediction of a Trump
victory, or, more properly, a Harris loss.
While I am delighted that Ms. Harris will lose, I’m not all that happy
that Mr. Trump will win, and I fervently hope that neither wins by a landslide
and thus feels that s/he has a mandate to impose his or her most half-butted
and/or outright dangerous ideas on the American electorate. But enough about my preferences, which are
irrelevant; let’s get down to some numbers.
The polls, taken as a whole, continue to show the seven
swing states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia,
Nevada, and Arizona), along with the overall national vote, in statistical
ties. Mr. Trump appears to be
strongest in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Ms. Harris appears to be strongest in
Michigan and Wisconsin. Again,
though, the candidates are within the margin of error in all these states. Since, as I stated in my 10/11/24
post, IT’S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE TRUMP 47 that, given what the
Biden/Harris obsession with electrifying America’s automobile fleet will do to
the U.S. auto industry, Ms. Harris is going to have a very difficult time
winning Michigan, I have to give that state to Mr. Trump, and I do so
confidently. Also, as I did in 2016 (TRUMP
WILL WIN, AND WIN BIG, ON TUESDAY, 11/4/16), I will go with my gut and give
Wisconsin to Ms. Harris, even though my going with my gut in this regard in 2016
resulted in perhaps the only state I didn’t call correctly in that
contest. Given that Mr. Trump is ahead
in the average of all the other swing state polls, I feel confident in giving
him those states, especially given the “reverse Bradley effect,” cited
in both the previously cited posts and still alive and well. Notice, by the way, that the Democrats are
trying to come up with their own version of the “reverse Bradley effect” that
yours truly cited over eight years ago.
In the Dems’ version, a concoction of the last few days, women are
afraid to tell anybody they are going to vote for Ms. Harris out of fear of
their husbands, so, while they say they are going to vote for Mr. Trump, they
are secretly voting for Ms. Harris.
Yours truly could say a lot more about that poor excuse for an idea,
but, out of some perhaps misguided desire to be civil, I’ll just limit my
comment to an admonition to not count on that supposition. But I digress.
So, to wrap it up, it looks to his observer that Mr.
Trump could carry all seven swing states except for Wisconsin, which would give
him an electoral victory of 302 to 236, which would have the look of a minor
landslide, or at least a low grade temblor.
Something tells me, though, that Mr. Trump couldn’t possibly win six of
the seven swing states, could he? Maybe, but something tells me it will be closer
than that.
As for that 10%-20% chance of a blowout victory by
Mr. Trump that I cited in my 10/11/24
post, that is probably off the table, unless, of course, one considers to
aforementioned 66 point win in the electoral college such a blowout. Enthusiastic Trump supporters talk of Mr.
Trump’s pulling off some completely unforeseen wins in a handful, or more, of
blue states. While such an outcome is
possible in Minnesota, Virginia, or New Hampshire, it is unlikely in all
those states. By the way, New Jersey, which seems to
come up in a lot of conversations with Trump enthusiasts, is not going to go
for Trump, but, if by some miracle, it is even close in New Jersey, this thing
is all over. On the other side of that
coin, Ms. Harris could with near equal likelihood (i.e., not very), surprise
Mr. Trump in Iowa and even Texas.
As with New Jersey for Mr. Trump, if Texas goes for Ms. Harris, or even
if it’s close in the Lone Star State, this thing is all over, but, if
that is the case, we’ll know that by the time Texas votes are counted.
PART II—HOW ABOUT THE SENATE?
To most astute observers, and definitely to this
astute observer, control of the Senate is as, or more, important, than control
of the White House, especially given our choice in the latter between a candidate
with a few screws lose and a candidate whose search for a clue, especially
regarding economics, is akin to that of the search of Diogenes for an
honest man. The overall battle for
the Senate looks like a nearly assured Republican victory.
Governor Jim Justice will pick up Senator Joe
Manchin’s seat in West Virginia.
That will even up the Senate. It
is highly likely that Tim Sheehy will defeat Senator Jon Tester
in Montana, but, with Sheehy’s margin hovering around 5% and Mr. Tester’s being
one of the most durable Senate candidates in modern history, this one isn’t in
the bag for the GOP. Still, if the GOP
wins Montana, they will have 51 seats in the Senate.
The GOP has a more than decent chance of defeating
incumbents in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, with their best shot
probably in Ohio. The Republicans
won’t win all these seats, but they won’t lose all of them either, which should
give them a cushion should Mr. Tester pull this one out (unlikely), Ted Cruz
manage to beat himself in Texas (more unlikely, but not impossible), or Rick
Scott lose in Florida (most unlikely).
So, according to yours truly, who has something of a
knack for calling elections, Mr. Trump wins a second term or, more properly, the
Democrats and Ms. Harris hand Mr. Trump a second term. The GOP wins the Senate. I am more confident of the second prediction
than I am of the first.
By the way, how about the House? Yours truly has long felt that the only way
to say anything intelligent about a political contest is to look at it
individually in at least reasonable depth.
Given that there are 435 House races, this is a task I am not about to
undertake for the vast amounts of money, which, if increased by a factor of ten,
would still amount to $0.00, that I am
paid for writing this blog. So I will
fall back on what sounds like a cop-out but, in reality, is probably true: Whichever Party wins the White House will also
win the House. I think.
Happy election night.
While I eagerly look forward to that event, which, for yours truly, combines
the delights of Halloween, New Year’s Eve, and my birthday in one evening, I
find myself eager to get this whole election over with, and I have never felt that
way before.
Thank you for the opine, was looking forward to another potentially seminal election post! Best wishes to the family and happy approximate birthday!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Matt; as always, best to you and yours and thanks for commenting, my friend.
DeleteThank you for your blog, Mark. I always find them informative and insightful. You are a great source for the who, what, when, where, how, and why of politics. Sincerely, Bob.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bob; I do my best and occasionally, I succeed. We'll see how this one turns out. Best to you and your family.
ReplyDeleteWell thought out, sage commentary, Mark. From the time we met back in the Fall of '75 at Newman, you've been on top of it. I wish I could take the wayback machine and listen in on some of the political conversations we used to have at the Illini Inn. These were the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate years as well as in the twilight of RJ Daley's mayoralty. I remember seeing Jimmy Carter on the Quad in late Summer '76 and then voting for him. I think you and Rich were John Anderson Libertarians. Is my memory faulty? "Those were the days my friend. . . I thought they'd last forever and a day". . . . Waiting for your post -election rundown!
ReplyDeleteGreat memories, Mike; we shared more than about 10,000 Stroh's back at the Inn in those halcyon days in Champaign; we shared some great thoughts and insights that I will remember and treasure forever. Those were surely our intellectually formative years, and what we learned transcended what we were taught in the classroom.
DeleteI don't know about Rich, but I was never an Anderson guy. I voted for Reagan in the primary and then spent a lot of time trying to convince my fellow Reagan guys to support Ford in the general. Think about the differences between Carter and Ford and compare them to the differences between Trump and Harris! As you have said in other conversations, the growing, yawning divisions in this country, the tearing at its social and political fabric, present more danger than anything either of these two candidates can cite, and things are especially precarious as we face a troubling and largely hostile world situation.
Thanks for the years of friendship and insight, Mike; you are a treasure.
Well, you called it again. I don't like the guy at all and am wondering what makes you say you aren't all that happy he will win?
ReplyDelete/ what are you most concerned with in the second term?
DeleteThanks, Brad. As I just told a good friend, I just pay attention, apply my experience, and call 'em as I see 'em.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am delighted that Kamala Harris, a socialist in everything but name and, more to the point, the ultimate empty pants suit, lost, I am not happy that Trump won. I hold both these views because I am a traditional, libertarian leaning conservative who believes in free people, free markets, a muscular yet restrained military and foreign policy, and a society based on Judeo-Christian values including compassionate self-reliance. I have held these views for a long time, since long before Mr. Trump stopped writing checks to every Democrat who came down the pike and decided that he, too, was a conservative.
What am I most concerned about? Industrial policy, tariffs, tax cuts aimed at every conceivable interest group rather than at simplifying the tax code and fostering economic growth. I am also concerned about our being led by a man who is so susceptible to manipulation by flattery.
I might be most concerned, however, about the possibility that Mr. Trump mighty bollix up our economy and the blame will be placed at the feet of "conservatives," even though, if Mr. Trump fails, it will be because he never was a genuine conservative in anything but the social sense (which, by the way, is commendable but not pre-eminent given the inability and/or undesirability of government action to address the concerns of social conservatives) and strayed from conservative principles. Not only will the country suffer, but the conservative movement will have been buried by a guy who had little understanding of or appreciation for genuine conservatism.
Thanks again, Brad.