The Swing State Project is changing its ratings on two House races:
Look for our writeups to follow soon. Our full race ratings chart is available here.
UPDATE: One more change:
I put my predictions in the following format:
State-race (# of EV if presidential): margin, chance, result (change from Democratic perspective) (comments, if any)
Margin terms: up, up-dash, dash, down-dash, down. These reflect my written shorthand. An up-arrow (“up”) refers to a margin of 8 points or more for the Democrat. An up-arrow with a dash through the tail (“up-dash”) means a margin of about 2-7 points in the Democrat’s favor. A dash (“dash”) means a margin closer than that, or basically a toss-up. (Substitute “Republican” for “Democrat” when you see “down” instead of “up”).
Chance terms: I use the same terms as SSP: “safe” means I can’t see a reasonable chance for the other party to win (barring something really crazy happening, basically); “likely” means that I feel I can safely predict that outcome but would be vulnerable to a strong challenge from the other side; “lean” means I feel that that side has only a narrow advantage; “tossup” means I think both sides are about evenly matched.
Result: “keep” means the incumbent party retains the seat; “gain” means the winning party wins the seat from the other side. “change from Democratic perspective” means that “+1 House” refers to a gain of one Democratic House seat while “-1 House” refers to the loss of one Democratic House seat.
And before I begin: Be sure to join me (and hopefully other SSP people!) on IRC on election night! Once again, our chat room is #swingstateproject on the Chat4All network (irc.chat4all.org). Hope to see you there!
Edit: Added LA-02.
Now, here we go! (below the fold) Part 2 coming soon, before the end of the day!
PART ONE: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri
AK-Pres: down, safe R, R keep
AK-Sen: up, likely D, D gain (+1 Senate)
AK-AL: up-dash, likely D, D gain (+1 House)
AL-02: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
AL-03: down-dash, lean R, R keep
AL-05: up-dash, lean D, D keep
AR-Pres: down, likely R, R keep
AZ-Pres: down-dash, lean D, R keep
AZ-01: up, lean D, D gain (+1 House) (where are the polls?)
AZ-03: down-dash, lean R, R keep
AZ-05: up, safe D, D keep
AZ-08: up, safe D, D keep
CA-03: down-dash, lean R, R keep
CA-04: up-dash, lean D, D gain (+1 House) (You’ll be a winning candidate, Charlie Brown!)
CA-11: up, safe D, D keep
CA-26: down-dash, likely R, R keep
CA-42: down, safe R, R keep
CA-44: down, safe R, R keep
CA-45: down, safe R, R keep
CA-46: dash, lean R, R keep (sorry, but I think it’s unlikely. but I’d LOVE to be wrong about this!)
CA-50: down-dash, lean R, R keep
CO-Pres: up-dash, lean D, D gain (+9 EV)
CO-Sen: up, likely D, D gain (+1 Senate)
CO-04: up-dash, likely D, D gain (+1 House)
CO-05: down-dash, likely R, R keep
CO-06: down-dash, safe R, R keep
CT-02: up, safe D, D keep
CT-04: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
CT-05: up, likely D, D keep
CT-GA-014: down, likely R, R keep (this is my state house district! I’m voting for Kathy Hale! I have no polling data so this is just a basic guess, but I hope I’m wrong!)
DE-AL: down, safe R, R keep (nope, not this year)
DE-Gov: up, safe D, D keep
FL-Pres: dash, toss-up, D gain (+27 EV)
FL-05: down, safe R, R keep
FL-06: down, safe R, R keep
FL-07: down-dash, safe R, R keep
FL-08: dash, lean D, D gain (+1 House)
FL-09: down, safe R, R keep
FL-10: down, safe R, R keep
FL-12: down-dash, safe R, R keep
FL-13: down-dash, likely R, R keep
FL-15: down, likely R, R keep
FL-16: double down, safe R, R gain (-1 House)
FL-18: down-dash, tossup, R keep (again, I’d love to be wrong!)
FL-21: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
FL-24: up-dash, lean D, D gain (+1 House)
FL-25: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
GA-Pres: down-dash, lean R, R keep
GA-Sen: dash, tossup, runoff (I’m not predicting runoff results at this time)
GA-01: down-dash, lean R, R keep (again, I’d love to be wrong!)
GA-03: down, likely R, R keep (so much for Mr. “Uppity”‘s come-uppance)
GA-06: down-dash, likely R, R keep
GA-08: up-dash, likely D, D keep
GA-12: up, likely D, D keep
HI-none: (sorry, no competitive federal-level or gubernatorial races in Hawaii)
IA-Pres: up, safe D, D gain (+7 EV)
IA-04: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
IA-05: dash, lean R, R keep
ID-Sen: down, likely R, R keep
ID-01: up-dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
IL-06: down-dash, lean R, R keep
IL-08: up, likely D, D keep
IL-10: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
IL-11: up-dash, lean D, D gain (+1 House)
IL-13: down-dash, likely R, R keep
IL-14: up-dash, likely D, D keep
IL-18: down, likely R, R keep
IN-Pres: down-dash, tossup, R keep
IN-02: up, safe D, D keep
IN-03: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
IN-04: down-dash, lean R, R keep
IN-06: down-dash, lean R, R keep
IN-07: up, safe D, D keep
IN-08: up, safe D, D keep
IN-09: up, likely D, D keep
IN-Gov: down-dash, likely R, R keep
KS-Sen: down, likely R, R keep
KS-02: up-dash, lean D, D keep
KS-03: up-dash, likely D, D keep
KY-Sen: down-dash, lean R, R keep (OH HOW I’D LOVE TO BE WRONG)
KY-01: down-dash, likely R, R keep
KY-02: down-dash, lean R, R keep
KY-03: up, likely D, D keep
KY-04: down, likely R, R keep
LA-Sen: up, likely D, D keep
LA-01: down-dash, lean R, R keep (and I’d love to be wrong here too!)
LA-02: up, safe D, D keep (the point of this race is whether Moreno can succeed in defeating the indicted Jefferson; Jefferson seems likely to win at this point, unfortunately)
LA-04: general election occurs later
LA-06: up-dash, likely D, D keep
LA-07: down-dash, tossup, R keep (I have no polling on this race…)
MA-Sen: double up, safe D, D keep
MD-01: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
ME-Sen: down, likely R, R keep
ME-01: up, likely D, D keep
MI-Pres: up, likely D, D keep
MI-07: up-dash, lean D, D gain (+1 House)
MI-08: down, likely R, R keep
MI-09: up-dash, lean D, D gain (+1 House)
MN-Pres: up, likely D, D keep
MN-Sen: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 Senate)
MN-01: up, likely D, D keep
MN-02: down-dash, lean R, R keep
MN-03: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
MN-06: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
MO-Pres: dash, tossup, D gain (+11 EV)
MO-06: down-dash, likely R, R keep
MO-09: dash, tossup, D gain (+1 House)
Research & Polling Inc for the Albuquerque Journal (10/28-30, likely voters, 9/29-10/2 in parens):
Martin Heinrich (D): 47 (43)
Darren White (R): 43 (41)
Undecided: 10 (16)
(MoE: ±5%)
The undecideds are breaking for Heinrich, and I’d expect that they will continue to do so on election day in this D+2.4 district. NRCC Chair Tom Cole may have promised Darren White the moon last fall, but his candidacy was a mistake.
And over in the 2nd District…
Research & Polling Inc for the Albuquerque Journal (10/28-30, likely voters):
Harry Teague (D): 45
Ed Tinsley (R): 41
Undecided: 14
(MoE: ±5%)
Lots of undecideds still on the table here, but it’s pretty troubling for Republicans that Tinsley hasn’t locked more of the vote down, especially with the news that Tinsley canceled his last week of broadcast television advertising. Harry Teague may just be on track for a narrow win here on Tuesday.
(Hat-tip: New Mexico FBIHOP)
SurveyUSA (10/29-11/01, likely voters, 10/18-20 in parens):
Lunsford (D): 45 (48)
McConnell (R-inc): 53 (48)
Undecided: 4
(MoE: 4%)
Very discouraging trendlines for Lunsford at this late date. The earlier SUSA poll which showed the race tied matched Lunsford’s best performance all cycle (apart from a Rasmussen outlier back in May). But the drift in just a couple of weeks has been pretty stark. Whites were +3 for McConnell in the last poll; they are now +13. Independents were +6 for Lunsford; now they are +6 for Mitch.
As exciting as this race has been for some time, the problem (as I allude above) is that Lunsford has never had a lead in this race. With the last batch of polls all showing him behind anywhere from two to eight points, Bruce has to pull a serious rabbit out of his hat if we’re going to paint KY blue.
UPDATE: A cause for optimism? ChadinFL points out the final SUSA poll (PDF) of KY-Sen in 2004 (Mongiardo v. Bunning) was 51R-42D. The actual result? A 51-49 Bunning heartbreaker. The big difference, though, is that Mongiardo had moved up five net points in that last poll, where here, Lunsford has dropped eight.
Passing this along from the Senate race in NC – Go Hagen Team!
Well, I may have had the oddest GOTV job of the election season. Dressed as Dorothy, along with my friend Tin Man, we followed Senator Elizabeth Dole around for a week on her ‘Elizabus’ tour across North Carolina. We were there to remind folks that Dole was registered to vote in Kansas for 25 years before switching her registration to run in NC, and TinMan reminded folks that she has accepted more than $300K in contributions from Big Oil. We got a little bit of press and were a constant annoyance, and then the unthinkable happened. Please see attached picture
We have entered into high level negotiations to bring Elizabeth Dole back to Kansas. We are close to realizing our dream. Photo from Union County Summit attached. Negotions could be described as ‘business like’. Tin ManSent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
The Des Moines-based American Future Fund is exploiting loopholes in rules governing political advocacy groups in order to run campaign advertising in targeted races without disclosing its donors.
The Des Moines Register provided the latest evidence in this article from Saturday’s edition: “National group airs ads on Iowa House.”
For background on the American Future Fund, a 510(c)4 organization “formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint,” you can read this piece by Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock, this TPM Cafe story by Mrs. Panstreppon, or Paul Kiel’s report for TPM Muckraker.
The American Future Fund is associated with heavy-hitters in the field of campaign advertising. Its media consultant is Larry McCarthy (creator of the 1988 Willie Horton ad), and its legal consultant is Ben Ginsberg (who was involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004).
Representatives for the American Future Fund deny that the group seeks to influence elections. For that reason, they are not subject to campaign disclosure rules governing political action committees and other groups that make independent expenditures during election campaigns.
However, the American Future Fund’s radio and television commercials this year have focused on candidates running in competitive Senate races, such as Republican incumbent Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Democratic candidate Mark Udall of Colorado, and Democratic candidate Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. You can view many of those ads at the AFF’s You Tube channel. Note that while these commercials ostensibly are focused on generating phone calls in support of a particular issue position, they haven’t been aired in states without a contested Senate seat.
Now the AFF is weighing in on key Iowa legislative races. From yesterday’s story in the Des Moines Register:
On Wednesday [October 29], AFF launched television ads in Iowa that criticize Democratic Reps. McKinley Bailey of Webster City, Paul Shomshor of Council Bluffs, Elesha Gayman of Davenport and Art Staed of Cedar Rapids. All four are incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in the face of strong Republican challengers.
Other ads that compliment Republican Reps. Doug Struyk of Council Bluffs, Jamie Van Fossen of Davenport and Dan Rasmussen of Independence. Struyk is a Republican leader whose opponent has spent little; the other two are dealing with strong Democratic challengers.
AFF’s spokesman explained the timing of the political messages by saying it took months to compile analysis on the legislative session, which ended in April.
What an amazing coincidence. Analysis about legislative action completed more than six months ago resulted in television ads that appeared six days before a general election.
In another amazing coincidence, the AFF’s ads happen to focus on candidates running in six battleground districts being targeted by both parties. Dozens of legislators who voted the same way on those issues, but represent uncompetitive districts, are not subject to AFF’s advertising blitz.
I could only find two of the American Future Fund Iowa’s tv ads on You Tube. One praised the Republican incumbent in Iowa House district 81, Jamie Van Fossen, and the other criticized the Democratic incumbent in House district 9, McKinley Bailey.
It’s worth noting that while urging viewers to call legislators, these ads give the phone number for the switchboard at the State Capitol. However, the switchboard is currently closed, because the legislature is not in session. The AFF spokesman explained that the law requires advertisements to use official phone numbers, but he is evading the issue.
These commercials cannot be intended to generate citizen communication with legislators if they are giving a phone number that no one is currently answering.
Clearly the AFF selected the subjects and timing of their advertising in order to influence the outcome of legislative elections in Iowa. (The Republican Party of Iowa is concentrating its resources on making gains in the Iowa House, where Democrats have only a 53-47 majority.)
The tv ads direct viewers to the web site of the AFF’s Iowa chapter: www.iowa.americanfuturefund.com.
AFF spokesman Tim Albrecht
told The Des Moines Register last month that AFF is a group that focuses solely on national issues. “At that time we were, but after a lot of analysis and reviewing what had occurred in the last legislative session, we decided to open an Iowa chapter,” he said.
It is AFF’s first state-based chapter in the country, said Albrecht, who is a former spokesman for Iowa Republican legislative leader Christopher Rants and AFF’s only paid staff member.
Earlier this year, the Iowa Future Fund was incorporated by the same people behind the American Future Fund, and the Iowa Future Fund ran television ads criticizing Democratic Governor Chet Culver. (Here is one of the Iowa Future Fund’s ads against Culver.) In March, the Iowa Democratic Party called for an investigation into the Iowa Future Fund’s advertising campaign and failure to disclose donors. In April, a press release announced the creation of the Iowa Progress Project to replace the Iowa Future Fund. In theory, the the Iowa Progress Project was going to focus on state issues, while the American Future Fund focused on national issues.
It is unclear why the American Future Fund decided to create an Iowa chapter, rather than have the Iowa Progress Project pay for television commercials about Iowa House incumbents. If anyone has any information regarding the Iowa Progress Project or the decision to create an AFF Iowa chapter, please post a comment or send me a confidential e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).
Can anything be done to force the AFF to disclose who is paying for these commercials? Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, told the Des Moines Register that his office had received a complaint about the ads, but that campaign disclosure laws do not apply because the AFF ads do not urge viewers to vote for a candidate.
Mr. desmoinesdem has extensively researched election law and tells me that one relevant case in this area is Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. Wisconsin Right to Life was running ads urging people to contact their senators about judicial filibusters. Senator Russ Feingold was up for re-election, and the ads did not urge people to vote against him, but the FEC considered them “sham issue ads” that were intended to influence an election and therefore were subject to regulation by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold).
The Supreme Court had previously upheld McCain-Feingold’s provisions on political advocacy ads (in the McConnell vs. FEC case), so the key question was whether Wisconsin Right to Life’s ads were the kind of political advocacy Congress can regulate. With Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the court
held that McConnell v. FEC did not establish the test that any ad intended to influence an election and having that effect is express advocacy. Such a test would be open-ended and burdensome, would lead to bizarre results, and would “unquestionably chill a substantial amount of political speech.” Instead, the Court adopted the test that “an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” The Court further held that the compelling state interests invoked by the government to regulate advocacy did not apply with equal force to genuine issue ads. Neither the interest in preventing corruption nor the goal of limiting the distorting effects of corporate wealth was sufficient to override the right of a corporation to speak through ads on public issues. This conclusion, the Court held, was necessary in order to “give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.” The dissent by Justice Souter called WRTL’s ads indistinguishable from political advocacy ads and accused the majority of implicitly overruling McConnell v. FEC.
I agree with Souter’s position that so-called issue ads targeting candidates in key races shortly before elections are really political advocacy ads subject to McCain-Feingold. If the American Future Fund were mainly trying to influence Iowans’ views on issues, they wouldn’t be running their commercials only in battleground districts. Also, the timing of the ads only makes sense in the context of this Tuesday’s election. As I mentioned above, no one is currently answering the phone number AFF asks viewers to call.
But Smithson has to look at the AFF’s Iowa advertising from a narrow legal perspective. Clearly the ads are promoting favorable opinions about some Republican incumbents and unfavorable opinions about some Democratic incumbents. But as long as the ads urge people to call a telephone number (even a non-working one), courts would probably not hold that the commercials have “no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”
I am not an expert on election law or disclosure requirements for 501(c)4 organizations. Perhaps there is some way Congress could require more financial disclosure of 501(c)4s so that they would not be able to run campaign ads with no accountability.
I don’t know the solution, but I do know that we can help Democrats fight back against the American Future Fund’s ad campaign by giving to the Iowa House Democrats’ Truman fund or to the following individual candidates:
McKinley Bailey (incumbent in House district 9)
Art Staed (incumbent in House district 37)
Elesha Gayman (incumbent in House district 84)
Paul Shomshor (incumbent in House district 100)
Phyllis Thede (challenger in House district 81)
Gene Ficken (challenger in House district 23)
Star Tribune (10/29-31, likely voters, 10/16-17 in parens):
Franken (D): 42 (39)
Coleman (R-inc): 38 (36)
Barkley (I): 15 (18)
Other/Undecided: 4 (7)
(MoE: ±4.1%)
This has been one hell of a race and looks to be as tight as they come, with a very narrow lead for Franken in the Pollster average:
Election night should be pretty fun in Minnesota.
Cross-posted at Blue Jersey.
I want to share with you how excited I am about the incredible effort people are putting forth this weekend to bring the change we need to Washington, DC. In NJ-04 we’ve got over 700 volunteers talking to voters, handing out literature, making phone calls, and working as hard as we can to win this election.
We’re within striking range, so I’m asking you to please contribute through my ActBlue page. If you’d like to volunteer, please contact our Field Director at pete_at_joshzeitz_dot_com. I also encourage you to take a look at our website.
More after the jump.
Personally, I’m humbled by all these folks out there on my behalf. But I also know that we’re all part of a larger movement to bring progressive change to the halls of Congress and to the White House. Our goal is have a government that champions the interests of average Americans instead of ignoring them, that protects freedom instead of denying it, and that makes sure that the economy works for all of us, not just an elite few.
I still need your help to make this happen in NJ-04. Our opponent, House ‘pro-life’ caucus chairman Chris Smith, is running negative attack ads mentioning me by name as we speak. This is important because it means, for the first time in a very long time, he actually thinks he might lose. Any last minute contributions you can make will go right to spreading our message directly to voters and to get out the vote efforts.
Now is the time to make this seat a late breaker with one last contribution.
Thanks so much,
Josh
(DavidNYC and Crisitunity contributed to the writing of this post.)
While we’ve been very high on this race for a long, long time, we’ve always been aware that this is Alaska, and Don Young has seldom been threatened since he first captured this seat in the early 1970s. But lately, The Donald seems to get less and less popular with each passing year, and this cycle is no exception. Young has never lead in a single poll released since 2007, which is pretty remarkable. Pollster.com counts sixteen polls showing Young trailing, and while the man has come from behind before, he hasn’t done so in a time of extraordinary change in Alaska’s political culture — Ted Stevens is set to go to jail, and voters seem poised to give the boot to a beloved Senator. It seems hard to believe that they’ll stick with a Representative under FBI investigation whom many dislike.
Yes, Young overcame tough odds to win his primary, but only barely — and that was after one of the most inept campaigns ever witnessed by Sean Parnell and the Club For Growth. While I do not believe that Democrat Ethan Berkowitz will win this race by a large margin, a Young victory on Tuesday would have to be considered a surprise. (James)
A 14-year Republican incumbent in an R+16 district in a dark-red state shouldn’t have much trouble getting reelected, even in today’s climate. But Mark Souder just keeps making it possible, with his apparently lukewarm approach to fundraising and campaigning. In 2006, he won by only 54-46 over Fort Wayne city councilor Tom Hayhurst; the DCCC smelled a missed opportunity here and, once attorney Mike Montagano showed some promise, the money spigots opened. The district’s lean and the NRCC’s furious defense may save Souder’s butt once again, but given Montagano’s strong polling (including an honest-to-gosh 3-point lead in a public poll) and the likely best Democratic presidential performance in Indiana in more than 40 years, it’s even tougher this year. (Crisitunity)
For a long while, this looked like it was going to be a top-tier barnburner of a race. Kay Barnes, the former mayor of Kansas City, was one of the DCCC’s first and most highly-touted recruits in 2007. The problem, though, is that much of the 6th District lies outside of metropolitan Kansas City, and GOP Rep. Sam Graves wasted no time in painting her as a big city liberal with “San Francisco values”. The bullshit either worked, or Graves’ campaign just never took off, because recent public polling has Graves opening up an 18-point lead over Barnes. Private polling is also pessimistic. (J)
When Kenny Hulshof retired from this seat to become gubernatorial roadkill, lots of Democrats saw some potential here… but who would have anticipated that this race, and not the highly touted MO-06, would be the one that turned into a Tossup as we entered the home stretch? It’s a combination of a particularly scrappy Dem candidate, state representative Judy Baker, with a strong base in the district’s major population center (Columbia), plus a rather bland GOPer in Blaine Luetkemeyer who emerged depleted from a bitter primary against a Club for Growth pod person (and has tapped into his own money to stay competitive). Baker has trailed in single digits in public polling (down 5 in R2K last week), and has led by as much as 4 in her own internals. The GOP probably has the natural edge in this rural R+7 district, but Baker has made a real race out of this. (C)
This race has flown under the radar all cycle, but we’ve decided that if there was one GOP-held seat that wasn’t on our competitive races list that has the very small possibility of not just being close but scraping out an upset, this is it. Virginia Foxx (something of a non-fictional version of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady) has, in her elections, underperformed this district’s dark-red R+15 inclinations, and Roy Carter, a well-known high school football coach, is a popular figure. A PPP poll from September showed Foxx up by only 2 (with an earlier PPP poll giving her a 10-pt. edge); at the time, it seemed fluky, but given Democratic strengths this year in North Carolina, even in the whiter areas (like this mountain district), who knows? (C)
This expensive, Republican-leaning district on New Jersey’s northern border was always going to be a tough nut to crack. But it looks like rabbi & psychologist Dennis Shulman has closed a lot of ground with uber-wingnut Scott Garrett and could be poised to deliver an upset. Shulman, a first-time candidate, has raised almost a million bucks and just got a dose of help from the DCCC.
He’s also gotten under Garrett’s skin, prompting shrill freak-outs and bizarre attacks. The only public polls of this race (by R2K) showed nice momentum for Shulman, while Garrett dangled below 50. It would still be an upset if Shulman were to win here, but a Dem victory now looks much more possible than at any time in the past. (David)
This race has moved hard and fast. We moved it to Likely R just a couple of weeks ago, and now we’re bumping it to Lean R. It seems that Rep. Henry Brown, Jr. never imagined he’d face a competitive race, and when he got one, he was utterly unprepared for the challenge. Maybe this isn’t so surprising: After all, Brown was so indignant about being prosecuted for burning down twenty acres of a national forest that he had the law changed so that acts like his would no longer be considered crimes. It’s not hard to imagine a schmuck like this growing entitled and complacent.
Since our last ratings adjustment, we’ve seen two polls which confirm Brown’s precarious position, even in this R+10 district. R2K showed him under 50, while SUSA gave him just a five-point lead. Dem Linda Ketner is a wealthy heiress (her father created the Food Lion chain of supermarkets) and has spent $700K of her own money on this race, addition to raising a million bucks the hard way. She could very well rock the political world come Tuesday. (D)
A thought occurred to me earlier that I wanted to share to get peoples’ views. Alaska’s polls close at 8 pm Alaska time, or 12 am on the East Coast (with the exception of the Aleutian Islands, which close at 1 am EST). If the presidential election looks like it is over early, say 9 pm EST, it will only be 5 pm in Alaska, three hours before just about all of the Last Frontier’s polls shut. Would this lead to many Democrats staying home, thereby saving Ted Stevens’ and Don Young’s butts?
Now, the networks will not be able to call the race until at least 11 pm EST. Why? Because California’s polls close at that time (8 pm on the West Coast), and Obama almost certainly cannot get to 270 before California’s 55 electoral votes are awarded to him. So, while it may be clear that Obama has won the whole thing — if say, he captures Virginia and North Carolina, which close at 7 pm and 7:30 pm EST — the networks not be able to actually declare the winner until he is at the 270 electoral vote plateau. Still, if it is clear that Obama has won, this could impact voters still heading to the polls in far away Alaska. (A big part will be how the network anchors and analysts are portraying the results, and if they will be presuming Obama is the winner before California comes in. My guess is that to be on the safe side, they will temper their official language until they are sure.)
I think the situation is unlikely also because many voters will be clamoring to get to the polls, but it is possible that the election will no longer be any doubt by 8 pm Alaska time. Indeed, unless we are all still waiting at midnight here on the East Coast, Alaskans will still be heading to the polls after the race has been called. Severely depressed resulting Democratic turnout may be the last saving grace that Ted and Don are praying for.
I posted this on my own blog, but I wanted the expert views of fellow SSPers. What are peoples’ thoughts? Am I missing anything?