Leading vs. Lagging Indicators and Early Tells on Election Night

Political Notes

by Jon Fuhrman

Monday, October 5. Economists put huge effort into trying to predict economic trends. As part of those efforts, they have identified “leading indicators” and “lagging indicators”: leading indicators anticipate changes, while lagging indicators confirm changes after the fact. Political pundits also fall into these two categories.

Most are “lagging indicators”; they wait for repeated polling, obvious catastrophic missteps, hesitant to diverge from the group consensus or buck historical trends. Surely, if Kansas hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, they really probably aren’t going to do that this year, no matter what other factors are in play. And yet, pundits all see the same repeated polling, consistent within Kansas and consistent across the entire farm belt, showing GOP Senate candidates encountering stormy waters as Midwesterners (and, indeed, the whole nation) cope with diesel prices, fertilizer prices, gas prices, tariffs, beef imports. All that notwithstanding, the pundits still rate Kansas as either Likely Republican or Lean Republican. No one can quite get to the point of calling it a “Tilt Republican”, let alone a true “Toss-Up” race. I guess leading in multiple polls, and even getting two former Republican Governors to endorse you, just isn’t quite enough to break through the herd mentality.

In contrast, Political Notes is a leading indicator, fearlessly out there ahead of our skis, unconcerned that, on occasion, we’ll ignominiously tumble down the ski slopes, poles flying, earning derision as we wildly miss the mark, while on other occasions we’ll gloriously lift off the jump and stick the landing, based on pretty much the same data available to the entire universe of pundits.

With that in mind, and with under a month to go until Nov. 3, I’ll reiterate my predictions. Most pundits are expecting around a 15 seat gain for Dems in the House, taking us to 230 seats. I’m looking north of 245 – a 30 to 50 seat gain. That would rival the 2006 and 2018 midterms, when Dems won 31 and 41 seats, respectively. In 2006, Dems had overall an 8.0% advantage over Reps in total votes cast in all House races; in 2018, the advantage was 8.9%, leading to the larger gain. Interestingly, most of the generic polls – do you prefer a Democrat or a Republican for Congress – give Dems a 7 - 15% advantage. Even something on the lower end of that range puts us north of 245 seats. Further, that tracks closely with the outperformance that Dems have shown in special elections for Congress and state legislative seats consistently and repeatedly across the last two years.

If I’m right, and Dems win somewhere in the range of 245 seats, or better, it gives the presumptive new Speaker, Hakim Jeffries, enormous flexibility. He would not be subject to the whims of a disgruntled 10 or 20 members. He could give his DSA/ultra-progressive caucus permission to buck the leadership, even on rules votes, with the understanding that on crucial issues, they come home to the caucus. That’s a luxury Speaker Johnson would kill for.

For the Senate, I’m still arguing that the question is not do we get beyond 50 seats, but rather do we (meaning Democrats and independents combined) get beyond 60 seats (enough to overcome the current filibuster rules). I see hard-core Rep states like Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota being in play, all due to the very same factors stretching across the entire farm belt. There’s been virtually no polling in Idaho and South Dakota by the big non-partisan organizations (and I grudgingly include Fox News in that group, because their polling operation is pretty legit), but the private polling I’ve seen from Idaho put the independent candidate there, Todd Achilles, with a small but consistent lead. The national polling in Kansas shows basically the same thing. And in Iowa, where everyone recognizes Democrat Josh Turek as a real threat to Republican dominance, national polling has shown Turek with a small but consistent, and apparently durable, lead. Add to that Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Alaska and Texas, with Dems holding on to Georgia, New Hampshire, Michigan and Minnesota, and you end up in the high 50’s.

Then there are the southern states, where also the average Republican rural community find themselves under huge financial pressure. In South Carolina, the Democratic candidate, Dr. Annie Andrews, is consistently within a few points of the appointed GOP incumbent, typically within the margin of error (but, admittedly, yet to outpoll her opponent). In Mississippi, there is a remarkably strong Democratic candidate, an African-American who is an elected District Attorney (having defeated a 30-year incumbent and then being re-elected twice) in a state that’s 37% African-American and where the state legislature is crassly and overtly trying to eliminate Mississippi’s African-American representation in Congress. Then there is Louisiana, where the Democratic challenger was within 4% of the GOP incumbent in two polls, with the incumbent polling under 50%. And lastly, there is Arkansas, of all places, where again an underfunded and basically ignored Democratic challenger polled within 3 points of Tom Cotton, the GOP incumbent.

All of those last races are in deeply, deeply red states, where Dems should be barely an afterthought. But the public unhappiness with the Trump administration rings here as clearly as it does in the Midwest, and one or two of these races just might be the star upset of Election Night. Indeed, in looking for leading indicators, the GOP Super-PAC for Senate candidates just moved $3 million worth of advertising from Texas into Kansas. When they are worried enough about Kansas, and perhaps pessimistic enough about Texas, to move funds like that, it means their pollsters and pundits are seeing the same data, and hearing the same things from the ground, that leads us to be extraordinarily hopeful about Nov. 3.

Now that’s not to say that the Rep super-PACS don’t have the time or money to mount a last stand and try to re-engage with and recapture their traditional electorate. If everyone who voted for President Trump in 2024 once again gets out and votes, we might face steep disappointment Election Night. Yet the consistent and unbroken history of midterm elections is that turnout is significantly lower than in Presidential elections. Typically, in past decades, that has worked to the disadvantage of Democrats; we tended to have more “occasional” voters powering our success in Presidential years. It is a new phenomenon that President Trump’s victory stemmed from their success in energizing more “occasional” voters, as well as eating into our typical majorities among black, Hispanic and young voters.

Nonetheless, on both those counts, we seem to be holding our own. Enthusiasm, at least as measured by self-identified “likely voters”, seems markedly greater on our side. Also, among the traditional core elements of the Democratic coalition, many who voted for President Trump are clearly expressing buyers’ remorse and returning to the fold. The one tactical advantage the Republicans have is money; the Trump super-pacs and their national committees seem to have many more millions to spend on advertising in this last month. Yet, even there, the advantage is not so great. AdImpact is an industry group that tracks ad spending. The Reps did spend nearly twice as much on ads in states with tight Senate races that Dems did, but their dollars bought only 54% of the actual minutes of air time, compared to 46% for Dems. The reason is that most of the ads purchased by Dems were purchased by the candidates themselves, who are entitled to rock-bottom prices; most of the Rep ads were purchased by their super-pacs, who have to pay market rates. So the actual disparity in impact turns out to be pretty modest.

Now that you know what to expect on Election Night, I’ll suggest a few “tells”, some early indicators that will likely show whether these predictions are on target or woefully wrong. All are from eastern states, since their polls close starting at 3 pm our time.

First up is Kentucky, whose polls close promptly at 3 pm (our time) and which generally reports results modestly quickly. The race to watch here is Congressional District 6; it’s an open seat, since GOP incumbent Andy Barr gave up the seat to run for the Senate. This is traditional GOP territory: two pundits call it Lean Rep, and one calls it Likely Rep. But Gov. Andy Beshear has been campaigning hard for the Democrat, trying to make this a test case of his drawing power in anticipation of 2028. It’s an R+7 district, meaning it’s 7% more Republican than the average district over the entire country. So if Democrat Zach Dembo is within 2% of the Republican, it should be a solid night; neck and neck, or winning, portends a great night; well behind, and we’re likely to be disappointed.

Next up is Virginia, where polls close at 4 pm our time. Two Congressional seats are of note here, both with GOP incumbents: VA-01 (R+3), rated as either Lean R or a Toss-Up, and VA-02 (R+0), rated as a Toss-Up or Lean D. We absolutely need to win VA-02; winning VA-01 as well would be a good sign. If we lose VA-02, go curl up in bed and turn off the TV.

If you’re still with us, next up is North Carolina, where the polls close at 4:30 pm our time. Roy Cooper should cruise to victory in the Senate seat, but watch Cong. District 11. Here, the incumbent, chose not to run again while under a cloud of ethics violations. It’s an R+5 district, so it’s a bit of a stretch, but we have a really strong candidate – Jamie Ager – and the GOP candidate tagged to replace the incumbent has been awkward and unsure of herself. So two of the pundits rate the district as a Toss-Up, and one calls it a Lean Rep. If we win this one, it’s likely to be at least a solidly good night.

At 5 pm our time, polls close in Maine, NJ and Pennsylvania. In NJ, watch NJ-07, where Tom Kean Jr. is trying to hang on to his seat despite a 4-month absence in a rehab facility. It’s an R+0 district; two pundits rate it as Lean D, one as Tilt D. This should be a must win for our side.

In Pennsylvania, watch CD-01. It’s a D+1 district, but the GOP incumbent, Brian Fitzpatrick, has withstood multiple challenges over the last 10 years, cultivating an image as a moderate centrist, even though he’s been voting with Trump nearly every time. It’s rated as a Likely Rep or Lean Rep race by the pundits; if we win this one, it will be a huge night for us. Last, Maine’s polls also close at 8 pm. Obviously, the Senate race is critical, but perhaps not predictive; Susan Collins, like Brian Fitzpatrick in his district, has withstood multiple campaigns by cultivating a centrist image and bringing home the bacon to Maine. Troy Jackson has led in virtually every poll, but not by much, and Collins has outperformed polls in prior elections. So she is a bit of a special case, not divorcing herself from Trump but not hewing too close to him either. The more interesting race will be Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. This is the rural north and eastern parts of the state, always the more conservative of Maine’s two districts, and often voting for the GOP Presidential candidate. The Democratic incumbent, Jared Golden, survived for many years by hewing to a relatively conservative stance, often to the great annoyance of the Democratic leadership in the House. But he’s retiring, and the Democrat running to replace him is State Auditor Matt Dunlap. The GOP candidate is former Governor Paul LePage. So we have two heavy-weights in an R+4 district with a distinctly Republican history. Two pundits rate this as Likely Rep, one as Lean Rep. Holding this district would foreshadow a really big night for Dems.

So get your popcorn and favorite blankets ready to cuddle in for a long night, but I think we’ll be popping champagne by the time the night is over.