MOST OF THE PUNDITS WERE HUMBLED BY THE ELECTION RESULTS…BUT NOT YOURS TRULY

 

11/6/20

 

While ballots are still being counted, which is a curious thing in itself, and there will be legal challenges, recounts, and the like, the outcome of this election is more or less known.   Most pundits and professional prognosticators were stunned by the outcome.    Those who make nearly obscene livings opining on the performance of those who make nearly obscene livings opining on elections have spent the last few days castigating the learned seers of the political world, rating their performance in line with, if not, somehow, worse than, their collective disastrous 2016 performance.   Those who contend that most members of the professional political projection profession should consider other lines of work are right; the “experts” whom we follow in the nation’s media, on virtually all points of the political continuum, blew it.   Except, of course, for one who is followed by only a loyal band of readers whose quality vastly exceeds its quantity.   Sadly, this wise pundit continues to do his tea-leaf reading for free.

 

Many years ago, my mother advised me that I ought to toot my own horn because, after all, nobody else was going to do it for me.   This is one of the pieces of advice my mom gave me to which I have nearly religiously adhered ever since.   In this instance, though I didn’t see this race as being quite as close as it has turned out to be, yours truly did a damn good job calling this one.   To wit…

 

On the popular presidential vote…

 

After admonishing those of my more optimistically liberal friends who were calling for a 60/40, or thereabouts, Biden blowout, I conceded that

 

 55/45 remains a possibility, however, though perhaps a fading one.  TRUMP WILL LOSE, AND PROBABLY LOSE BIG, ON TUESDAY, 10/27/20

 

So what was the popular vote?  As of 5:00 PM CST today (i.e., Friday, 11/6/20):

 

Biden                    50.5%

Trump                   47.8%

 Spread                 2.7%

 

That’s closer than I thought, and a lot closer than 55/45 that I described as a “fading” possibility.   But my numbers were far better than the learned experts’ predictions (mostly hopes, really) of a Biden blowout in the popular vote.

 

 

On the electoral vote…

 

I concluded that Biden would win with “at least 275 electoral votes, five more than needed.” .  TRUMP WILL LOSE, AND PROBABLY LOSE BIG, ON TUESDAY, 10/27/20.   Right now, and, barring some fruitful legal maneuverings on Mr. Trump’s part, (all but) President-Elect Biden should get 306 electoral votes. 

 

Why the disparity?

 

First, the words “at least” mean something.

 

Second, as I said in that aforementioned post,

 

In reaching my conclusion that Joe Biden has at least 275 electoral votes, five more than needed, I was perhaps too generous to Mr. Trump, giving him

 

Arizona,

Florida,

Georgia,

Ohio, and

Texas.

 

Apparently, my generosity got the better of me.   Mr. Biden wound up winning Arizona and Georgia.  He also won New Hampshire, which I called for Mr. Trump.  Mr. Biden also picked up one of the Congressional districts in Nebraska while I gave the whole state to Mr. Trump.   But Mr. Biden also lost one of the congressional districts in Maine while gave him the whole state.  Add those states and districts, net them, and you go from 275 to 306.   So Mr. Trump’s losing two states, Arizona and Georgia, accounted for nearly all the disparity between my projection and the apparent outcome.   That’s pretty good, if I can say so myself.   And that Mr. Trump managed to lose Arizona and Georgia, and that they were even close, tells you just about all you need to know about this presidential election, but that is another issue.

 

Not only was yours truly pretty much on top of the presidential election, but, long ago, in April of this year, I told you why Mr. Trump would lose the election, to wit:  PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED, 4/22/20

These relatively moderate, economically well-off while not being crazily wealthy, suburban counties are the core of the GOP’s strength.   The GOP does not win elections on the votes of the conservative true believers; it wins elections when it carries the moderate suburban districts inhabited by voters who work for a living, have accumulated at least a modicum of wealth, much of which lies in their homes, and whose primary interests lie not in politics but in maintaining the financial position they have built for themselves and in preserving the country and its system that has enabled them to do so.    And President Trump is not going to win in those counties, or at least he will not win by sufficiently large margins in those DuPagesque counties to overcome the big majorities Mr. Biden will run up in traditional Democratic bastions in both the working class and uber-rich precincts of the big cities.

Indeed, it was in the suburbs, most directly those of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Detroit, and Milwaukee, that Mr. Trump lost his bid for re-election.

 

 

 

On the Senate…

 

In the contest in which I most fervently hoped I would be wrong, it looks like yours truly was indeed in error in predicting the GOP’s losing control of the Senate in a very close race; see SO YOU WANT A TIGHT ELECTION THIS YEAR?   YES SIR, SENATOR!, 10/19/20.  In that perhaps overly analytical piece, I predicted GOP losses in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Maine.  Winning those four, assuming that the Democrats would lose their “accidental” seat in Alabama, would bring the Democrats to 50 seats in the Senate, which would be enough if, as I rightly predicted, a Vice-President Kamala Harris would be casting the tie-breaking votes in the new Senate.

 

The GOP indeed lost Arizona and Colorado but was able to hold onto Maine (Hey, at least Senator Collins has an “R” after her name.) and Iowa, the latter being especially gratifying; Senator Ernst is one of yours truly’s favorite senators from one of yours truly’s favorite states.   So it looks like the GOP will, thankfully, hold onto the Senate.

 

But it is possible that there is good news for yours truly’s prognosticatory reputation, but very bad news for the country, on the horizon.   As I wrote back on 10/19/20:

 

 

The Democrats, from my assessment of the numbers, might also pick up the Georgia seat for which a “jungle primary” special election is being held on election day, in which candidates of all parties will run with the first and second finishers competing in a run-off on January 5.   The current incumbent, Republican Kelly Loeffler, is weak and is facing a challenge from, inter alia, Republican Representative Doug Collins.   These two will split the Republican vote to a point at which the highest polling Democrat, Raphael Warnock, pastor of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, will face one of them in the run-off.    This could be interesting for the Democrats and disastrous for the Republicans.   There is also a chance that the Democrats could pick up the other Georgia seat; Senator David Perdue does not hold as formidable a lead as one would suspect for a GOP incumbent in Georgia over journalist Jon Ossoff; a few legitimate polls, including Quinnipiac, have Ossoff leading.   So it is not much of a stretch to give one of the Georgia seats to the Democrats, which would put it in the proverbial can for the Democrats.  

 

As I write this, it looks like both Georgia senate seats will go to run-offs.   While, judging from the strong performance of 3^rd place candidate Doug Collins in the “jungle primary,” Ms. Loeffler should win her run-off, there is a very real possibility that Senator David Perdue could lose his run-off to Jon Ossoff.   And, who knows?  If what looks like the kind of vote counting that has gone on in Georgia in the presidential race prevails in the run-off races, both Republicans could be in trouble.   And if they both lose, we will have an effectively Democratic Senate with soon to be Vice-President Harris casting the deciding votes when the Senate is stuck at 50/50.    That would be very bad news for the country; never in my life have I more earnestly desired that one of my predictions, in this case my original prediction of a Democratic takeover of the Senate, remains wrong.