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.

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.

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.

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!

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 111^th 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 114^th 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.

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.

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