ERIC Votes … Election Predictions, Results and Analysis

Canada’s first pandemic general election at either the federal or provincial level is unlikely to precipitate a run to the polls with other governments in a minority government situation, at last count a total of 4 provincial and 1 national.  For the most part incumbents in Canada have received strong reviews for the handling the pandemic, the situation essentially being no different in New Brunswick.  However this will not translate to a landslide at the polls, with voting patterns in New Brunswick expected to show only very modest, as opposed to significant changes.

On the other hand, however, New Brunswick has had no less than several successive streaks of one term majority governments, going back to 2006.  The 2018 election was slightly different in that vote distribution gave the PCs a slight edge in seats, although they had a 7 point deficit in the popular vote.  Aided by the People’s Alliance Party, they were able to form a government which, with a few rough spots, was largely received well enough by the electorate such that recent polling has shown no significant desire to change helmsmen. 

The polling also shows, though, that Liberal support, while down from 2018, has remained stable at around 30% and very concentrated in the northern and eastern, more francophone parts of the province where they retained support in 2018.  The noted collapse in People’s Alliance support to roughly one half of where it was in 2018 will likely by itself aid the PCs in getting a small majority overall.  The Greens might have benefited from the decrease in Liberal support elsewhere, although it remains to be seen if they are able to make additional breakthroughs, especially around the Fredericton area where they are represented federally by a Green Member of Parliament.  The NDP have largely polled at the same level as 2018, which is likely to result in no seats and little impact on the overall result.

The Liberals were able to hold the PCs to a minority in part by retaining one seat a piece in Fredericton and St. John and holding their own in Moncton.  The model is showing that those seats will now likely turn PC blue, in addition to another possible PC pickup in Moncton, The one riding won by a PC in 2018 which will likely flip back to the Liberals is Shippigan-Lameque-Miscou at the top right corner of the map, this was held by former Deputy Premier Robert Gauvin, who in protest of the Higgs government’s nighttime closure of 6 ERs, crossed the floor to the Liberals and is now running in Shediac Bay-Dieppe.

The People’s Alliance is expected to lose two out of three ridings. The Miramichi riding will likely see Liberal Leader Kevin Vickers elected over PA incumbent Michelle Conroy (it is worth noting that the Liberal Leader is the same Kevin Vickers who as House of Commons Sergeant at Arms in 2014 helped end a shooting episode at Parliament Hill, receiving a Star of Courage medal as a result.)  The other expected loss is that of Fredericton York to the PCs.

The main thing to note though is that after numerous provincial elections where voting patterns have not always followed a tight English-PC-South-Southwest and French-Liberal-North-East narrative (think of election victories by PC Premiers Hatfield and Lord where frequently did well in the northern part of the province, and even in drought elections like 1995 half the PC caucus was from northern New Brunswick), those voting patterns appear to be falling back to where federal lines have remained largely consistent (outside of clean sweep elections) with respect to blue and red on the map.  And going forward, if this pattern holds, it may very well be that not only does New Brunswick politics continue to remain interesting with no long term governments, but also that final election results will likely turn on only a handful of ridings and relatively small margins therein, and in most other ridings winning the nomination end up being effectively more consequential to winning the general election.

Wisconsin 7th Congressional District … Tom Tiffany, Republican 67% Tricia Zinker, Democrat 31% … Republican hold

California 25th Congressional District … Mike Garcia, Republican 50.2% … Christy Smith, Democratic 49.8% … Republican gain

Turnout anticipated to be low … Biden percentage of vote to range between very high 40s to mid to high 60s as likely to continue unchallenged as front runner … nation remains preoccupied with pandemic … primary’s significance if nothing else will serve as barometer of Biden’s continued strength

Probably lower turnout … perhaps less participation older pro-Biden demographic but still basically 2 to 1 margin of victory for Biden in each state … Arizona might be closest margin with stronger showing with Sanders amongst Hispanic population … Illinois and Florida stronger Biden

Vice-President Joe Biden is set to expand his lead a week after Super Tuesday with strong wins in the three ‘M’ states – Mississippi, Missouri and perhaps most notably, Michigan.

It will be more competitive in Idaho, North Dakota and Washington, where Sanders might earn 40% plus of the vote. Momentum in the race towards Biden effectively flips these states away from Sanders, with Washington being the one state Sanders may still carry (narrowly).

At this point projecting a complete Biden sweep including Democrats abroad.

Also California 25th Congressional District holds jungle primary today for former U.S. Representative Katie Hill (D). It is anticipated that none of the candidates will receive 50% forcing a May 12th runoff … likely to be between Steve Knight (R) and Christy Smith (D).

The Super Tuesday Primary involving 14 states plus American Samoa will be one for the history books on the Democratic side as the contest narrows down to a fight between the progressive (Sanders) and moderate (Biden) wings after a largely unprecedented dropout of three candidates – Steyer, Klobuchar and Buttigieg since Saturday’s South Carolina primary and the endorsement of Biden from the latter two mentioned.

This means both that there are few to none opinion polls extant that will reflect these developments … it also means that a good portion of votes will not end up going to active contenders given the number of early votes prior to these developments … most states in question lack any provision to withdraw an early vote for someone no longer in the running. If the Democratic convention in July becomes contested, this will likely be a contributing factor.

For the final four active campaigns, here are their prospects as I see them …

Michael Bloomberg … his strategy was to sit the early primaries out and focus on a mass advertising campaign for Super Tuesday. This strategy will likely have limited success given Biden’s strong South Carolina win and the latter’s endorsements by Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Some endorsements, such as Rep. Clyburn’s in South Carolina matter and these new developments create the momentum of Biden being the ‘stop Bernie’ candidate. This effectively puts a ceiling on Bloomberg’s support, not to mention two debate performances on his part that did little to generate additional support. As Andrew Yang pointed out, Bloomberg’s tactical error was to sit out the race in South Carolina, where he missed the ‘stop Bernie’ train. At this point his remaining in the race effectively gives Texas, a winnable state for Biden, to Bernie, if not the nomination overall.

Senator Warren appears to be stuck in the high single digits or a few points higher and, similar to Bloomberg paring Biden back, she might effectively do the same to Bernie, perhaps putting Virginia in Biden’s camp. At this point it appears doubtful that she will win her home state of Massachusetts, effectively numbering the days of her campaign. If she drops out before Bloomberg, that would probably help Bernie more.

Senator Sanders is expected to have a decent night, winning most of the states outside of the South, even if he doesn’t match his level of support 4 years ago. His levels of support in the South are expected to remain comparable to where they were 4 years previous, which will net him Texas and run a strong second everywhere else in the region except Alabama. Outside the South while he is expected to sweep every state, his support levels will likely be lower due to Warren and the countless early votes for candidates who have since dropped out. While I do not try to break out the specific delegate count, it is likely that after tonight, thanks to California and Texas, that he will have a strong, but not insurmountable lead of around 200 delegates.

Which brings us to Biden, who in the last 72 hours has had more good fortune compacted in those 3 days than any other Presidential contender I can remember. With clear momentum from Buttigieg and Klobuchar, and underlying strength in the African American electorate, it is likely that he will outperform all current opinion polls, even if not all of Klobuchar’s and Buttigieg’s supporters follow their lead. Given however the strength of Sanders in the Latin American population and those states outside the South, plus Bloomberg still remaining in the race, the best potential areas for Biden remain in the South.

It may be too early in the end to make final delegate predictions, however the race between Biden and Bernie may cone down to who drops out first – Warren or Bloomberg. On one hand there has been some palpable animosity between Warren and Sanders, but Warren has a much harder case to make for winnability if she can’t carry her home state of Massachusetts. On the other hand, Bloomberg may not get the results he wants tonight, but he certainly has no lack of resources to help him keep going.

First, right out of the gate, I know I have been wrong at this before … me and just about every other pundit thought that the blue wall would hold in 2016 and Hillary Clinton would get a respectable, if narrow win. (At lot of us did get the popular vote margin right – I predicted a 2% edge in the popular vote – but practically every major prediction did not model a plausible electoral college outcome where one could win with a 2 point popular vote deficit – elections won on comparable or closer margins (i.e. 1968, 1976) were reflected in more states. )

It might at first glance seem crazy to predict the race nearly a year ahead of time, (we don’t even know who the Democratic nominee will be!) this does come with the caveat that this is subject to change – my model’s assumptions are listed below.

Firstly – This model assumes that the incumbent, Donald Trump, will end up running again after handily securing the Republican nomination. This means that even if he is impeached (which seems greater than even chance), that the Senate does not convict and remove him from office.

Secondly – if it isn’t Joe Biden who becomes the Democratic nominee, that the Democrats will nonetheless put someone on the ticket that would lead for a balanced appeal to the industrial heartland and suburban middle class. That might be the biggest ‘if’ – it is safe to say that one of the Republican strategies for 2020 has been to portray the Democrats as a radicalized party out of touch with the American heartland. President Trump has not shied away from attacking members of ‘The Squad’ – those four first term congresswoman – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY); Ilhan Omar (MN); Ayanna Pressley (MA) and Rashida Tlaib (MI) who have been placed to the left end of the spectrum in the Democratic Party. This model’s assumption is that the Republican attempt at portraying the Democratic Party as radical will at best have a limited effect, that if not Biden then one of the other contenders, whether Senators Warren or Sanders, or Mayor Pete Buttigieg, will be able to establish a connection with the electorate independent of any portrayals of particular members of Congress, and any of the aforementioned will be deliberately mindful of the delicate balance between core base enthusiasm/turnout and broader appeals and bigger tents. The assumption also is that Donald Trump is seen by many as such a polarizing figure that his detractors will be more apt to consciously avoid splitting the vote, especially with (liberal-leaning) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 86, being in the news with intermittent health issues. (More on that later on.) This will be specifically reinforced by the third factor below.

Third Factor – a greater than 50% chance that there is at least an economic slowdown that will give middle class and mid-western working class voters a reason to seriously consider the Democratic Party. Most analysis of the 2016 election concluded that Trump’s appeal to mid-western blue collar economic anxiety tipped the balance in breaking through the blue wall, the 1992 adage that ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ may have worked in Trump’s favour in 2016 but might hurt his re-election prospects in 2020. Already economic analysts have described the current economy as being in the longest economic expansion in the history of the United States – there are probably enough risks between trade conflicts, corporate debt, consumer debt, inverted yield curves, etc. to suggest that if nothing else, the economy is apt to run out of steam. But even if the next economic recession is delayed past next year’s election, see factor number four below regarding approval ratings.

Fourth Factor – approval ratings. Depending on what poll one wants to believe, or if one even believes the polls, the fact is that most scientific, credible polls, in aggregate, are showing a huge disapproval deficit for Donald Trump, unrivaled (at least thus far) by any other President since the end of the Second World War. While some of the approval ratings of Presidents at various times have dipped below Trump’s (i.e. President Carter) the actual number of people who disapprove of his performance has been consistently far stronger, and much more consistent over time than any prior occupant of the Oval Office in the past 70+ years. We know that 3 Presidents with (at times) better approval ratings have gone on to lose re-election (Ford, Carter and Bush senior); we can further note that polling in the Trump area has remained remarkably consistent – his approval numbers have consistently been in the low to mid-40s and his disapproval numbers remain around 50 to 55 percent. Unless there is either some way that he is able to grow support, the opposition is badly split, or there is some unforeseen event that causes the nation to rally around their chief executive (i.e. a major natural disaster or terrorist attack), it is unlikely that he will get more than the approximate 45 percent of the popular vote he received in 2016, and with the exception of that election, no President in recent memory has won an essentially 2 person race (where the top two candidates win 90%+ of the vote combined) with that level of support or less. Further, with most aggregate polling showing all main Democratic contenders leading President Trump by at least 4 points (see RealClear Politics polling averages as of 11/30/19), no recent elections have shown a electoral college-only based win where the winner’s popular vote deficit was greater than 2% (again, 2016 being unprecedented). If the economy still continues to remain strong, the above map will change, with margins growing tighter, but not enough for the Democrats to loose their overall advantage.

Fifth Factor – Over the course of 230 years of Presidential history, there has not been a time where the two main parties have consistently traded off holding the White House after 2 terms, with each executive serving both full terms. The closest thing might be the period between 1952 and 1976 – a period of 24 years, if tumultuous at times then at least relatively prosperous – and even then where in two of those instances – Kennedy and Nixon – those initially elected did not serve the full 8 years. That the current trend of 8 years D, then 8 R, and then back to D, then R has continued since 1992, which will be 28 years, an unheard of amount of time for such a methodical rotation of power. Given increased polarization and less economic stability, it is likely that this cycle will be disrupted, sooner than later.

Final Factor – the United States Supreme Court. The fact that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, at 86, is experiencing periodic health issues and the court already has a conservative majority, liberals, and pro-choice voters in general, will likely be more motivated to show up to the polls than pro-life voters, who are not as apt to see a conservative majority change anytime soon. Add to this the fact of the age of the other President Clinton appointee, Stephen Breyer (confirmed back in 1994, now aged 81), it is not out of the question that the President elected in 2020 could possibly appoint 2 justices, both replacing justices seen as more liberal that is currently 5-4 conservative-leaning. The oldest conservative-leaning member, Justice Clarence Thomas, is currently 71. Thus in 2020 social moderates and liberals who might be concerned about abortion and gay marriage will see themselves having more to lose, and much more on defense, even as the the Supreme Court will remain in a conservative leaning direction for sometime to come. One might take issue with the labels of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ leaning justices, or believe that the essential threat to such rulings as Roe v. Wade (abortion) and Obergefell v. Hodges (the landmark same-sex marriage case) on a 5-4, or 6-3, or even a 7-2 conservative leaning court are grossly over-stated, but for predictive purposes for elections, perception matters. My overall model is predicting that the liberals will perceive a greater threat to their values than conservatives in the ongoing fight over Supreme Court composition, which could fuel Democratic pickups in such states as Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, where at least 2/3rds of voters do NOT identify as evangelical Christian (65% in North Carolina, 74% in Arizona and 76% in Florida), according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

In conclusion, this is not to say that the dynamics of the race can’t change, or that President Trump couldn’t win re-election, that is certainly possible. This model basically incorporates what I believe will be the most significant factors (economy, high disapproval, Democrats/liberals more united and more on defensive with Supreme Court) and projects the most likely outcome with each of those factors weighted appropriately. While recent elections have been more predictably unpredictable, and other factors could emerge that could significantly change my projections, any potential new factors will need to be very significant to change the underlying dynamics as outlined here.

November 3, 2020

Democrats – 55 % in popular vote and 358 electoral votes

Republicans – 42.5% and 180

Others – 2.5% and no electoral votes