Analysis of 2020 Elections Presidential
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Analysis of 2020 Elections Summary As the sun rises on Wednesday morning, the saying “what is old is new again” comes to mind. As in 2016, polling has missed the mark by margins outside the margin of error, both nationally and in key states. If this was “The Apprentice,” the pollsters would be in the board room getting fired. Forecasts of former Vice President Biden winning the national popular vote by 7 percent to 12 percent are almost certainly faulty. However, what is old is new again. At this hour, with polls closed and initial tabulation process underway, both President Trump and former Vice President Biden have a path to an Electoral College win. Recounts and litigation around the presidential contest are likely, and the result may hang in the balance for several days. It is worth remembering that in 2000, results were not certain for 38 days. As in 2016, Republican Senate candidates (incumbents and challengers) have outperformed relative to expectations and appear likely to retain control of the Senate. If that outcome holds, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will be poised to continue oversight of the legislative agenda and the consideration of presidential nominations. The expected Blue Wave has not yet materialized in the House of Representatives. While Democrats will continue to hold the majority, forecasts of Biden’s coattails growing the Democrats majority appear overstated as Republicans have gained a handful of seats in the chamber. So, as votes are tabulated and litigation ensues, the most likely scenario appears to be divided control of the Congress, which moderates whoever wins the presidential contest. This will certainly diminish claims of a mandate for any sweeping policy agenda. Expectations that Senate Republicans would pay a price for their handling of both the Supreme Court nominee and pandemic stimulus negotiations appear overstated. Similarly, expected growth in progressive ranks in the House do not appear to have materialized. Bottom line, results tabulated so far clearly reject the assumption that this election would decisively repudiate the ideology and/or demeanor of President Trump and the so-called brand of Trumpism. Whether President Trump wins or loses, Republican strength in congressional returns (and possible Senate majority) suggests there are some voters continue to split their ballot between the parties. Presidential As of Wednesday morning, there remains a narrow path to an Electoral College win for either President Trump or former Vice President Biden. The threshold in the Electoral College is 270 votes. However, results will now trickle in for the next several days and, under various state laws, into next week. Both campaigns are prepared to initiate and/or respond to litigation. As of this morning, results tabulated so far have Trump largely winning the same states he won in 2016. However, initial results have him losing Arizona (11 EC votes) and Wisconsin (10 EC votes) and trailing in Michigan (16 EC votes). He is leading in Pennsylvania (20 EC votes), North Carolina (15 EC votes), and Georgia (16 EC votes). If he wins the states where the Associated Press reports he is leading (216 EC votes) then he will have 267 EC votes, but not enough to win re-election. He still needs to win a state where Biden is leading. Biden is not presently losing in any state that Secretary Clinton won in 2016. He is narrowly ahead in Nevada (6 EC votes), which Clinton won in 2016 and leading in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, which Clinton lost. If he wins all three and holds onto Nevada, he will surpass the necessary 270 EC votes to win the presidency. While both candidates have a path to a win in the Electoral College, it is unlikely that either candidate will meet or exceed President Trump’s 306 electoral votes in 2016. Furthermore, while President Trump has a path to victory in the Electoral College, he is presently trailing Vice President Biden by over 2.3 million popular votes and that gap is likely to widen. Both candidates, have each already exceeded Secretary Clinton’s 2016 popular vote total of 65,853,514. With the presidential contest undetermined, it is premature to speculate on potential policy impact. That said, it is widely believed that in either a reelected or newly elected administration, there will be significant personnel changes at Health and Human Services. New leaders will need to be confirmed by the Senate and if it is closely divided, the likelihood of more centrist nominees and proposals rises. Senate What is old is new in the Senate as well. While final control is not yet certain, it is clear Republicans have exceeded forecasts (and polling) and now have the inside track to preserve their majority in the Senate. For Democrats to gain outright control, they needed to net four Senate seats (or three if Biden wins the presidency). Pollsters predicted that three Republican Senators, McSally (Ariz.), Gardner (Colo.), and Collins (Maine) would lose and provide the foundation for a potential Senate majority. However, this morning it appears that while Gardner has in fact lost and the AP has McSally trailing, However, Sen. Collins was declared the winner in her race. Across the aisle, pollsters predicted Democrats would lose Sen. Jones’ race in Alabama, and it appears he has lost. In the vulnerable lean category, pharmacy champions Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) were reelected while Rep. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) won an open Senate seat in Kansas. Additionally, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) won reelection which allowed Republicans to run the table with these “lean GOP” seats. One lean GOP Senate seat remains uncalled. That is Sen. Tillis in North Carolina. He is leading there, but North Carolina law allows for votes to be counted as late as next week so results will not be final for some time and could shift. Then, in a surprise, Republican candidate John James is leading in Michigan against Democrat incumbent Sen. Gary Peters. Final results there will likely be delayed due to anticipated litigation over the presidential results in Michigan. However, if Sen. Peters is defeated, then Democrats will have netted zero seats. However, if Sen. Peters wins, then the Senate will be 49-49 with two seats hanging in the balance to decide control. Welcome to Georgia, where control of the Senate may be decided but not before Jan. 5. Georgia state law requires that for a candidate to prevail in a non-presidential race, the candidate must receive an outright majority (not a plurality) of votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority then a special election will be held. In this cycle, that special election, if necessary, is scheduled for Jan. 5, 2021. Two senate seats were on the ballot in Georgia due to the 2019 retirement of former Senator Isakson. The first seat, occupied by Republican Sen. David Perdue, was forecasted as slipping away from the GOP as pollsters speculated that Vice President Biden might win Georgia. Perdue is leading and, importantly, has just over 50 percent of the votes cast. If he maintains an outright majority, he will be declared the winner and will return for a six-year term in the Senate. If he falls below 50 percent, this race goes to that Jan. 6 run-off, and his opponent will be the Democratic nominee, Jon Ossoff. As for the second seat, pharmacy champion Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) was running in a field of 19 candidates in the “jungle” primary, where the top two vote getters, regardless of party, advance to a Special Election. The AP has called that race and unfortunately, Collins will not advance. However, Democrat Raphael Warnock and incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler will advance to the election on Jan. 5. With one or two Senate seats in Georgia not being decided until Jan. 5, it is possible that Senate control may be undecided until the results from the special election are tabulated and certified. Given that control of the Senate is unknown, it is premature to forecast policy implications. Whichever party has control of the Senate, it is unlikely that the Senate will dramatically change its rules or culture. Therefore, the filibuster likely survives, and the Senate likely continues to be a moderating force on any sweeping policy proposals. While the final makeup of the Senate is uncertain, there is certainty that there will be changes with key committees. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley is term-limited. If, as it currently appears, Republicans retain control, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is the likely successor. If Democrats are able to regain the majority, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would assume the chairmanship. Additionally, two members of the committee, Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) did not seek reelection. On the HELP Committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander is retiring and is likely to be replaced by either Richard Burr (R-N.C.) or Rand Paul (R-Ky.) if Republicans are in the majority. If Democrats are in the majority, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) would chair the committee. U.S. House of Representatives What is old is new again in the House as well. Going into Election Day, Democrats had a 34-seat majority in the House, with five vacancies, and were expected to pick up 8-12 seats. It appears that those expectations were too high. As of this morning, Democrats have won two GOP seats (NC-2 and NC-6) while losing six of their incumbents (FL-26, FL-27, MN-7, NM-2, OK-5, and SC-1) which reduces the Democrats majority by four seats.