Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The Coolidge Way (Part II)

Coolidge understood there would be a recession since the Dow Jones industrial average more than quadrupled in his last term. He knew that pace of growth could not be sustained and a correction was going to happen. Near the end of the Coolidge presidency, Republicans seeing how much the Coolidge / Mellon tax breaks had worked decided to reduce tax rates further. Coolidge signed the bill, but warned that tax rates could be too low. He and Mellon also warned that tax reductions on the middle class were fruitless unless rates were decreased on the wealthy, since the wealthy ran most businesses.

Herbert Hoover was appointed by Coolidge to help manage the South through its flood disaster. Hence, Hoover theorized that American infrastructure for dams and levees had to be improved. As soon as Hoover was elected President he passed his hydropower bill (led to the building of the Hoover Dam). Hoover, Democrats, and progressive Republicans began to spend and the budget surpassed 4 billion in Hoovers first year. Tax revenues fell as the recession hit and by the time Hoover left office the upper tax bracket was once again up to 70%. Hoover started several social works programs and Franklin Roosevelt not only continued them when he was President, he created scores more of social programs under the New Deal.

There is no question that the stock market would have adjusted if Coolidge remained president for a third term, but Coolidge would have tightened spending and may have even increased tax rates slightly. But that is it, Coolidge understood all too well that increased spending and taxes would not get the U.S. out of the recession, it would make matters worse. Coolidge would not interfere with the recession. It was that meddling in the private sector that most likely put the country in a depression. Coolidge understood when tax rates were high people protected their money by moving it into tax free municipal bonds. He also understood that these municipal bonds also kept money away from the businesses and the private sector. And this is exactly what happened under Hoover and Roosevelt. And America stayed in a recession / depression until the early 1940s when the U.S. entered WWII at which point money flowed again into U.S. industry.

What made Coolidge a great president? It was not just his conservatism because he railed against unions, high budgets, and high taxes. It was that he was the antithesis of all American presidents. While most Presidents bloviate Coolidge listened and remained quiet. Coolidge did not comment or enter himself into area he did not understand. While most Presidents pretend to be know-it-alls, Coolidge was realistic and knew that was impossible. So while Coolidge was ridiculed for not being an expert in all areas, he was the only honest one. Coolidge was not a hypocrite. While he held the U.S. to a tight budget, he too lived a frugal life (although he was generous and gave away lots of money at the end of his life). He and his family never had big luxuries or glamorous clothes. And for living a simple life, Coolidge was also criticized. Coolidge put competent people in cabinet positions and trusted them to their jobs whereas many presidents place people who give to their campaigns in important posts regardless of their knowledge in these fields. Where most Presidents were progressive and grew government, Coolidge believed the only good form of progressivism was individual progressivism where people worked hard to better their lives. And finally, Coolidge was not a narcissistic egomaniac unlike other Presidents.

Coolidge was ahead of his times in terms of placing a Democratic special prosecutor in charge of investigating Harding scandals. He also understood the Laffer Effect before it was conceived. While he was disliked by other politicians even within his party – the Senate Majority Leader, Henry Lodge, a Republican, was from Coolidge’s home state of Massachusetts and he distained Coolidge, the American public loved Coolidge. Coolidge was popular because he was real and could relate to the common man. And while politicians routinely bashed Coolidge, Coolidge was civil and never stooped to their level.

Friday, December 12, 2014

The Coolidge Way (Part I)

Coolidge was probably the most underrated and unappreciated president in our history. Many historians are misguided when they blame Coolidge for the Great Depression. Coolidge was also criticized by politicians for being quiet – this was equated to ignorance. And Coolidge was also chastised by politicians for being simple and not necessarily understanding the procedures of big time politics. But some of these things are what sets Coolidge apart from other presidents. Coolidge may have been “silent”, but he was a listener. Coolidge may have been simple and gaffed in political settings, but that was what made him more like the common man.

Coolidge evolved as a politician. Coolidge started his career as a progressive Republican willing to compromise on legislation and grow government. But Coolidge finished his political career as a staunch conservative unwilling to compromise on matters such as national security, fiscal issues, unions, and state rights.

John Kennedy coined the phrase: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” However, Coolidge coined dozens of these types of individualism phrases a half century earlier. No president believed in the individual more than Coolidge and hence, he did not believe in government intervention.

Coolidge was not the best math person, but he had a simple mathematical philosophy when it came to government spending and the economy. He wanted to minimize government spending while at the same time maximizing the size of commerce. While president, his budget director, General Lord maintained a government budget around 3 billion dollars each year. To do so, Lord had to be so detailed he would limit lawmakers to one pencil at a time. To increase commerce and expand the economy Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Mellon believed in a form of scientific taxation (similar to the Laffer Effect). After a huge legislative fight over several years, Coolidge and Mellon, were successful at dropping the income tax rates for all Americans and the top rate went from 60% to 25%. Scientific taxation supporters (Laffer Effect) believed by lowering tax rates there was more money for commerce and it would result in more government revenues. His plan worked, even with the top earners paying a much smaller tax rate, the government received considerably higher tax revenues because businesses were booming. In 5 years of the Coolidge presidency, he cut a 28 billion dollar national deficit (mostly from WWI) down to 17 billion dollars.

Coolidge made a name for himself as governor of Massachusetts. When the entire Boston police force went on strike, Coolidge did not negotiate or compromise with union leaders for higher wages instead, he fired the entire force. Boston went into chaos and crime because of the callous action of unions and Coolidge’s move to fire the entire force was supported by then President Woodrow Wilson because they both called it a national security issue that risked the wellbeing of Boston citizens. People hailed Coolidge and his popularity skyrocketed nationally.

Coolidge was also immensely unpopular with Democrats and Republicans for his stance on many issues. Coolidge refused to vote for a veterans bonus pay and his veto was eventually overridden. This angered Coolidge’s political enemies because he had to find more budget cuts to keep to his 3 billion dollar budget level. Coolidge also failed to provide any significant assistance to flood stricken states and individuals. There were two significant floods – one in the South and one in his home state of Vermont. Coolidge believed in state rights and individualism to overcome difficult times. Coolidge instead raised money through charities in the private sector to help those inflicted by the natural disasters.

Coolidge could have won a 3rd term (his first term was only 2 years when he took office after Warren Harding died). He decided not to run and later Coolidge opined that the longer administrations are in power the more susceptible they are to scandals. Coolidge knew this all too well because he had to fight Harding scandals throughout his administration. Harding, unlike Coolidge, placed more unqualified people into his cabinet because they were his friends. Coolidge would never do such a thing. The Teapot Dome and VA scandals of the Harding administration sound eerily similar to Obama scandals of today.

It should come as no surprise that Coolidge was not viewed well by historians. After all, he battled and defeated unions, he refused to expand the size of the federal government, and he lowered taxes on the wealthy. Coolidge said the “the business of America is business” and did everything to support private enterprise without any government interference. These are not views that are popular in academia today. Hence, Coolidge was blamed in part for the Great Depression.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Individualism is Dead!

Individualism is defined as a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual; the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action; the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism; individual character; individuality; an individual peculiarity.

Today, the closest people come to individualism is to post something on Facebook. However, this should not be confused as being true individualism – it is narcissism. Facebook posts and YouTube videos do not pay the bills and define the entire person.

A recent report indicated that one in five Americans are on Medicaid and one in six Americans are on food stamps. About 13 million Americans are on welfare, 6 million Americans are receiving unemployment, and millions more are receiving disability. Anti-poverty programs make up better than one sixteenth of our GDP and total government spending makes up nearly one third of our GDP (local, state, and federal). In fact, over 35% of all Americans were on some sort of welfare program in 2013. That’s more people on welfare than who are employed full time! I am for helping a person in need, but these programs are exploding because a vast number of people remain on some sort of government welfare program their entire lives. People on welfare are certainly not defined as being “individualists” since they require the help of the government to survive. A true individualist would never accept any government subsidy for any reason (and yes that includes government programs such as cash for clunkers and subsidies for buying a home). A true individualists’ always earns their keep.

The statistics are even worse when it comes to Americans belonging to clubs or organizations. Fifty million Americans belong to a health club alone (80% of all people cannot work out without someone dictating / motivating their work out) and it is estimated that over 90% of all Americans belong to some club or organization (NRA, GOP, Democrat, health, Unions, etc.). And let’s face the fact; over 90% of these individuals are followers and had no input in club rules, laws, and regulations. Hence, they are not individualists because they cannot think, act, or advocate for themselves.

Today, people are not defined but instead groups of people are defined – White, Black, Hispanic, Male, Female, Gay, obese, smokers, etc. This is another function provided by our government. The government no longer represents the individual, they represent the group. Since most individuals cannot afford to lobby for themselves they must join a group to afford lobbyists and have not their voice heard, but the voice of their group. Unions are great example of this, but there are also environmental groups as well as ethnic groups such as the NAACP. The media also likes to classify groups of people. The media, like political parties, love to pit different groups of people against each other: rich v. poor; big business v. poor; black v. white; pro-abortion v. pro-life; environmentalists v. big oil, female v. male, and so forth. This, of course, makes it harder for this country to overcome bigotry, racism, and stereotypes because we classify groups of people instead of seeing the individual.

What has led to the decline in individualism? The answer is easy – political progressivism has created an atmosphere that people are no longer smart enough to think for themselves so they must have a union or have the government do it for them.

Hoover is probably the last president to preach individualism, but he quickly turned progressive after the depression hit. Coolidge is probably the last president to actually preach individualism and have his policies targeted to that philosophy. Coolidge was a progressive to a certain degree, but he felt that the best kind of progressivism was individual progressivism. Individual progressivism is where people worked hard to better themselves over the course of their lifetimes. This country would be better place if even a small fraction of Americans would live their lives in accordance with the life of Coolidge and his rules of individualism: refusing to join clubs and organizations, living with a balanced household budget, living within our means, leading by example, taking the high road, practicing what they preach, and never taking any government funding.

Friday, December 5, 2014

Ferguson MO Epitomizes what is Wrong with America

It seems every issue has liberals and conservatives on opposite ends of the spectrum and Ferguson is no different. Liberals seem to support Michael Brown and the protests while conservatives more than likely support the police. The sad thing about it all is that really no one really knows the truth. Only Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown know the complete truth. I would estimate that 90% of the public thinks they are in the know when in fact they are only agitators pouring gas on a burning fire. And it is our 24/7 media coverage that is brainwashing Americans into taking sides.

Last night liberal outlets excused the violent protests by proclaiming a vast majority of protestors are peaceful. In my book peaceful protestors within a violent group are also complicit in the crimes. And conservative outlets chastised the St. Louis Ram football players’ peaceful protests and are working with local Ferguson police to find the unlawful protestors. I am sure the police can find the violent protestors without the help of Fox News. None of this helps a devolving situation.

Meanwhile, the President has race baiting liberal Al Sharpton as his advisor on the problematic situation and his Attorney General is outlining new profiling laws. How can the general public be objective when our government and media cannot? There is absolutely no evidence this case was about profiling – if so the grand jury would have indicted Wilson.

If the President was truly objected he would listen to the voices of people such as New Orleans tight end, Ben Watson. If you have not gotten a chance to see the words written by the former Georgia University star, you need to read them. He has some unbiased insightful words. But for every Watson there are a dozen agitators.

The end result are violent protests occurring around the country killing more people and destroying hundreds of businesses. Yes, this is what our problem solving skills have resorted to. I am embarrassed to be an American. And both sides are complicit in this disaster.

I have had some very bad experiences with police in the past where they used excessive force. The culprits were White, Hispanic, and Black police officers. But as I look back on those difficult experiences I realize there are always two sides to a story. I was a dumb kid who put myself and hence the police in a difficult situation. I did not break the law and I did not deserve to be treated with brutality, but l should have never gotten in that situation in the first place. And I also realize that if I was in the police officers shoes I would have done arrest the same as they did. They have no idea who can be trusted and who cannot. So excessive force is warranted to protect themselves. I am not proud of these moments in my life, but the experience taught me a lot especially about putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. It is not easy to be a police officer and I came to respect that. In the long run, I decided that the conflict could have been avoided if I was not a stupid young man and hence most of the blame fell on me. Could officers have handled the situation better? Yes, but even though I did not break the law, I was drunk wondering the streets and they felt I could be a danger to myself and others. They were probably right.

My point is that I can see both sides of the story in Ferguson. Could the situation have been handled better by the police? I bet the answer is yes, but the whole situation could have been avoided had Michael Brown not broken the law and heeded to initial police requests without being belligerent. So, I blame Brown more than Wilson, but it is impossible to put ourselves into both men’s shoes without being there. Therefore, to claim to be in the know is impossible and incorrect.

We live in the narcissistic era of social media. It has taught us all to be selfish. It has taught us all to be socially ignorant to resolve issues. It has taught us how to become problem creators instead of problem solvers. And it has taught us all too completely disrespect people with differing viewpoints. The end result is what has happened in Ferguson Missouri. We should all be ashamed of the country we live in.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Comparing and Contrasting Obama and FDR Failed Policies (Part VII)

There is no doubt higher wages, higher taxes, and uncertainty caused the FDR and Obama recessions to last much longer than necessary. But that is not the only way these two men were harmful and have negatively impacted U.S. society. Take for instance, two families A and B. Both families have the same income, the same number of children, and reside in the same general location. Family A works hard to save money, pays taxes, and does not receive any government subsidies. Whereas, Family B is much more wasteful, pays some taxes, but rakes in thousands in government subsidies – Food Stamps, healthcare subsidies, and even took a housing subsidy to buy their home. But according to Obama and FDR, Family B is the forgotten family in U.S. society – the backbone that needs to survive and be protected at all costs through wealth distribution. If all of that is not bad enough, Family B protests outside Family A’s church because they are pro-life, but Family A has the audacity to eat free meals at the church where they protest. To make matters worse, Family B eats more in food than what Family A gives to the church in charity. Family A gives to the Red Cross when natural disasters hit the U.S. and other parts of the globe. Family B’s children get paid by the government to knock on doors and ask Family A to do more when it comes to climate change (But Family A already saves more on utilities). Yes, we have become a society who cares more about what our neighbors are doing than what our own families are doing. Still, Family B, according to Obama is the fabric of this nation. Obama’s goal is to hopefully fill Family A with enough propaganda about how conservatives hate them that they will eventually vote for them. At school Family B’s kids are doing poorly and have to get federal government subsidized help through Title I to try to pull them up (which is unsuccessful). Family B’s kids are gifted, but no one knows it or cares that they are and in the long run they fall in a crack. It takes four Family A’s to pay for all the subsidies taken in by Family B. This cannot continue. There are already more Family B types in the U.S. than Family A types. And when the top 10% of all earners can no longer support all the Family B types the U.S. economy will break. FDR started the welfare state and others have made it worse – especially LBJ and now Obama. It is sad state of affairs when it is more acceptable to be irresponsible, unaccountable, hypocritical, lazy, and a deadbeat. We have become a nation of excuse makers and blamers. I am not saying these words explain everyone on government subsidies, but even if it explains 25% it is too much and a recipe for failure.

Unfortunately, Obama and FDR may pay their fair share in taxes, but in many regards they are no better than Family B. No president has blamed his predecessor like Obama. Obama had the audacity to take credit for winning in Iraq, but takes no responsibility when the situation changed. He took credit for killing bin Laden but he used intelligence garnered under the Bush administration. He berated Bush for civil liberty violations for his use of enhanced interrogation techniques, but he is the first president to order the killing of American citizens. When our embassy in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists Obama fabricated excuses, lies, and fault with others. Worse yet, the lazy Obama was too inconvenienced to save Americans to go to the situation room. Obama blamed Bush for many things, but he also continued and ramped up many of his policies – War in Afghanistan, Drone attacks, NSA spying etc. Obama backed teachers unions and abolished the voucher system in Washington DC but he still sends his girls to private school. FDR was intentionally unaccountable during the Hoover transition period so the Depression would worsen and the American public would blame Hoover while FDR was in office. FDR called Hoover incompetent but yet he continued many of his policies, especially social spending policies. FDR blamed Japanese Americans for the attack on Pearl Harbor and punished them in internment camps. FDR blamed wealthy for his huge deficits, but he himself could not figure out his own taxes. No, Obama and FDR are no different than Family B so it is no wonder they think they are the future of America – so much so they are willing to fund their incompetence and failure.

Obama and FDR never created one private sector job; their wealth was created solely through the public sector and taxpayer money. They only know how to spend other people’s money. While Family A sits in a cold winter house FDR and Obama are too busy living large and having lavish parties. History has blamed a Family A type for the Depression – Coolidge. Coolidge did not live lavishly in real life or at the White House. Coolidge left office with unemployment under 3% and the budget operating at a surplus – even with low tax rates. So it must be Coolidge’s fault that the stock market was overvalued at over 350? Coolidge felt a correction would come, but did not think the federal government should intervene. If we put our societies’ collective brain in a bird it would fly backwards because we have it all wrong. Modern society ridicules Family A but praises Family B thanks to FDR and Obama (and of course their liberal friends who write history books and report the news).

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Comparing and Contrasting Obama and FDR Failed Policies (Part VI)

FDR and Obama appointments to the Supreme Court were very far left if not socialists. Hugo Black gained confirmation despite being a member of the Ku Klux Klan (ironically African-Americans began to shift primarily from supporting Republican candidates to Democratic candidates during the FDR years). Frankfurter was confirmed despite a huge upheaval by Jews (The era of Nazi Germany). Republicans gave little fight against leftist Obama appointees – Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Over time, the many socialists in the FDR administration ventured further right. After seeing Stalin as a genocidal tyrant during WWII they felt betrayed by Russia. And after seeing FDR failures in socialism they ventured right. For instance, Rex Tugwell saw his socialism community experiments created in the RA fail and realized that socialism may not be a better option over capitalism. In the Obama administration former loyal servants such as Robert Gibb and Robert Gates have been highly critical of Obama policies.

Probably the biggest personal problem plaguing both Obama and FDR is their indecision. In a time of national security and the economy tinkering on the brink of collapse both men showed a tendency to be uncommitted, flip flopping, and suffering from indecision. FDR openly admitted his opinion on something can change from hour to hour. Obama is so unwilling to make tough decisions he holds far fewer press conferences than any president in the modern era. Obama can give great speeches when reading from a teleprompter, but he does not think very fast on his feet during impromptu situations.

Well, how could such bad Presidents win reelection (FDR – three times and Obama once)? That is an easy question to answer, they bought their votes. The so called liberal forgotten man under Obama is now over 50% of the population. Welfare payrolls have exploded under Obama – Food Stamps, ObamaCare, disability, prolonged unemployment benefits, ObamaCare, housing subsidies and so forth. What’s worse, Obama even removed the work requirement for people to earn welfare. FDR handed out millions of jobs in his social programs, passed unemployment, social security and other handouts. There are other less obvious reasons for their successful reelections such as the Republican candidates were not very strong; massive propaganda programs with people in the arts; and attacks against “bigness”, the wealthy, and corporations – they both were masterful at the art of pitting groups of American citizens against each other. Before the days of FDR, liberalism was defined as the fight for rights for individuals; today liberalism is the fight for rights for groups of people by demonizing other groups of people. For instance, both Obama and FDR expanded the size of the IRS and used them to go after enemy groups. Obama also used the EPA to do this and used the DOJ and NSA to go after conservative journalists. In fact, Obama and FDR spend more time trying to demonize their enemies than trying to end the recession and depression. Keep in mind, much of the Obama and FDR agenda was not always widely accepted. For FDR and Obama it took congressional supermajorities to get their agenda through. And when those supermajorities were no longer there, they used gimmicks like riding their legislation on other bills and using executive orders to get their agenda introduced. It is important to remember that the Democrats had some miserable midterms during the FDR and Obama years not only giving Republicans advantages in Washington, but also on the state level. This proved to be important in the Obama administration because states continually fought his bad and failing legislation.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Comparing and Contrasting Obama and FDR Failed Policies (Part V)

Ironically, the liberals in the massive federal government do not like anything that big. The government and liberals see bigness as bad, especially big business. Unfortunately, attacks against big business and the wealthy hurt small businesses and the poor even more. Under FDR’s NRA small companies suffered. While big businesses were able to absorb the labor rules (wages, maximum work week hours, etc.), small companies could not. Unfortunately, it took several years before the Supreme Court ruled that the NRA unconstitutional (Schechter v. United States) – much damage had already been done. Liberals and FDR also despise the middle men in business (once again, ironically, liberals do not like Walmart even though they eliminate the middle guy and sell products cheaply). FDR wanted to help agriculture and to do so he needed to raise prices. He viewed this as a supply and demand problem – there must be too much supply so prices were low. Hence, the solution was to have the NRA pay farmers to withhold crops to raise prices (Agriculture Adjustment Act). To help pay for this they taxed the middle people in the agriculture process. It sounds crazy, but the administration actually paid farmers to withhold food when literally millions of people were starving. The FDR administration failed because they tried solving a complex macroeconomic problem using a simple microeconomic analysis. The same goes for ObamaCare and new EPA laws and regulations. Big companies can absorb the mandates, but smaller ones cannot. Another Obama example is the Dodd / Frank financial reform bill. The bill does not solve the “too big to fail” issue, but places ridiculous mandates on smaller businesses such as tracking all precious metals in products they use.

Both Obama and FDR were huge fans of government involvement and of ownership of public utilities. FDR spent eight years trying to privatize electricity. He used public money to fund the TVA to build dozens of dams to offer cheap electricity to people (remember government utilities were paid for using tax payer money and did not face the same tax burden as private companies). FDR passed the Public Utilities Holding Act and Guffey Coal Act to push his agenda. Once WWII hit, FDR found he had to put his personal agenda aside and team up with big companies (including utilities and ironically Andrew Mellon’s aluminum conglomerate) to win the war. Without WWII, FDR was on pace to place all energy under government control. Obama is not much different, he used the Recovery Act, and the EPA in an effort to move the U.S. towards renewable energies and off fossil fuels. Obama has enacted executive orders in the name of climate change to take down one of his biggest enemies – big oil.

At first the Supreme Court was not on FDR’s side and an attempt to pack the courts failed. But with intimidation and guaranteed salaries for justices to retire his agenda would soon hold up in the high court. The Labor Act and Wagner Act were huge wins for unions – it gave workers minimum wages and the right for unions to mobilize. Within a year the number of union members in the automotive business increased from 20,000 to nearly a half million. What followed were huge and violent demonstrations (hundreds on both sides of the picket line would die). Even WPA members were striking, but this made FDR irate and not what he had in mind when he passed laws to help unions (in other words it is okay to strike against big business but not the government). In 1936 the automotive companies sold more cars in their history but their profit margins suffered from higher taxes and higher wages. By 1937 another Depression within the Great Depression hit. The unemployment rate moved back above 20% and the stock market plummeted back down towards 100. Ironically, opposite happened under Obama when it came to union representation. Union representation decreased as companies moved to right to work states; Republican governors passed pro-work laws and anti-union laws; and the National Relations Board was losing cases in the high court. These moves actually helped to strengthen state economies as well as companies such as the automotive companies that declared bankruptcy shortly after Obama took office.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Gruber is Right!

Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economics professor, who was one of the architects of Romneycare and Obamacare has been caught on tape calling the American public stupid. Gruber points out how both government sponsored healthcare laws were meant to deceive the dumb public on many of the controversial provisions of these laws. Now, everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike are appalled by Gruber’s statements. But Gruber is the only one who openly told the truth about how the law manipulated voters (both sides of the political spectrum were guilty of using fear mongering tactics to win public opinion about ObamaCare). Unfortunately, Gruber is right, the American public is dumb. Why? Because we let Obama get away with passing such a bad and deceitful law.

Remember, it was the dumb American public that re-elected Obama to the Presidency just about wiping out any chance the law can be overturned. It was the public that gave Obama a super majorities in the House and Senate to force the law through. And when Obama lost those super majorities (Kennedy’s death), they changed the rules to pass the law and the public let them do it.

When the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare was constitutional, the dumb public did not see the reason the law was ruled constitutional. The Supreme Court threw out the administrations arguments as to why it was constitutional. They said ObamaCare was constitutional because it was a tax even though the administration never admitted to this. And the public was too dumb to realize that this deception about the law was uncovered.

There were many signs that ObamaCare was a bad bill (and you did not have to read the bill to figure this out): The bill passed strictly on a bipartisan basis because all input into the law came from Democrats. It was rushed through so no one would read it. It is over 2000 pages long and uses vague language to cover up intent. Insurance premiums continued to rise at astronomical rates. Millions lost their previous coverage as well as doctors and hospitals. The roll out was botched. It is vastly complex. As pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court ruled it was a tax. Obama and Democrats, for political reasons, picked and chose what parts of the law to implement. The administration handed out several thousand waivers to businesses over several of the law’s provisions. Implementation of the law was not equal – businesses and persons were not treated equally. Yet a large portion of Americans were still too dumb to realize they were being manipulated and deceived by the government.

In a polarized country, a majority of us side with ideology over commonsense, facts, and intelligence. This, as Gruber points out, makes us all pretty dumb and susceptible to deception and misinformation.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Why Did Democrats Lose–It’s the Turnout Stupid!

Why did the Democrats overwhelmingly lose in the 2014 elections? Well, if you listen to Democrats they point to the turnout. This is partially true, but lack of interest in elections is a result of the political system and usually due to the lackluster performance of the Party in power – which is the Democrats in 2014. In 2008 and even 2012 the Democrats rode the coattails of Obama and large turnouts. Democrats continually brag about their ground game, their get out to vote effort, and their use of technology to get it done. But it was non-existent in 2014. Democrats even had a huge advantage in money and still could not get their base to the polls. The point is that turnout is the responsibility of the Party and the Democrats failed.

Obama claimed that two-thirds of the voters did not turnout. Technically, that is almost accurate. The turnout of the voter eligible population was between 37 and 38 percent or about 85 million people. Hence, nearly two-thirds did not vote. However, at best 70% of the voter eligible population votes. In 2012, nearly 135 million people voted meaning about 50 million people did not vote in 2014 or about 15% of the population.

Democrats pointed to the early vote statistics to show they were doing well. In Georgia, the Black vote was up. Across the country they bragged about their ability to get those voters who did not vote in 2012 to the polls (that was a focus). Democrats had advantages in most every critical state that tracked political ideology – North Carolina, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana (and they closed the gap in Florida over 2010 turnout levels). In fact, early voting was up 8% over 2010. If you read the Huffington Post blog posted by early voting expert Michael McDonald one would suspect the Democrats would fair well in the 2014 critical races.

Democrats claimed the polls were biased towards Republicans. We found this out to be outright wrong and in fact, the polls were skewed majorly towards Democrats. In governor races the polls were wrong in many critical states: Illinois by 5.6 points; Kansas by 5.9 points; Vermont by 14.9 points; Maryland by 21 points; Ohio by 12.9 points; Wisconsin by 3.5 points; and Georgia by 4 points to name a few. In critical Senate races the polls were off as follows: 10.2 points in Arkansas; 11.6 points in Kansas; 4.9 points in Georgia; 8.3 points in Kentucky; 6.2 points in Iowa; 2.4 points in North Carolina; 10.6 points in West Virginia, and 10.4 points in Virginia. These are major errors and most outside the margin of error.

An article by the National Journal blamed the turnout as to why the race in Virginia ended up being so close. This is partly true, but as we pointed out above, it is up to the Party to get their voters to the polls. Evaluating the Virginia turnout the following facts can be established: Turnout was also low in Republican strongholds. Republicans received a smaller portion of the vote in coal country compared to 2012 mainly due to third party candidates. Yes, turnout was low throughout the state and Republicans outperformed Democrats outside coal country by about 5 points from 2012 to 2014.

The reason given for the Democrat low turnout in Virginia were mind boggling. The journal said that low turnout for the Democrats was mainly due to the fact that most House races and the Senate race were not going to be competitive. Well, couldn’t this also be a reason for the Republican low turnout? In fact, data suggests that voters supporting candidates that are more likely to lose are more likely to stay at home and not vote. To dismiss the possibility that more independent voters broke for Gillespie is downright arrogant.

Low Democratic turnout certainly cannot be an excuse in states like Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Vermont where Partisan Voter Indexes (PVI) are over 10 points in favor of Democrats. My data posted last week suggests that an inordinate number of Democrats and Independents had to have voted for Republican candidates – especially in House and Governor races (after all, the Democrats convincingly won Senate races in Illinois and Massachusetts).

So, blaming low Democratic turnout is certainly not an excuse. This is not all true and it is being distorted by Democrats. I hope Democrats continue to live in this fantasy land in 2016 because it will cost them the White House. After all, turnout in states with highly contested races was well above 40% and even if the turnout was super high for a midterm election, say 50%, it would not have changed the outcomes in any of these races – they were all blowouts!

Monday, November 10, 2014

Obama: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

There are not too many advantages to the economy and the health of our nation when it is led by a socialistic and narcissistic moron who does not know how to lead. However, there are a few advantages when the people finally realize they are being led by an incompetent and irresponsible idiot. The biggest advantage is the change in the political landscape not only nationally, but at the state level. Here are some comparisons:

The 111th Congress had the following ideology makeup at the start of the Obama Presidency:

· U.S. House: 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans

· U.S. Senate: 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats

At the state level in 2009 the ideology makeup looked as follows:

· The Democrats controlled 27 state chambers, Republicans controlled 14 state chambers, and 8 states had split control between Democrats and Republicans.

· The Democrats controlled 26 Governorships to 24 for the Republicans

The newly elected 114th Congress has the following ideology makeup:

· U.S. House: Republicans hold 248 seats to 186 for Democrats (states are still counting votes)

· U.S. Senate: If Louisiana runoff goes as expected, Republicans will have a 54 to 44 lead and two independents will caucus with the Democrats.

The 2015 state level political party strength now looks as follows:

State Chambers:

· Republicans control 29 state chambers, Democrats control 12, and 8 states have split control between the Republicans and Democrats (conservative estimate – states are still counting votes).

· Governorships: 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats, and 1 Independent

Here is how many seats/chambers the Republicans have gained due to Obama’s incompetence:

· U.S. House: Republicans gained 70 seats (highest level since the 1920’s)

· U.S. Senate: Republicans gained 14 seats and unseated more sitting Democrats than they have in the past 25 years

· State Chambers: Republicans gained complete control of 15 state legislators

· Governorships: Republicans gained 4 seats including in states like Maryland where they have not held the governorship for decades.

Yes, Obama’s incompetence is the gift that keeps on giving.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Why the 2014 Election was Hard to Prognosticate

My 2014 election model projections were as follows:

U.S. House: Actual: 248 Republicans, Model: 250 Republicans, Delta: +2

U.S. Senate: Actual: 54 Republicans, Model: 51 Republicans, Delta: -3

Governorships: Actual: 30 Republicans, Model: 28 Republicans, Delta: -2

The Polls

The Polls were skewed towards Democrats by average of 4.95 points in governor races and 3.5 points for Senate races. In my personal House measurement, it favored Democrats by 6 points. Sometimes we are only as good as the data we receive. That being said, I was one of the only people to project at least 15 house seat gains. Besides, it is hard to prognosticate an outcome such as the Republicans defeating four incumbent Senators when they have only defeated 2 sitting Senators the past 25 years (not a trend). And it is even more difficult to find a trend that would lead us to believe that Republicans would win Governorships in 3 of the most liberal states in the Union (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland) in the same year. So this year was an anomaly and it could be the start of new trend.

To better understand the 2014 election results I ran a few models. The independent variable was the final polls, actual results, and the difference between the two. The x variables were the Partisan Voter Index (PVI – an index that defines the ideology makeup of a state or house district – for instance, R5, indicates the state or district leans Republican by 5 percentage points and D5 would be the opposite), Incumbency, and the final partisan makeup of congress and the governorships. An evaluation of the poll data model and its constant and parameter coefficients revealed:

· The House generic ballot would favor Republicans by 1.385 points

· The Senate generic ballot would favor Republicans by 1.236 points

· The Governor generic ballot would favor Republicans by 2.582 points

The final or actual results told a much a different story:

· The House generic ballot favored Republicans by 3.796 points

· The Senate generic ballot favored Republicans by 0.819 points

· The Governor generic ballot favored Republicans by 5.802 points

The final House Generic Ballot poll was 2.2 points in favor of Republicans when it was actually 3.8. In fact, if the above 3 results are averaged the overall generic ballot favored Republicans by over 3.5 points when the final polls indicated a House generic ballot of only 1.4 and an average of only 1.7 points overall (far below the 2.2 in the polls – you can read my blog on the dichotomy of two polls). In the course of history a 2.2 or 1.4 margin for Republicans is huge let alone 3.5 or 3.8 points! This certainly can explain account for the huge Democratic bias in the polls.

The above results can be explained further by evaluating the PVI (Partisan Voting Index). Republicans won 9 seats in the Senate, but the gains were in traditional red states: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia and in purple Iowa. The data shows people were much more partisan with their Senate vote. And these results also explain why polls were more accurate for Senate races as well as why the generic ballot only favored Republicans by about 1 percentage point in these races.

The actual results showed people were significantly less partisan with their votes especially in the House and in governor races. Republicans picked up multiple house seats in Democratic strongholds in states such as California, Illinois, and New York. Republicans won governorships in deep blue states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Maine, Wisconsin, and Maryland. And they won a few of these races by huge margins. They nearly won huge upsets in states like Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Governor races were also much tighter in states like New York and Oregon than suspected. This explains the partisanship and why Republicans had a huge generic ballot advantage.

Based on polling, the models also indicated that following:

· House incumbents had a 3.8 point advantage with an actual PVI coefficient of 0.38

· Senate incumbents had a 7.1 point advantage with an actual PVI coefficient of 1.5

· Governor incumbents had a 5.3 point advantage with an actual PVI coefficient of 0.53

My model includes open seats in the incumbent data (in other words, whomever held the seat last Republican or Democrat is considered the incumbent). Historically these incumbent advantage numbers are low. We know incumbents have an advantage going into elections because incumbents are hard to beat. Since most Senate races were in Red states and these races had voters vote along party lines (high PVI), it lead to the gain of 9 seats in the Senate even though the Republican advantage in the generic poll was not that high. That being said, I am willing to believe the Senate generic ballot was much higher than 1%. And even though the house and governor races saw voters be less partisan, the huge generic ballot in the Republicans favor helped them overcome this and win many seats. In fact, it shows more independents and Democrats were voting for Republican candidates. This explains why Republicans did well in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California and Maryland. Massachusetts and Illinois are good example because they had both a governor and senator races. The Republican won the Governor races, but were destroyed in the Senate races (30 point difference in Massachusetts and 15 points in Illinois). This explains exactly what the models show: Senate races vote along partisan lines and the governor races did not. About 20% of Senate races changed hands, 15% of governor races, and 5% of house races. And this would lead me to believe the low PVI played an important role in this for house races. Since house races are far less partisan getting seats to flip is harder despite a low advantage and high generic ballot. Besides, Republicans were expected to have a fairly high generic ballot in house races because they held nearly 60% of the seats to begin with.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Election Polls and Models (11/4/14–Final)

Below are poll averages (from Real Clear Politics) for Gubernatorial, Senate, and contested House seats. A positive poll average favors the Republican candidate whereas a negative poll average favors the Democratic candidate. From the poll averages a ranking and probability are calculated for each race. A probability above 0.5 (50%) favors the Republican candidate whereas a probability under 0.5 favors the Democratic candidate. The higher ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Republican candidate. The lower the ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Democratic candidate. Since polling in House races are not very accurate, the formula to calculate the probability is more complex taking into account race ratings by the Cook, Election Projection, and Sabato political reports as well as generic congressional polling results and PVI (Partisan Voting Index). A positive PVI means the percentage of registered Republicans in the district outnumbers registered Democrats whereas a negative PVI means the percentage of registered Democrats in the district outnumbers registered Republicans. The overall probability for the President, Senate, Gubernatorial, and House races are computed to project the number of seats (including the presidency) that are going to be won by Republicans and Democrats respectively. Race candidates will be filled in to the below tables once they are determined by state primaries. I will update and post this information regularly (many primaries and candidates have not been decided and most polls are not pertinent because they do not contain the right candidates). Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based on probability density function models.

Governor Races

State

Democrat

Republican

Poll

Rank

Probability

Gain

Incumbent

Arkansas

Ross

Hutchinson

8

14

0.7116084

1

Rep Gain

-1

California

Brown

Kashkari

-18

35

0.104612

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Connecticut

Malloy

Foley

-1.3

24

0.4638696

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Colorado

Hickenlooper

Beauprez

-0.5

21

0.4860875

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Hawaii

Ige

Aiona

-13

33

0.1822309

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Illinois

Quinn

Rauner

-0.8

22

0.477747

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Maryland

Brown

Hogan

-12

32

0.2012585

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Massacusetts

Coakley

Baker

3.4

17

0.5937446

1

Rep Gain

-1

Minnesota

Dayton

Johnson

-9

30

0.2650508

-1

Dem Hold

-1

New Hampshire

Hassan

Havenstein

-5

27

0.3636174

-1

Dem Hold

-1

New York

Cuomo

Astorino

-24

36

0.0470389

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Oregon

Kitzhaber

Richardson

-8

29

0.2883916

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Rhode Island

Raimondo

Fung

-6

28

0.3377662

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Vermont

Shumlin

Milne

-16

34

0.1321727

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Arizona

DuVal

Ducey

6

15

0.6622338

1

Rep Hold

1

Alabama

Griffith

Bentley

32

1

0.9872044

1

Rep Hold

1

Alaska

Walker

Parnell

-3

26

0.4171134

-1

Dem Gain

1

Florida

Crist

Scott

-1

23

0.4721919

-1

Dem Gain

1

Georgia

Carter

Deal

4.6

16

0.6258575

1

Rep Hold

1

Idaho

Balukoff

Otter

15

11

0.852316

1

Rep Hold

1

Iowa

Hatch

Branstad

19

6

0.9074912

1

Rep Hold

1

Kansas

Davis

Brownback

-2.3

25

0.436263

-1

Dem Gain

1

Maine

Michaud

LePage

1.4

20

0.5389011

1

Rep Hold

1

Michigan

Schauer

Snyder

2.5

18

0.5692256

1

Rep Hold

1

Nebraska

Hassebrook

Ricketts

13

12

0.8177691

1

Rep Hold

1

Nevada

Goodman

Sandoval

25

5

0.9594231

1

Rep Hold

1

New Mexico

King

Martinez

10

13

0.7572901

1

Rep Hold

1

Oklahoma

Dorman

Fallin

17

8

0.8821771

1

Rep Hold

1

Ohio

Fitzgerald

Kasich

18

7

0.895388

1

Rep Hold

1

Pennsylvania

Wolf

Corbett

-11

31

0.2214298

-1

Dem Gain

1

South Carolina

Sheheen

Haley

16

10

0.8678273

1

Rep Hold

1

South Dakota

Wismer

Daugarrd

29

2

0.9784673

1

Rep Hold

1

Tennessee

McKamey

Haslam

28

3

0.9746088

1

Rep Hold

1

Texas

Davis

Abbott

17

8

0.8821771

1

Rep Hold

1

Wisconsin

Burke

Walker

2.2

19

0.560988

1

Rep Hold

1

Wyoming

Gosar

Mead

26

4

0.9651451

1

Rep Hold

1

0

14.3346

0.5764308

4

-2

8

Senate Races

State

Democrat

Republican

Poll

Rank

Probability

Gain

Incumbent

Alabama

Unopposed

Sessions

50

1

0.9897637

1

Rep Hold

1

Alaska

Begich

Sullivan

2.4

21

0.5442883

1

Rep Gain

-1

Arkansas

Pryor

Cotton

7.1

17

0.6289581

1

Rep Gain

-1

Delaware

Coons

Wade

-18

33

0.2020488

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Georgia

Nunn

Perdue

3.2

19

0.5589567

1

Rep Hold

1

Hawaii

Schatz

Cavasso

-38

36

0.0390893

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Illinois

Durbin

Oberweis

-12

29

0.2890313

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Massachusetts

Markey

Herr

-21

34

0.1651823

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Maine

Bellows

Collins

30

5

0.9178179

1

Rep Hold

1

Michigan

Peters

Land

-11

27

0.3050728

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Minnesota

Franken

McFadden

-9

26

0.3382797

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Mississippi

Childers

Cochran

15

14

0.7565573

1

Rep Hold

1

Kentucky

Grimes

McConnell

7.2

30

0.6307084

1

Rep Hold

1

Idaho

Mitchell

Risch

30

4

0.9178179

1

Rep Hold

1

Kansas

Orman

Roberts

-0.7

22

0.4870582

-1

Dem Gain

1

Nebraska

Domina

Sasse

25

7

0.8767281

1

Rep Hold

1

Colorado

Udall

Gardner

2.5

19

0.5461256

1

Rep Gain

-1

Louisiana

Landrieu

Cassidy

4.8

18

0.5880325

1

Rep Gain

-1

New Jersey

Booker

Bell

-15

31

0.2434427

-1

Dem Hold

-1

New Mexico

Udall

Weh

-13

30

0.2733979

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Oklahoma

Johnson

Langford

33

3

0.9369417

1

Rep Hold

1

Oklahoma

Silverstein

Inhofe

33

3

0.9369417

1

Rep Hold

1

Montana

Walsh

Daines

18

10

0.7979512

1

Rep Gain

-1

Rhode Island

Reed

Zaccaria

-33

35

0.0630583

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Tennessee

Adams

Alexander

17

11

0.784644

1

Rep Hold

1

Texas

Alameel

Cornyn

21

8

0.8348177

1

Rep Hold

1

South Carolina

Dickerson

Scott

21

8

0.8348177

1

Rep Hold

1

South Carolina

Hutto

Graham

17

11

0.784644

1

Rep Hold

1

Virginia

Warner

Gillespie

-11

27

0.3050728

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Oregon

Merkley

Wehby

-17

32

0.215356

-1

Dem Hold

-1

West Virginia

Tennant

Capito

17

11

0.784644

1

Rep Gain

-1

New Hampshire

Shaheen

Brown

-0.9

25

0.4833624

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Wyoming

Hardy

Enzi

46

2

0.9835034

1

Rep Hold

1

South Dakota

Weiland

Rounds

10

15

0.6785021

1

Rep Gain

-1

North Carolina

Hagan

Tillis

-0.7

23

0.4870582

-1

Dem Hold

-1

Iowa

Braley

Ernst

1.4

22

0.52587

1

Rep Gain

-1

0

21.5743

0.5770943

8

7

-6

House Races

State

Democrat

Republican

Poll

PVI

Cook

Sabato

Election Projection

AVE

Rank

Probability

Arkansas 2

Hays

Hill

-4

8

0

5

5

3.2

37

0.6856783

Arkansas 4

Witt

Westerman

9

15

5

5

10

7.9

22

0.883757

Arizona 1

Kirkpatrick

Tobin

6

4

0

5

-5

1.4

44

0.5837871

Arizona 2

Barber

McSally

-5

3

0

-5

-5

-1.9

55

0.386995

Arizona 9

Sinema

Rogers

0

1

-5

-10

-10

-4.8

66

0.2340862

California 3

Garamendi

Logue

-6

-1

-10

-15

-15

-8.8

73

0.0917587

California 7

Bera

Ose

-4

0

0

5

5

1.6

43

0.5955397

California 9

McNerney

Amador

0

-6

-15

-15

-15

-10.2

78

0.0615862

California 10

Eggman

Denham

10

1

15

10

15

9.2

13

0.917805

California 16

Costa

Tacherra

0

-7

-15

-15

-15

-10.4

79

0.057996

California 21

Renteria

Valadao

15

1

15

10

10

8.7

17

0.9057264

California 25

Strckland

0

3

10

15

10

7.6

24

0.8746475

California 24

Capps

Mitchum

0

-4

-10

-10

15

-1.8

53

0.3927933

California 26

Brownley

Gorell

0

-4

0

-5

-5

-2.8

60

0.336081

California 31

Aguilar

Chabot

-4

-5

-5

-5

-5

-4.4

65

0.2530248

California 36

Ruiz

Nestande

0

1

0

-5

-5

-1.8

53

0.3927933

California 52

Peters

DiMaio

-1

-2

0

-5

-5

-2.5

59

0.3527741

Colorado 6

Romanoff

Coffman

1

-1

5

5

5

2.9

39

0.6694142

Connecticut 5

Esty

Greenberg

-16

-3

-10

-10

-15

-9.2

75

0.082195

Florida 2

Graham

Southerland

0.5

6

5

5

5

4.25

35

0.7396708

Florida 26

Garcia

Cubelo

-1

1

0

5

5

2.1

41

0.624525

Florida 10

Demings

Webster

0

6

5

15

15

8.2

18

0.8923866

Florida 13

Sink

Jolly

0

1

15

15

15

9.2

13

0.917805

Florida 18

Murphy

Domino

-22

3

-10

-10

-15

-8.6

72

0.096839

Hawaii 1

Takai

Djou

1

-15

-5

-5

-5

-5.9

68

0.1862752

Georgia 12

Barrow

Allen

3

14

0

-5

-5

1.1

45

0.56602

Illinois 8

Duckworth

Kaifesh

0

-8

-10

-5

-15

-7.6

69

0.1253525

Illinois 10

Schneider

Dold

-4

-5

0

5

5

0.6

49

0.5361274

Illinois 11

Foster

Senger

-3

-10

-10

-10

-15

-9.3

76

0.0799258

Illinois 12

Enyart

Bost

5

2

-5

0

5

0.9

46

0.5540984

Illinois 13

Callis

Davis

17

17

10

10

10

11.1

3

0.953289

Illinois 17

Bustos

Schilling

-9

-11

-5

-10

-10

-8.1

71

0.1104371

Indiana 2

Bock

Walorski

0

6

15

10

10

8.2

18

0.8923866

Iowa 1

Murphy

Blum

0.5

-5

0

-5

-5

-2.95

61

0.3278517

Iowa 3

Appel

Young

0

0

0

5

5

2

42

0.6187781

Iowa 4

Mowrer

King

11

5

15

10

15

10.1

6

0.9365548

Kentucky 6

Jensen

Barr

0

9

15

-5

-15

0.8

47

0.5481186

Maine 2

Cain

Poliquin

0

-2

-5

-5

-5

-3.4

62

0.3036733

Massachusetts 6

Moulton

Tisei

-1

-4

-5

-10

-5

-4.9

67

0.2294772

Michigan 8

Schertzeing

Bishop

0

2

15

15

5

7.4

26

0.8683043

Michigan 1

Cannon

Benishek

0

5

10

10

5

6

31

0.817749

Michigan 3

Goodrich

Amash

0

4

10

15

15

8.8

16

0.9082413

Michigan 7

Byrnes

Walberg

3

3

15

10

10

7.9

22

0.883757

Michigan 11

McKenzie

Trott

12

4

10

15

15

10

9

0.9346525

Minnesota 1

Walz

Hagedorn

0

1

-10

-15

-15

-7.8

70

0.1192258

Minnesota 2

Obermueller

Kline

22

2

15

10

15

10.6

4

0.9454276

Minnesota 8

Nolan

Mills

8

3

0

5

5

3.4

36

0.6963267

Minnesota 7

Peterson

Westrom

-10

6

-10

-5

-5

-3.8

63

0.2828759

Montana 1

Lewis

Zinke

9

7

10

10

15

9.3

12

0.9200742

New Jersey 3

Belgard

McArthur

6

1

0

5

-5

0.8

47

0.5481186

New Jersey 2

Hughes

LoBiondo

13

-1

15

15

15

10.1

6

0.9365548

New York 1

Bishop

Zeldin

0

2

0

5

5

2.4

39

0.6415959

New York 11

Recchia

Grimm

19

2

0

5

10

5.3

34

0.7884412

New York 18

Maloney

Hayworth

-4

0

0

-5

-5

-2.4

56

0.3584041

New York 19

Eldridge

Gibson

24

-1

10

5

15

8.2

18

0.8923866

New York 21

Woolf

Stefanik

14

0

10

5

15

7.4

26

0.8683043

New York 24

Maffei

Katko

-1

-5

0

-5

5

-1.1

52

0.43398

New York 23

Robertson

Reed

0

3

15

5

5

5.6

33

0.8013255

New York 27

Hochul

Collins

0

8

0

15

15

7.6

24

0.8746475

Nebraska 2

Ashford

Terry

-3

4

5

0

-5

0.5

51

0.5301187

New Hampshire 1

Shea-Porter

Guinta

4

1

0

5

-5

0.6

49

0.5361274

New Hampshire 2

Kuster

Garcia

-6

-4

-5

-5

5

-2.4

56

0.3584041

New Mexico 2

Lara

Pearce

0

5

15

10

15

9

15

0.9131214

Nevada 2

Spees

Amodei

0

5

15

15

15

10

9

0.9346525

Nevada 3

Bilbay

Heck

0

10

10

10

10

8

21

0.8866865

Nevada 4

Horsford

Hardy

0

-4

-5

-5

-5

-3.8

63

0.2828759

North Carolina 2

Aiken

Ellmers

8

15

15

15

15

12.8

1

0.9734772

North Carolina 7

Barfield

Rouzer

0

12

15

15

15

11.4

2

0.9575519

Ohio 6

Garrison

Johnson

0

8

15

15

15

10.6

4

0.9454276

Ohio 14

Wager

Joyce

0

4

15

15

15

9.8

11

0.9307153

Oregon 5

Schrader

Smith

0

0

-15

-15

-15

-9

74

0.0868786

Pennsylvania 6

Trivedi

Costello

9

2

10

10

10

7.3

28

0.865051

Pennsylvania 8

Strouse

Fitzpatrick

0

1

15

15

5

7.2

29

0.861743

Texas 23

Gallego

Hurd

0

3

-5

-5

-5

-2.4

56

0.3584041

Utah 4

Owens

Love

9

16

10

10

10

10.1

6

0.9365548

Virginia 10

Foust

Comstock

15

2

5

5

10

5.9

32

0.8137248

Washington 1

Delbene

Larsen

-9

-4

-10

-15

-15

-9.7

77

0.0713207

West Virginia 2

Mooney

Casey

12

11

0

5

10

6.4

30

0.8332966

West Virginia 3

Rahall

Jenkins

-6

14

0

5

-5

2.2

40

0.6302444

Governor Races: Current - Republicans 29; Democrats 21 (including 2 Independents); Model Projection - Republicans 28; Democrats 22 (including 2 Independents)

Senate Races: Current - Republicans 45; Democrats 55 (Including 2 Independents); Model Projection - Republicans 51; Democrats 49 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Current - Republicans 234; Democrats 204; Model Projection: Republicans 250; Democrats 188

Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based solely on election polls:

Governor Races: Republicans 27; Democrats 23 (including 2 Independents)

Senate Races: Republicans 52; Democrats 48 (Including 3 Independents)

House Races: Republicans 247; Democrats 191