Your Nov. 3 election results right here. (Not really. But at least some perspective)
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Democrats appear a cinch to win control of the House, but the Senate remains a toss-up.
- Ignore the polls and don’t assume whoever has the most money wins.
Today we discuss board games, snacks and boomerangs.
So where do things stand less than a week from election day?
With the usual caveats, about no certainties in life or politics ...
Of course ...
.... it seems pretty darned certain that Democrats are going to take control of the House next week, notwithstanding the delusions (or professed confidence) of Speaker Mike Johnson and his Republican allies. The only question is the margin.
Democrats need to flip just three seats, and even the most conservative handicappers (in terms of circumspection, not political views) see them netting more than half a dozen, at a minimum. From there, forecasts climb into the double digits.
“In the best-case scenario,” Erin Covey wrote in a recent analysis for the Cook Political Report, Democrats “could enter the new Congress with more seats than they had after successfully flipping control of the House in 2006 and 2018.”
Didn’t Republicans gerrymander several states to boost their chances?
They did, starting in Texas. Then California moved to gerrymander its political map, to boost Democratic chances.
That helped precipitate a nationwide redistricting war which, once the haze cleared, resulted in a third of the nation’s 435 House districts being redrawn to at least some extent. But that only marginally increased Republicans’ advantage. And there are signs the rejiggering of political lines may have backfired, or boomeranged, on the GOP.
How so?
By spreading their reliable voters thin and counting on support from 2024 Trump backers who’ve since soured on the president. In particular Latinos. In doing so, Republicans have put several House seats into play, most notably in Texas and Florida.
That’s what’s known in the business as a “dummymander.”
A knife’s edge
What about the Senate?
That remains a toss-up, which few would have imagined at the start of this election season.
Virtually all the contests that will decide control of the Senate are being fought in states that President Trump carried — several by landslide margins — making them not exactly friendly Democratic territory. But war, inflation and Trump’s wretched approval rating have dragged GOP candidates down in states such as Kansas, Mississippi and Texas, which, a year ago, would have required hallucinogens to appear remotely competitive.
So what’s the math?
Democrats need to hold on to all of their seats and gain four to flip the Senate.
While incumbent Jon Ossoff seems certain to win in Georgia, Democratic-held seats in Minnesota, New Hampshire and, especially, Michigan are more problematic. In terms of pickup opportunities, the aforementioned Kansas and Texas are toss-ups, along with Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Maine. North Carolina seems ready to flip Democrats’ way.
And, who knows, there might be a surprise or two — which, obviously, wouldn’t be a surprise if we’re talking about it here.
One thing to bear in mind: Close races all tend to break in favor of one party or the other. Think of dominoes falling, not checkers hopscotching across the board.
Polls look good for Democrats.
They do. But as both of my faithful readers know, your friendly political columnist can’t stand the constant chattering about polls.
It’s not just how surveys understated Trump’s support the two times he won the White House. (In their defense, pollsters did pretty well in the last two midterm elections, in 2018 and 2022.)
It’s that too many people — including folks who should know better — ascribe a false precision to polls, which at best offer nothing more than an educated guess.
Are the polls again overstating Democratic support?
Could be.
In a recent analysis, the Economist found that polls tend to underestimate a party’s strength in states they dominate. That could mean surveys showing toss-up races in red states such as Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas could be overstating Democratic strength.
(Research also has shown that dispirited voters are less likely to participate in a poll, which could mean an oversampling of Democratic sentiments despite quite conscious attempts to adjust and weight the data.)
All of which is to say, ignore the polls and don’t let your hopes get too high, or your mood too low. We’ll have election results soon enough.
Barabak: Is there a doctor in the House? Backlash to Trump, RFK Jr. may boost their political ranks
Anti-vaxxers and attacks on the nation’s public health system have spurred hundreds of doctors and scientists to seek office. In Sacramento, congressional hopeful Richard Pan is part of that wave.
What does the early voting tell us?
Nothing dispositive. (That’s a fancy way of saying, again, don’t read too much into those numbers.)
Democrats are evidently way more enthused about voting this election than Republicans. And there have been some eye-popping turnout numbers among Black and Latino voters. But maybe Republicans are holding back to cast their ballots closer to or on election day.
Things will be abundantly clear after the fact, as they always are.
Table stakes
How about all the money Republicans — and Elon Musk — are pouring into the election?
It’s gross. But money alone is not determinative.
Just ask Tom Steyer, who spent the GDP of a small country on his failed run for California governor. Or Trump, who was outspent by Hillary Clinton nearly 2-to-1 when he was elected in 2016.
A certain amount of money is necessary to compete; it’s like the table stakes required for a serious competitor to get into the race. Beyond that, factors like candidate performance, external events and, especially, the overall political climate matter a good deal more.
The big Republican money advantage can help drive turnout, which is no small thing, especially if it helps coax reluctant GOP voters to the polls. But elections aren’t like vending machines, where the more money you put in, the more you take out.
Thankfully, we haven’t reached a point where public office can be purchased automatically like soda or a candy bar. At least not yet.
So get out and vote, or make a plan to, if you haven’t already.
What else you should be reading
Get smart: Many Latinos are done with Trump. The shift is especially striking in Texas
The deep dive: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal:” Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth tax supporters
The L.A. Times Special: Skelton: Need help deciding on the state ballot measures? Here are my recommendations
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The column argues that Democrats are strongly favored to take the House, though the size of their majority is uncertain. It suggests Republican-led redistricting may have backfired by making some GOP-held districts more competitive, particularly where support among Latino voters has weakened.
- By contrast, the Senate remains a toss-up in the column’s assessment: Democrats have several vulnerable seats to defend, but Republican-held seats in states such as Kansas and Texas have become unexpectedly competitive.
- The piece cautions against treating polls as precise forecasts. It notes that surveys can miss voters’ preferences and that polling patterns in strongly Republican states may overstate Democratic strength in close races.
- Similarly, the column says early-voting totals offer no decisive forecast: high Democratic engagement does not establish who will turn out by Election Day. NPR reporting also cautions that early-voting figures can be a poor predictor of the final result, in part because many voters who cast ballots early would have voted anyway.[1][2]
- Finally, the article contends that campaign spending is not enough to determine an outcome. Money can help mobilize voters, but candidate performance, national conditions and other events matter more than simply outspending an opponent.
Different views on the topic
- A more cautious outlook for Democrats is that Republicans could make up for their lower share of early votes by turning out more voters on Election Day. ABC News notes that Republicans have historically been more likely than Democrats to vote on Election Day, while stressing that early-vote data cannot show how many lower-propensity voters will ultimately participate.[5]
- More broadly, Reuters reports that a Democratic sweep is not assured: Republicans could benefit from voters’ continuing skepticism toward Democrats, their campaign-spending advantage and concerns among moderate voters about some Democratic primary winners.[4]
- Republicans also have a substantial financial advantage that could help them defend close races and encourage turnout. CNBC reports that GOP groups have directed large sums into congressional contests, including races in states where Republicans are now playing defense.[3] The column’s counterpoint is that spending does not automatically translate into votes.
- At the same time, the early-voting surge could reflect greater overall participation rather than a clear partisan advantage. NPR reports that early totals do not necessarily mean more people will vote overall, since many early voters may simply be changing when they cast ballots.[2]
