Control of US Senate a tighter race than for White House

And the outcome means all the difference for the next two years.  The expert consensus four days from Election Day is a dead solid tie.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

-- First of all, I don't think Wisconsin's Russ Feingold is in as much trouble as all those screaming subject line fundraising emails we're getting would have us believe.

-- Evan Bayh, the Democrat who held a lead most of the year for the open seat in the Hoosier State, has coughed it up.  Reports like this aren't going to help him.  There are still a lot of undecideds as reflected in the polls, and perhaps the Libertarian, the only other candidate in the race there, can influence the result to some degree.

-- Roy Blount, the Republican incumbent in the Show Me State, will probably hang on.  He has to overcome whatever percentages the Libertarian and Constitution Party nominees may take away from him, the only question mark I see.  That makes MO and IN holds for the GOP, and that gets the Elephants to 50.  Nate Silver has them both turning pink just yesterday.

-- New Hampshire's presidential polling volatility, coupled with incumbent R Kelly Ayotte clinging to a small lead probably means the Granite State isn't so much of a tossup.  That's 51 for the Reds.

-- That leaves Nevada, and I'll predict that the Silver State elects Catherine Cortez Masto, riding on the coattails of Hillary Clinton.  See Robby Mook's confidence about NV in the most recent post.

This is the last of these I'll do unless news breaks something of value, so put me down for a Republican Senate by just one seat.  That pits me against Silver and the NYT's Upshot, who are both predicting a 55% chance of it turning blue as of this morning.  Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has the whip count at 48-47 Dems, with five tossups.

Update: Via Down with Tyranny, Rep. Alan Grayson (whom I wish was the Democratic nominee for the US Senate for Florida, and not Patrick Murphy)  has more detail, but sees it exactly the same way as I do.  Great minds and all that.

Here's a question I can't find the answer to: if somebody on the right side were to change parties, resign, or pass away in the next year or two, and a Democratic governor made an appointment to fill the vacancy that puts the upper chamber into a tie, does control of the Senate change mid-term or must it wait for the next election, special or regularly-scheduled in 2018?

Jim Jeffords' party switch in 2001 -- from Republican to independent caucusing with the Democrats -- flipped control, but the Senate was 50-50 at the time and Jeffords gave the Dems a pure 51-49 majority.  So by my understanding, pushing the body into 50-50 would only give a Vice President Tim Kaine the ability to break tie votes, and not change which party controls the flow of legislation, appointment of committee chairs, and the like.  Am I right or not?

Hillary builds a wall, too

With early votes in battleground states.

The word of the day is "firewall."[...]

Jon Ralston, the savviest political analyst in Nevada, used the term "firewall" to describe the early vote margin Democrats seem to be running up in that state. As of Friday morning, he figured Democrats had banked a 37,000-vote margin. "So he can win Nevada," Ralston wrote Friday morning. "But Trump would need base numbers and indie numbers that seem unlikely right now." Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, told reporters on a conference call that the campaign figures Trump would have to win Nevada by 10 percentage points on Election Day to overcome her advantage there.

I don't consider Ralston all that savvy after this episode from two years ago, but hard data is one of those things that is difficult for almost anybody to screw up.  And that's really why Clintonoids should breathe easier: there are over 30 million votes already in the can, and we don't have to rely on an admittedly shaky Nate Silver to tell us what to think any longer.

In Florida early voting, Democratic strategist Steve Schale sees further positive signs for Clinton, specifically a marked uptick in Latino voting. "The two places with the highest Puerto Rican populations, Orange and Osceola counties both out-performed their projected share of the statewide vote," he wrote Friday morning. Florida Hispanics are typically thought of as being Cuban, but Puerto Ricans have been migrating to the state in great numbers in recent years. More broadly, Schale wrote, Hispanic voting patterns so far are the "definition of a surge." It should be obvious, but is worth noting anyway: Hispanics aren't turning out in greater numbers to vote for Donald Trump. Schale goes on to add: "Right now, Democrats hold a 117K vote advantage among all low propensity voters, in large part due to this Hispanic surge. 32% of Democratic voters so far are low propensity voters, compared to 26% of the GOP voters. But among [no party affiliation voters or NPAs], the number rises to 48%. That's right, 48% of NPAs who have voted so far are low propensity – and 25% of those are Hispanic. In fact, of the NPA low propensity voters, a full 42% of them are non-white. That right there is the Clinton turnout machine edge." Reminder: Turnout is important, even if Donald Trump doesn't seem to think it is. Mook told reporters that the campaign believes it's leading in Florida by around 170,000 votes overall and said that at this time four years ago, the Obama campaign figured that it was behind by 15,000 votes. (Obama won the state, narrowly.) Schale sums up: "All of this has me leaning a bit that the state is shaping up nicely for HRC, but while I think that, in no way is it in the bag, or close to it."

The Hispanic surge isn't confined to Florida. Per Talking Points Memo's Lauren Fox, the polling firm Latino Decisions reported early Hispanic voting "is up 100 percent in Florida, 60 percent in North Carolina and up 25 percent in Colorado and Nevada." See my previous comment about Hispanics and Donald Trump. Fox adds: "Latino Decisions is estimating – using their own turnout predictor – that Clinton is on track to capture 79 percent of the Latino vote. Trump, on the other hand, is expected to garner only 18 percent (almost 10 points down from Romney's 27 percent performance.)" Remember that Trump's theory of winning through running up the white vote doesn't only motivate white voters. The backlash could well end up benefiting Clinton in a big way.

North Carolina is IMHO the true decider for both president and Senate in 2016.  Black turnout was reported soft in North Carolina (and Florida and Ohio as well) earlier this week, and there have been serious efforts by the Republicans in charge to stifle the vote there.  So I see the Tar Heelers being decided very late on Election Night.

Across the country, Mook told reporters Friday, early voting is breaking records. And for whatever it's worth, the Clinton campaign sees itself as having "leverage[d] this early voting period to build a firewall in states with early voting to turn out our supporters early and build up a lead that Donald Trump is incapable of overcoming."

Bloomberg's Mark Niquette and John McCormick took a broader look at early voting. "Donald Trump is showing strength in Iowa and Ohio pre-Election Day voting, while Hillary Clinton's advantage in early balloting looks stronger in North Carolina and Nevada, a Bloomberg Politics analysis shows," they wrote. Hold on there, Robert, my target audience responds, this post is supposed to soothe my nerves but you just quoted someone saying Trump looks strong in Ohio. The key point as we hurtle toward Nov. 8 is that given the state of the electoral map, Trump needs to look strong in all the contested states. If early voting carries Clinton to victory in Nevada (see Ralston above) and North Carolina (which my colleagues Dave Catanese and Seth Cline described on Friday as her ultimate firewall) the game is over.

Whoa theyah, podnah; it ain't over 'til it's over.

It's called being ahead, which Clinton still is. It may be a narrow lead, but it's a lead nevertheless, and with the days dwindling it's better to be front-running than trying to play catch-up.

The Comey Effect may have run its course, and any further late-breaking developments such as this are too late to move the needle.  But if the Senate does not flip, that will be added to the foundation for impeachment proceedings in 2017.

A fresh Senate forecast is coming shortly.

Why is Clinton losing to Trump? Vol. II

(Volume I was posted on September 16.  That was ten days before the first debate and about seven weeks following her triumphant coronation at the Philly convention in late July.  You should go read it for context in light of her slump here at the finish.  Especially if you are still of the mind that a straight Democratic ticket is a good idea.)

Is it the fault of Vladimir Putin and his Russian hackers, who broke into and stole the DNC's e-mail, and then gave the files to Julian Assange, who has leaked them out daily over the past month, revealing Hillary and her subordinates to be ... exactly who we thought she was, and they were?  Except even more craven and stupid than we could have imagined?

Is it those wretched Green Party/Jill Stein voters, those damned dirty hippies, all full of their white privilege as they stand poised to repeat the 2000 "history" (sic) of sending a shitty Republican to the White House because they refuse to vote for a shitty Democrat?

(Without question, the most stubborn urban legend ever.  I had to correct a few more former Facebook friends again just last night.  I'm pretty certain they still don't get it.)

Nope.  None of the above.  It's all Her.  And her supporters, who have driven some Sanders supporters to vote for Trump out of spite for the Hillbots' bad behavior.

(Not me.  Though I fought -- and fought hard, for a decade -- to push the Texas Democratic Party to the left, this was the year they yanked the torch and pitchfork out of my hands and ran me off for good.  I still didn't vote for any Republicans, however, though there were many fewer Democrats who earned my vote in 2016.  That's a pattern I see increasing in the future.)

Here, let's allow Cesar Vargas to explain.

It took me a long time to write this. I had to dig deep into my being to come up with these words. I’m recanting my endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the presidency.

I’m aware of how vindictive Clintonians can be. I’m not speaking about the Clintons themselves, but of those surrounding them. Perhaps the saying is true: dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres.

Your staff, your donors, your surrogates, and those you surround yourself with are a reflection of who you truly are, no? If not, why not curb any unacceptable behavior? Silence, indifference, or inaction is as incriminatory -- at least to me.

There has been no repudiation, let alone denunciation, of what was said in those emails-just denial, finger pointing, and doublespeak. To appoint the very same folks who carried out many malicious behaviors to tip the scales for Hillary is just as unpardonable. Why reward unethical behavior? It’s mind-boggling.

I rebuke with my heart, mind, and soul all the twisted narratives of sexism, misogyny, racism, and classism lay at our feet. Though some of them are legitimate, most were used to derail derail valid grievances from our communities and completely erase us. Our voices were drowned out by empty accusations, by a nefarious usage of identity politics recommended by one of our own, no less. That is a bamboozling of POC and unsuspecting allies. This is why Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve our vote, among many other reasons.

If Hillary Clinton fumbles this sure thing, it's on Her.  And all of those with Her.

Bernie Sanders was treated horribly by the DNC, the Clinton crew, and the Obama administration, and by proxy, many of us were also stung. Without any apologies. In fact, we received nothing but contempt from the Clinton campaign and her surrogates. Then they expected us to fall in formation. Many of us did. I said I would endorse Hillary if she won the primary fair and square. And I did, but that was before I got a hold of all the highly unethical things that happened to get her to win.

I’m not telling you not to vote for her. I’m aware of what is at stake. The Supreme Court and a petulant man-child that might quicken the apocalypse, I know. I’m telling you that I’m no longer endorsing her. Vote with your conscience. Vote strategically. Or don’t. It’s your prerogative.

If she loses, it's all Her fault and the fault of those who attacked everything they saw in opposition, like a pack of rabid dogs.  In other words, they acted just like Republicans.  They acted worse than Republicans on far too many occasions, but that might only be because I have long given them the benefit of the doubt as being smarter, using critical thinking skills, etc.  They stopped doing that, and consequently lost me -- and what appears to be some significant quantity of other Democrats and Democratic voters -- this year.

And I doubt whether they can earn it back.