1. Thank God it wasn’t close

One of these days we’ll have another 2000-style election, where the result will be so tight that we will not know the outcome on the election evening — or for many days thereafter. Consider New York State — which a month and a half after the fact still has not certified its election results. (We remember Superstorm Sandy, but New Jersey was hit just as hard.) Even a critical New York state Senate race remains up in the air: George Amedore (R) has a 39-vote lead on Cecilia Tkaczyk (D), who is not conceding and is likely to appeal a court decision that appeared to make Amedore the winner.

Our nation now takes two months to vote, and two months to count the votes. This is unacceptable. It is unwise for balloting to start so many weeks before Election Day — before the campaign has truly unfolded and many useful revelations about the candidates have unfolded. Millions of voters are writing their review of a four-act play after the second act.

Worse is our seeming inability, a dozen years after Florida, to eliminate problems in the administration of the voting process and the actual counting of the votes. Examples abound, including poorly functioning equipment, the cavalier discarding of absentee ballots with the slightest imperfections, the inability to get ballots to members of the armed forces in a timely fashion, and the refusal to set up enough polling stations for the crowds that inevitably materialize on Election Day.

The next time we have a presidential squeaker, we may not be lucky enough — yes, we said lucky — to isolate the recount to just one state. The Florida 2000 nightmare could be widespread, depending on the closeness of the electoral count. With our vote count and certification process now slower in many states than it was in the Sunshine State back then, one wonders whether it would be possible to get a president by Jan. 20. If you think politics is dysfunctional and polarized now, just think about what would happen if an “Acting President” were installed for weeks or months while we sorted out the mess. (Since the vice presidential contest would presumably also be held in abeyance, the Speaker of the House would become Mr. or Ms. Acting President — having been elected by the vote of the people in 1/435th of the country.)

We encourage all states to further streamline their voting rules. First, let’s concentrate all early voting in the last two or three weeks of the campaign, after all the debates, so voters get the full picture, more or less. Second, add no-fault absentee voting everywhere, so that voters can get an absentee ballot without needing to provide a reason for why they are voting early. Third, open all polls beginning on the Saturday before the Tuesday election. Let people come and vote at their convenience over four days; no one can justify the current inadequate situation in many states that forces voters to wait for four or six or eight hours in line in order to cast a ballot. Maybe it is just poor planning, but one suspects it is an attempt in some states and localities to discourage voters and reduce turnout. If time is money, then this is a new poll tax — just as onerous and despicable as the original one. We’re certain there are other useful reforms, too. The point is, our current voting system is a disaster waiting, yet again, to happen. Can’t we do something now to head off a future crisis? It is manifestly in our national interest.

2. Northeast, West Coast power Obama victory

We all know 2012 was a partisan, polarized election — and every region performed according to the modern script. President Obama’s victory was predicated on maintaining support in the heavily Democratic portions of the country (the Northeast and Pacific West) while edging Mitt Romney in the Midwest. Romney’s strength in the Greater South, the Plains and the Inner West was not enough to overcome the incumbent. Notice that the overall Democratic landslides in the Northeast and Pacific West are much larger than the GOP victory margins in the South, Plains and Rocky Mountain states. Below is a chart that shows regional voting in 2012.

Chart 1: Regional voting in 2012

Notes: *Many localities in New York have still not finalized their numbers due to delays stemming from Superstorm Sandy. Most other states have finalized their numbers although some may have discrepancies due to write-in votes. Percentages will not add up to 100% due to votes for third-party candidates and write-ins.

Obama’s edge on the coasts helped give Obama 190 of the 193 electoral votes within those regions (Alaska went to Romney), and Obama’s huge wins in California and New York were pivotal in his nearly 5 million popular vote edge. With the 80 electoral votes he won in the Midwest, Obama had 270 electoral votes without even considering the South or Inner West, where he added Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia.

3. Where Obama improved

Nationally, the president won about 1.9% less of the popular vote in 2012 than he did in 2008 (52.9% versus 51.0%). Therefore, he did worse in most states around the country. But there were five states where Obama actually improved upon his 2008 performance. Among the 26 states he won, Obama saw his vote share go up by a bit more than 1 percentage point in New Jersey and by a negligible 0.05 points in Maryland. The other three states where Obama’s portion of the vote grew were Louisiana (+0.65), Mississippi (+0.79) and Alaska (+2.92), where the absence of Sarah Palin probably led to the slight Democratic addition.

4. How important was the ground game?

There have been endless articles written on the superiority of the Obama campaign’s ground game vis-à-vis the Romney field operation, especially in the battleground states. However, when looking at the numbers, just how impactful was it?

Chart 2: Change in Obama percentage in battleground states from 2008 to 2012

Of the eight states the Crystal Ball long viewed as the key swing states in the 2012 election, Obama’s performance fell by more in five of them than did his national percentage, while in three states his percentage fell by less than his national fall-off. An argument could be made that if the Obama field operation was truly game-changing, it would have lessened the general decrease in support for the incumbent in most or all of these important states. If we expanded this list to include North Carolina (-1.35) and Pennsylvania (-2.52), Obama’s percentage would still have fallen off by greater than the national average in six of 10.

Then again, perhaps the fact that Ohio, the most-heavily targeted state by both campaigns, saw the smallest drop-off for the president of the eight is an indication that Obama’s field operation did have a significant effect there (perhaps combined with the auto bailout).

If we look at the 26 states plus D.C. that Obama won, Obama’s portion of the vote fell off by more than the national mark in 12 while it fell off by less or even went up in the other 15.

5. For Democrats, some bridges too far

Prior to the election, there was a lot of buzz about President Obama potentially doing much better in Arizona than in 2008; at the high tide of Obama’s post-convention honeymoon, there was even a report indicating that the Obama campaign was considering making a serious play there. That would have been money poorly spent; despite the lack of a favorite son on the ballot (Arizona Sen. John McCain was on the 2008 ballot), the Grand Canyon State’s election results hardly changed from 2008 to 2012: McCain won it 53.4% to 44.9% four years ago, and Mitt Romney won it 53.7% to 44.6% this time — actually improving on McCain’s performance (though Arizona saw less of a drop-off for the president than the nation as a whole).

While a growing minority vote could make typically Republican Arizona competitive in future elections, the state’s voting as a whole became more racialized in 2012: According to exit polls, 66% of white voters picked Romney, up from the 59% of voters who picked McCain in 2008 (those voters made up about three-fourths of the electorate in both elections). On the other side of the ledger, 56% of Hispanics backed Obama in 2008, but 74% backed him in 2012 (Hispanics accounted for 18% of all voters in 2012 and 16% in 2008). If white voters become more Republican as the Democratic-supporting minority population grows — a distinct possibility given the state’s divisive immigration-influenced politics — Arizona probably won’t change all that much at the presidential level in the near future.

Missouri — a state that prior to 2008 had correctly picked the winner in 25 of 27 presidential elections — has now gone Republican, against the national winner, in two straight presidential contests. Its days as a bellwether are probably over: Its Obama percentage dropped almost five points from four years ago, or more than double the national average. On the flip side, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina stand out as states where Obama either didn’t slide as much as the nation as a whole (Georgia and South Carolina) or, as mentioned above, slightly improved from 2008 (Mississippi). But Obama maximizing his vote in states with large black populations probably explains his high floor of support in these conservative states. It is unlikely, at least in the short run (the next few elections), that Democrats will find a way to get to a presidential plurality in these states.

While Obama achieved a notable victory, he was the first president to win a second term without adding a new state to his coalition.

6. North Carolina: A national outlier?

The 2012 election was generally an affirmation of the status quo across the nation, but one state dramatically shook things up, at least on the surface: the Tar Heel State.

North Carolina was the only state in the union to not only change its vote for president but also the party of its governor. Mitt Romney narrowly carried North Carolina in 2012 after President Obama far more narrowly captured it in 2008, and former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) broke a 20-year Democratic hammerlock on the governor’s office by defeating Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton (D) in an open seat contest. Republicans also gained three U.S. House seats, a redistricting-aided achievement that marked their biggest net gain in any state.

Now, granted, this is a very limited category — Indiana is the only other state to change its presidential vote in 2012, and it also changed the party of one of its statewide officeholders: Sen.-elect Joe Donnelly (D) will replace Sen. Richard Lugar (R), thanks in large part to the latter’s primary defeat. But Indiana kept its governor’s office Republican by electing Rep. Mike Pence (R) to what is effectively outgoing Gov. Mitch Daniels’ (R) third term. It should be noted, though, that Pence won the statehouse far more narrowly than expected; Pence beat Democrat John Gregg by a mere three points.

Ultimately, North Carolina’s shift, at least at the presidential level, was actually less dramatic than the nation as a whole — as noted above, Obama performed 1.9 percentage points poorer in the national vote compared to 2008, while in North Carolina, he only performed 1.35 points worse (49.70% in 2008 vs. 48.35% in 2012). It just proves again that in an election so closely mirroring 2008, one has to look hard for states that substantially deviated from the national norm.

7. More Democratic Senate candidates outrun Obama

How did Democrats manage to add two seats in the Senate this cycle? The national voting totals for Senate races tell the tale: Democrats won 54% of all Senate votes cast around the country on Nov. 6, a figure that doesn’t include the totals of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who won 75% of the vote in his race, or Sen.-elect Angus King (I-ME), who won 56%.

Of course, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison with the House because only one-third of the Senate was up for reelection (and many of those seats favored Democrats). Still, the Senate vote totals demonstrate the edge Democrats had this cycle in the upper chamber. In 20 of the 33 contests, Democratic Senate candidates ran ahead of Barack Obama, yet Republican candidates ran ahead of Mitt Romney in only nine contests. In the other four, both major-party candidates ran behind their presidential standard bearers, with the previous caveat for Maine and Vermont.

Of the 20 races where Democrats ran ahead, Romney won eight of those states at the presidential level — and Senate Democrats carried five of the eight: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Sen.-elect Joe Donnelly (D-IN) ran 6.1 percentage points ahead of Obama, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) ran 10.4 points ahead, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) ran 6.9 points ahead, Sen.-elect Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) ran 11.5 points ahead and, towering above them all, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) ran 24.9 points ahead of the president. On the flip side, although Republican winners in Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming all ran ahead of Mitt Romney, only the Nevada race was considered competitive. And there, Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) edged Romney by just 0.2 points.

8. Republicans’ House advantages

While results are still not 100% final, the general election night consensus — that Republicans won the U.S. House despite losing the national popular House vote — was confirmed. According to our running tally, Democratic House candidates won a bit over a million votes more than Republican House candidates, or about 49.1% of all votes cast to 48.2% for the Republicans (and about 2.8% for third-party candidates). The Democratic advantage should inch up a little because the outstanding votes are largely from the heavily Democratic New York City area.

Redistricting can account for at least some of the Republicans’ ability to win the House without winning the House popular vote: The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law recently found that redistricting allowed the Republicans to win six more seats than they would have before the most recent round of redistricting.

Beyond redistricting, another factor in the popular vote discrepancy is that Democrats, partially because of redistricting but also because of lifestyle choice, appear to be clustered closer together than Republicans, which helps dilute the minority party’s House performance. Political scientists Jowei Chen of the University of Michigan and Jonathan Rodden of Stanford University have argued that this clustering puts Democrats at a structural disadvantage in House races: “In many states, Democrats are inefficiently concentrated in large cities and smaller industrial agglomerations such that they can expect to win fewer than 50 percent of the seats when they win 50 percent of the votes,” they write.

9. The reapportionment wash

The House election results also confirmed what we suspected before the election: Reapportionment, the shifting of seats from slower-growing states to faster-growing states after the census, was a wash.

To review, Map 1 shows what happened in reapportionment:

Map 1: Seats added or lost in Congressional reapportionment after 2010 census

Seats generally moved from the Northeastern-Midwestern Frost Belt to the Southern/Southeastern Sun Belt. Of the seats taken away from states, eight were Democratic and four were Republican. The lost seats ended up being those of:

Illinois (-1 R): Outgoing Rep. Don Manzullo (R), who lost a member vs. member primary to Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R).

Iowa (-1 D): Outgoing Rep. Leonard Boswell (D), who lost a member vs. member race against Rep. Tom Latham (R).

Louisiana (-1 R): Outgoing Rep. Jeff Landry (R), who lost a member vs. member race against Rep. Charles Boustany (R).

Massachusetts (-1 D): Retiring Rep. John Olver (D).

Michigan (-1 D): Outgoing Rep. Hansen Clarke (D), who lost a member vs. member primary to Rep. Gary Peters (D).

Missouri (-1 D): Outgoing Rep. Russ Carnahan (D), who lost a member vs. member primary to Rep. Lacy Clay (D).

New Jersey (-1 D): Outgoing Rep. Steve Rothman (D), who lost a primary to Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ).

New York (-1 D, -1 R): Retiring Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and outgoing Rep. Bob Turner (R-NY); Turner, who won ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D) old seat in a ballyhooed special election triumph in 2011, saw his district carved up in redistricting. He ran for Senate, but lost the Republican nomination.

Ohio (-1 D, -1 R): Retiring Rep. Steve Austria (R) and outgoing Rep. Betty Sutton (D), who lost a member vs. member race against Rep. Jim Renacci (R).

Pennsylvania (-1 D): Outgoing Rep. Jason Altmire (D), who lost a primary to outgoing Rep. Mark Critz (D). Critz then lost the general election to Rep.-elect Keith Rothfus (R).

Those seats are now effectively held — you guessed it — by eight Democrats and four Republicans, so no change from the seats’ previously alignment before reapportionment. Here’s how:

Arizona (+1 D): Rep.-elect Kyrsten Sinema narrowly captured this seat, which should remain competitive going forward but is also more Democratic than the state as a whole.

Florida (+2 D): Reps.-elect Alan Grayson and Lois Frankel (D) effectively won the state’s new seats; Grayson’s seat is pretty Democratic, though he is a firebrand capable of kicking it away in a really bad Democratic year. Frankel’s seat is more competitive but she should be in a good position to hold it going forward.

Georgia (+1 R): Rep.-elect Doug Collins’ (R) only threat will come in a primary in this new, heavily Republican seat.

Nevada (+1 D): Rep.-elect Steven Horsford (D) had a difficult election, but this probably won’t be a great Republican target going forward.

South Carolina (+1 R): Rep.-elect Tom Rice (R) only won by about 10 points against a sub-par Democratic opponent; this is a long-shot Democratic possibility going forward.

Texas (+3 D, +1 R): All four seats are safe for the new incumbent party.

Utah (+1 R): Rep.-elect Chris Stewart (R) captured this utterly safe Republican district.

Washington (+1 D): Rep.-elect Denny Heck (D) shouldn’t have too much trouble going forward.

So while these 12 districts changed locations, they didn’t really change parties.

10. The demographics of the 113th Congress

The Congress might be becoming more diverse, but it still doesn’t look much like the voters who pick its members. Of 533 members of the House and Senate listed here (there are two vacancies, described in the notes below Chart 3), 83% are white and 17% are nonwhite, compared to a 2012 electorate that was 72% white and 28% nonwhite, according to exit polls. That disparity is far less striking than the breakdown of men and women in Congress: Women made up 53% of the 2012 electorate, but make up only 18% of the members of Congress. Because he has not yet been officially appointed to the Senate, Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) is listed here as a member of the House. When he takes over for the departing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), he will be the only black member of the Senate.

Chart 3: Demographic breakdown of incoming 113th Congress

Notes: Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who died earlier this week, and ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) are not included in this chart because their seats are open, so the total number of members of Congress included here is 533, not 535.

Sources: Crystal Ball research; House Press Gallery’s House Lineup.

The University of Virginia Center for Politics is pleased to announce that its latest post-election book, Barack Obama and the New America: The 2012 Election and the Changing Face of Politics, is in final production, with a targeted release date of mid-January 2013.

Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato has brought together top journalists and academics from across the political spectrum to examine every facet of the 2012 election, and what its outcome will mean for the nation moving forward. In frank, accessible prose, each author offers insight that goes beyond the headlines, and dives into the underlying forces and shifts that drove the election from its earliest developments to its dramatic conclusion.

This book will feature contributions from:
— Alan Abramowitz, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist
— Diana Owen, Georgetown University
— Jamelle Bouie, American Prospect
— James Campbell, SUNY-Buffalo
— Kyle Kondik and Geoff Skelley, UVA Center for Politics
— Michael Toner, former FEC chairman
— Nate Cohn, The New Republic
— Rhodes Cook, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist
— Robert Costa, National Review
— Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics
— Susan MacManus, University of South Florida

The book will be published by Rowman and Littlefield. For more information and to pre-order a copy, click here.

Programming note: The Crystal Ball is taking the week off for Thanksgiving next week, but we’ll be back with another edition on Thursday, Nov. 29.

So what can we glean from last week’s election? Plenty. Here are 12 takeaways from the 2012 election, presented in bite-sized pieces. One note: all vote totals and percentages used in this piece were as of Wednesday morning; the figures may change as states continue to finalize their results.

1. 2012 results mirror 2008

Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz points out in the chart below that how a state voted in 2008 was predictive of how it voted in 2012. The correlation between President Obama’s margin in 2012 and his margin in 2008 across all 50 states and D.C. is .96. In other words, you can closely predict Obama’s margin in 2012 almost perfectly from his margin in 2008; his drop from 2008 to 2012 was fairly uniform, and limited the number of electoral votes he lost from 2008.

Chart 1: Comparing 2012 Obama vote to 2008

Note: Click on chart for larger version.

The biggest outliers are Utah, where Obama did substantially worse than expected in 2012, and Alaska, where he did substantially better than expected. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism probably explains why Obama underperformed in Utah, and Sarah Palin’s absence from the national ticket might explain Obama’s uptick in Alaska.

2. Obama routed in Appalachia…

To see the change in the Democratic coalition over the years, first look at Appalachia. The mountainous region stretching from New York in the north all the way to Mississippi in the South was at one time a decent source of votes for Democratic presidential candidates: Southern Democrats Jimmy Carter (in 1976) and Bill Clinton (in 1992 and 1996) — the last two Democratic presidents before Obama — did reasonably well in the region in their victories: Carter won more than two-thirds of the 428 Appalachian counties in 1976, and Clinton won close to half (see chart below). In this election, the region was unkind to Obama; he won only 7% of Appalachian counties in his successful reelection bid last week. In fact, Obama lost every county in West Virginia, the only state wholly contained in Appalachia.

Chart 2: Democratic performance in Appalachia, 1976, 1996, 2008 and 2012

Note: *Counties included are the 428 counties and independent cities classified as part of Appalachia by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Appalachia, as defined by the commission, covers all of West Virginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

3. …but Romney crushed in the biggest counties

Obama’s failures in rural Appalachia are worth noting, but even more so are Romney’s setbacks in the nation’s 50 most populous counties.

Romney won only six of the nation’s 50 largest counties (as measured by the Census Bureau). This was a significant drop-off from the last two winning Republican presidents, George W. Bush in 2004 — who won 16 of these 50 counties in 2004 — and George H.W. Bush in 1988 — who won a majority of these counties, 29-21, in his victory over Michael Dukakis.

Chart 3: Presidential results in the 50 largest counties currently, 1988, 2000 and 2012

Notes: Counties based on 2011 Census estimates. The 2012 election results are from Politico; 2000 and 1988 are from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections. Counties listed in order of population size.

Note that the Democratic margin in these counties generally increased over the three elections in question; granted, this is not necessarily an apples to apples comparison — we’re comparing a Democratic victory to two Republican victories, and the 50 biggest counties today were not the 50 biggest 12 or 24 years ago — but it’s still fair to say that just as Democratic strength is waning in rural America, it is growing in the country’s most densely populated counties.

4. Gender gap nothing new (but variable)

Every four years, reporters ask why there is a gender gap in American elections. It’s a reasonable question, but it’s also not a new phenomenon. For at least 40 years with only one exception, women have been more supportive of Democratic candidates than men, and men have been more supportive of Republicans (1976’s exit polls indicated that men and women supported Democrat Jimmy Carter equally).

Chart 4: Gender gap in presidential elections, 1972-2012

Note: Based on exit poll data from the New York Times.

5. Growing Hispanic vote even more critical in some swing states

Just as in 2008, a key component to Obama’s success in 2012 was his strong support among Hispanic voters. As Latinos have become a larger portion of the electorate, their influence on electoral math has correspondingly increased. But because Hispanics have gone so heavily Democratic in 2008 and 2012, they have played an even larger role in some key swing states. As the chart below details, the Latino portion of the vote in battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico has grown a fair amount since 2004. With Obama winning 71% of Hispanic voters nationally, they made New Mexico uncompetitive and helped keep the other three states in Obama’s column on Nov. 6.

Chart 5: Hispanic portion of the vote in 2012 nationally and in selected states

Note: Data from 2004 and 2012 exit polls.

6. Ohio the reliable

For the 28th time in 30 presidential elections, the Buckeye State sided with the winning presidential candidate; the two exceptions in that time period (which dates back to favorite son Republican William McKinley winning his first term in 1896) are 1944 and 1960, when Ohioans favored losing Republican nominees over winning Democrats.

One other tidbit: For the 16th election in a row, Ohio gave a smaller percentage of its votes to the Democratic candidate than Pennsylvania. That’s something to keep in mind if a future Republican presidential candidate decides to make a late play for the Keystone State, because if the Buckeye State is going Democratic, Pennsylvania very probably is going Democratic too.

7. Virginia the bellwether

Longtime watchers of the Old Dominion are stunned not only by its ascension from presidential backwater to presidential battleground, but also by its standing as the state that, in two straight elections, has been closest to President Obama’s national average.

In 2008, Obama won 52.9% nationally and 52.6% in Virginia, and in 2012 Obama won (so far) 50.6% nationally and 50.8% in Virginia.

Much has been made of increased black turnout across the country in 2012; below is a map comparing Obama’s performance in Virginia in 2008 and 2012. While he was down in much of the state, his performance increased in some places (light blue) that mostly have significant black populations. In fact, of the 20 localities where Obama did better in 2012 than 2008, three-fourths of them have populations that are at least 30% African American. Virginia’s population as a whole is about 20% black.

Map 1: Obama’s performance in Virginia, 2008 vs. 2012

Note: Click on map for larger version.

8. Colorado the decider

While Virginia has hewed closest to Obama’s national winning average over the past two cycles, Colorado has played a more decisive role: It has provided Obama with his 270th electoral vote in each of his victories.

Presidential decider is a new role for the Centennial State, which is similar to Virginia in the sense that it too has become more favorable to Democrats in recent years due to demographic changes. Before 2008, Colorado had never provided the decisive electoral vote to a presidential candidate; dating back to 1856 — the start of the United States’ current two-party Democrat vs. Republican arrangement — New York and Ohio each have provided a presidential victor with his decisive electoral votes six times, more than any other state (Illinois has been decisive five times).

Despite a natural fixation on Florida, Ohio and Virginia in the presidential election, it’s worth noting that Obama could have lost all three but still won the election — so long as he held Colorado and all the states where he performed better than Colorado.

9. Split tickets seal Democratic Senate

Now that independent Sen.-elect Angus King of Maine has officially announced he will caucus with the Democrats — a stunning decision (sarcasm alert) — Democrats officially will have a 55-45 advantage in the Senate next year, barring any retirements or other changes. That 10-seat edge comes almost entirely from their ability to win many more Red State seats than Republicans were able to win from Blue States.

Democratic candidates won five Senate seats in states that Mitt Romney carried: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia; meanwhile, Republicans only won one Senate seat in a state that Barack Obama won: Sen. Dean Heller’s (R) victory in Nevada.

Generally speaking, six crossover victories in this year’s Senate elections is not a high number. Going back about half a century — to the 1960 presidential election — there have been an average of 12 crossover wins in presidential years. That is, in about a third of the Senate elections in each of the past 14 presidential years, voters voted for one party at the top of the ticket and another in their state’s Senate contest.

Chart 6: Number of split Senate results in presidential election years, 1960-2012

Note: Data compiled from Guide to US Elections, CQ Press, and Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections.

Democrats also won six “split ticket” Senate victories in 2008, the last presidential year; Republicans only won one. Those 2008 Red State Democratic victors — in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia — are up for reelection in 2014, providing some ripe targets for Republicans.

10. The Republican House edge

According to The Washington Post, Democrats won a greater percentage of total House votes than Republicans did (49% to 48.2%), despite the GOP winning a (likely) 234-201 seat edge in the coming House (Democrats appear set to gain eight net seats in this election). That means they won 49% of the total House vote but only 46.2% of the total seats.

It’s not uncommon to win a significantly different share of House seats than the total national vote would indicate. Back in 2008, for instance, Democrats won 53.9% of all House votes, but 59.1% of the seats.

Prior to the 1994 Republican revolution, Democrats had an inherent, structural advantage in the House — they won, on average, significantly more House seats than their popular vote total merited between 1946 and 1992 (for more, see this Crystal Ball piece from September). But since 1994, Republicans have had a slight advantage, and that advantage continued this year — Republicans won 48.2% of the total vote, but 53.8% of the seats. That 5.6 percentage point gap between votes won and seats won is the largest for either party since 1992 — the last year of the Democrats’ structural House advantage — when Democrats won only 50.8% of the total House votes but 59.3% of the seats (for an 8.5 percentage point gap in votes won versus seats won).

Two factors probably explain the GOP’s current, intrinsic edge: The Republicans controlled redistricting in many states that went for President Obama, allowing Republicans to cement a 13-5 majority in Pennsylvania, a 12-4 edge in Ohio and a 5-3 advantage in Wisconsin, to name a few states. Democrats benefited from redistricting in some places, like California and Illinois, but on margin Republicans probably came out of the decennial remapping ahead. Incumbency, too, is a powerful factor, even for freshmen: more than four of five 2010 House Republican freshmen will be back in the House for a second term. Additionally, roughly 90% of House incumbents who sought another term will return to the House; that’s about two percentage points below the postwar average.

11. Disregard crowd sizes

Top Republicans argued during the final days of the campaign that big crowds were an indication they were gaining momentum in the campaign.

It’s an argument we’ve heard before:

“…the campaign reporters on McGovern’s plane remained curiously reluctant to write him off as a loser… [They] were as isolated as a bunch of submariners, trapped in the world of the press plane, seeing the enthusiastic crowds at the rallies and living with the intermittently manic McGovern staffers. This isolation nourished their atavistic urge to be with the winner, to write the upset story of the century. They kept talking of the election of 1948, of how the campaign reporters with Truman had been blind to the meaning of all those cheering crowds.” (emphasis added)

— The Boys on the Bus, by Timothy Crouse

Obviously, Mitt Romney did a whole heck of a lot better in 2012 than George McGovern did in 1972. But huge crowds — or, for that matter, yard signs — are not predictive of anything.

12. What election did 2012 resemble?

What election was 2012 most like? We were asked this a thousand times prior to Election Day. No election is exactly like another, but there are similarities. 2012 was certainly no 1980 — a totally inaccurate prediction pushed for months and months by conservative pundits such as Dick Morris. 2012 wasn’t 1992 either, where an incumbent president was ousted because “it’s the economy stupid.” And in the end, while the contest was competitive, it was certainly no squeaker like 2000. Instead, 2012 most resembled 2004, when an incumbent president had a mixed record that had polarized Americans, but won with a superior organization, favorable demographics and effective early attacks on an opponent from Massachusetts.

With a slight, unexpected lift provided by Hurricane Sandy, Mother Nature’s October surprise, President Barack Obama appears poised to win his second term tomorrow. Our final Electoral College projection has the president winning the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin and topping Mitt Romney, with 290 electoral votes.

This has been a roller-coaster campaign, though very tight ever since Romney dramatically outshone Obama in the first debate in Denver on Oct. 3. Yet for a challenger to defeat an incumbent, the fates must be with the challenger again and again. Who could have imagined that a Frankenstorm would act as a circuit-breaker on the Republican’s campaign, blowing Romney off center stage for three critical days in the campaign’s last week, while enabling Obama to dominate as presidential comforter-in-chief, assisted by his new bipartisan best friend, Gov. Chris Christie (R)?

Adding to the president’s good fortune was a final jobs report that was basically helpful because it wasn’t disastrously bad — that is, the unemployment rate failed to jump back above the psychologically damaging level of 8%. Romney could have used that number to build a crescendo for change. Instead, the final potential obstacle to Obama’s reelection passed by as a one-day story. While Romney surged after the first debate, he never quite closed the deal in the key swing states. And now, we believe he has run out of time.

Map 1: Final Crystal Ball Electoral College ratings

Picking a president

Here are our final ratings changes:

Chart 1: Electoral College rating changes

First, the easy ones. Obama has no chance in Indiana and Missouri (the former he won and the latter he nearly captured in 2008), nor in Arizona. This guarantees that a victorious Obama would be the first president ever who failed to win an additional state in his successful reelection bid that he did not win in his initial victory. (We are not counting FDR’s third and fourth elections.) Meanwhile, after having placed North Carolina in the Republican column for more than a year, we have seen no indication that Obama really has a chance there, even though Romney’s margin of victory is unlikely to be huge. We feel less confident about Florida, which teeters between Romney and toss-up status. Obama could steal the Sunshine State from Romney if the Democrat has an unexpectedly strong night.

With two-thirds of the votes likely already cast in Nevada, Obama appears to have a solid lead in the Silver State. Our decision to move Nevada even more strongly into Obama’s column is bolstered by the state’s political guru Jon Ralston, who picked Obama to win his state on Sunday.

Iowa and Wisconsin may very well be tight, as they were in 2000 and 2004. But these states have a Democratic lean (even Michael Dukakis won them in 1988), and according to the poll averages, Obama has never trailed in either state during this campaign. Recent surveys from credible, state-level pollsters (Ann Selzer in Iowa and Charles Franklin in Wisconsin) show Obama with solid leads in both states, and these results have reinforced our inclinations.

We have had Ohio in Obama’s column since late September, and nothing we have heard from our sources in the Buckeye State has caused us to move it anywhere else. Like Iowa and Wisconsin, it may be excruciatingly close, but we favor Obama in all three.

We believe the three closest states are Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire; in reality, all three are toss-ups, but because we feel obligated to pick every state, we’re splitting these 26 combined electoral votes right down the middle — 13 for Obama (nine from Colorado and four from New Hampshire) and 13 for Romney from Virginia. It’s not very scientific, but in these three states the polling averages and our sources aren’t giving us enough to work with.

If Obama sweeps all three of these very close states, he will win 303 electoral votes. If that number sounds familiar, it’s because both Harry Truman in 1948 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 achieved the same total in the Electoral College. In other words, it’s a lucky number for Democratic presidential nominees.

A footnote: Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes by congressional district, and Romney has an outside shot at grabbing Maine’s Second District, just like Obama has an outside shot at Nebraska’s Second (which he won in 2008). We don’t foresee an electoral vote split in either state this year, but these are worth watching Tuesday night for a possible surprise.

The Senate — No change, 53-47 Democratic

Chart 2: Senate rating changes

A status quo election at the presidential level could also result in an absolute status quo in the Senate. After allocating our two remaining toss-ups — Rep. Jeff Flake (R) should win in Arizona over former Surgeon General Richard Carmona (D) and Obama’s coattails may allow Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) to squeak out a victory over former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) in Wisconsin — we’re left with a Senate that looks exactly the way it does now: 51-47 Democratic, with two independents caucusing with the Democrats.

The races we feel least confident about are in Montana, where Sen. Jon Tester (D) could very well hang on against Rep. Denny Rehberg (R), as well as Indiana and Missouri, where damaged Republican candidates Richard Mourdock (IN) and Todd Akin (MO) might actually have a shot because of Romney’s coattails. Of the two, Akin’s chances may be better because Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) remains unpopular. In the event of a Virginia vote as close as we foresee, former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) should be able to run ahead of former Sen. George Allen (R), but a bigger-than-expected Romney win could lift Allen.

Chart 3: Final Crystal Ball Senate ratings

The House — Democrats add three seats, yielding a 239-196 Republican House

Chart 4: House rating changes

While Republicans could actually pick up a few seats, our best guess is that Democrats will still gain a handful of seats. The rating changes above reflect late tips from our sources as well as our own instincts.

Inevitably, we’ll miss a fair number of House races, but every two years, we make an effort to pick them all, and we are pretty confident that the final net result will come close to our projection. In other words, we do not expect much net movement in the House either way, which would be a substantial victory for the Republicans.

Chart 5: Final Crystal Ball House ratings

The governors – Republicans win two more, yielding 31-18 Republicans (+ one independent) in the statehouses

Chart 6: Gubernatorial rating changes

While Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock (D) is in many ways a stronger candidate than ex-Rep. Rick Hill (R), we see the Republican label as a dominant advantage in the state on Tuesday. Our other ratings remain unchanged, with North Carolina joining Montana in switching to the GOP.

Chart 7: Final Crystal Ball gubernatorial ratings

Conclusion

It is a conundrum that the voters may well endorse the status quo in the White House and both houses of Congress in a time of widespread unhappiness about the economy and other matters. Still, elections are comparative choices, and that explains part of the result. It may also be that people sense an improvement in the country’s condition, or believe it is forthcoming. Or perhaps the power of demographics in a highly polarized, partisan era simply overrides other factors. Once we have the actual results, we can begin the process of chewing over the returns and searching for their overarching meaning.

For now, we want you to know that we’ve enjoyed spending this election cycle with you, and we appreciate all the tips and opinions you have passed along to the Crystal Ball. The next election cycle essentially begins on Wednesday; we’ll need your help anew.

There are elements of the 2012 election that still confound us, and this is not one we project with supreme confidence. The picks presented in this edition represent our best judgment, but we’re as fallible as all prognosticators. Expect some — many? — of our projections to prove inaccurate. As we always warn our readers, those who live by the Crystal Ball end up eating ground glass, and we keep some Tabasco sauce handy to help the glass go down. Fortunately, there’s always another election, and we’ll be there with you to experience it.

Remarkably, after a year of intense campaigning, this election is not in the bag for either major-party candidate. It remains on the edge of the butter knife; the state polling averages tilt the Electoral College slightly to President Obama, and the RealClearPolitics national polling average moved into an exact tie late Wednesday afternoon. On top of it all, a fierce Super Storm intervened, acting as a circuit-breaker that stopped campaigning dead in its tracks for several days in the election’s last week.

Have Obama’s presidential actions in the wake of the storm, so highly praised by Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, had an effect? Will Friday’s unemployment report — whatever it may show — push the small percentage of remaining undecideds off the fence and toward one of the candidates? This election is going down to the wire, and we will issue our final Electoral College predictions, as we often do, on Monday, the day before the election.

In our private conversations with Democratic and Republican leaders, we see two diametrically opposed visions of the electorate — almost parallel universes — and two visions of how the election will shake out. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats AND the Republicans are confident of victory for their party in what is a close presidential contest. Democrats see favorable demographics and sturdy leads in enough states to get Obama over the magic 270-vote mark, while Republicans discern rumblings of a 1980-style wave that will not only ruin Obama, but also drown Democratic Senate candidates and ruin the reputations of many pollsters, particularly on the state level.

We still see eight true battlegrounds right now, the same ones we have focused our readers on for over one year, with just one addition: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin (the latter added after Paul Ryan’s pick for VP).

Here’s how we size up all eight states at the moment:

COLORADO (Pre-convention RealClearPolitics polling average on Aug. 26: Obama 47.6%, Romney 46.0%; current average: Obama 48.2%, Romney 47.7%) — We’ve been hearing that Romney is slightly up in Colorado, but it’s still a toss-up. Colorado is probably more important to Romney than Obama in the Electoral College, although if Obama loses Ohio and Colorado he probably won’t win. TOSS-UP

FLORIDA (Pre-convention average: Obama, Romney tied at 46.3%; current average: Romney 49.1%, Obama 47.9%) — We’ve thought for weeks that Romney held the upper hand in Florida, but note that Romney spent his Wednesday in the Sunshine State; if it were truly locked up for him, there would be other, better places for him to go at campaign’s end. LEANS REPUBLICAN

IOWA (Pre-convention average: Obama 45.3%, Romney 44.3%; current average: Obama 47.8%, Romney 46.5%) — Newspaper endorsements typically aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, but sometimes — when they are unpredictable — they can have a measurable effect. That’s the way we feel about the Des Moines Register’s splashy endorsement of Mitt Romney on Sunday, its first GOP presidential pick since Richard Nixon in 1972. The endorsement — and, more importantly, the paucity of public polling in the state — lead us to call Iowa a TOSS-UP.

NEVADA (Pre-convention average: Obama 49.0%, Romney 44.8%; Current average: Obama 50.0%, Romney 47.6%) — We know a lot about Nevada because of its robust early voting. Swingy Washoe County (Reno) is about even in early voting, and the Democrats are building a big advantage in Clark County (Las Vegas). That should be enough to cancel out the remaining conservative parts of the state. Despite enthusiastic backing for Romney among the state’s Mormon population, we continue to believe Obama leads here. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

NEW HAMPSHIRE (Pre-convention average: Obama 48.3%, Romney 44.8%; Current average: Obama 48.7%, Romney 47.7%) — With its small bounty of electoral votes, the Granite State could mean nothing — or everything — on Election Day. (Had Al Gore won it in 2000, he would have been president, whatever happened in Florida.) Democrats are confident of holding it, but we see it as too close to call. TOSS-UP

OHIO (Pre-convention average: Obama 46.8%, Romney 45.2%; Current average: Obama 48.9%, Romney 46.6%) — Gov. John Kasich (R) proclaimed the other day that Mitt Romney would carry the Buckeye State, but the weight of polling evidence and many on-the-ground reports we have received suggest otherwise. In all likelihood Obama retains a lead of a point or two — though our sources differ as to whether the president’s edge is sturdy or fragile. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

VIRGINIA (Pre-convention average: Obama 47.3%, Romney 46.7%; Current average Romney 47.9%, Obama 47.4%) — We essentially feel the same way about Virginia that we feel about Ohio, except in reverse: here, Romney probably has a very small lead — though Obama’s Ohio polling lead is more robust than Romney’s Virginia advantage. Once again, our best, frankest sources are emphatic but in opposite directions. Republicans insist Romney will win Virginia, and Democrats appear almost equally sure in the other direction. TOSS-UP

WISCONSIN (Pre-convention average: Obama 48.2%, Romney 46.8%; Current average: Obama 49.8%, Romney 45.8%) — Obama got a big polling boost Wednesday when the respected Marquette Law School Poll found Obama up eight points in Wisconsin, up from one point just two weeks ago. (Wednesday was, in general, a good polling day for the president.) However, some Republicans seem to think that Wisconsin might be a better target than Ohio, so we want to see what the GOP throws into the Badger State at the end. TOSS-UP

Map 1: Updated Crystal Ball Electoral College ratings

Notice we are not including Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania on this list, even though some insist that Romney is now broadening the map (Obama in the case of the Tar Heel State). Out of an abundance of caution, we are moving Michigan to leans Democratic. We continue to believe that the outcomes in these states are not very much in doubt (North Carolina should go to Romney, and the other four should go to Obama).

However, National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, in an excellent column, crystallized something we’ve been thinking about: Given Obama’s weakness among white voters, it’s possible that a state like Michigan or Minnesota or Oregon could drift into Romney’s column if he ends up winning a solid national victory. “The election isn’t just coming down to Ohio,” Kraushaar wrote. “There’s plenty of evidence that, given Obama’s struggles with white working-class voters, he could face some unexpected headwinds in states that have been in the Democratic column during presidential years since at least 1988.” We might not go that far ourselves — we see the ad spending in these states as largely a sideshow — but in this very odd and wild election, it’s wise to consider all reasonable possibilities.

Democrats hold late Senate advantage

Earlier we called the House for the Republicans. Now we are willing to call the Senate for the Democrats — as long as the presidential race doesn’t break heavily for Romney in the last days. Our current Senate projection is 52 Democrats to 46 Republicans, with two leftover toss-ups: Arizona and Wisconsin.

Here’s how the math works: 30 Democratic senators and 37 Republican senators are not up for reelection this year. In this year’s 33 contests, Democrats are likely or safe winners in 15 states: California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. That includes two independents: Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, whom we have upgraded to likely Democratic/independent. (We are operating under the assumption that King will caucus with the Democrats.) Meanwhile, Republicans are safe or likely winners in Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Despite some recent tightening in Nebraska and Republican ex-Sen. Chuck Hagel’s expected endorsement of the Democrat, we don’t see ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) beating state Sen. Deb Fischer in Republican Nebraska.

That leaves a Senate of 45 Democrats, 43 Republicans and 12 truly competitive contests. Our calls here:

ARIZONA: Ex-Surgeon General Richard Carmona (D) is running a very strong race, and there’s not much daylight between him and Rep. Jeff Flake (R) in most surveys, public or private, that we’ve seen. TOSS-UP

CONNECTICUT: Party ID and Obama coattail has taken over in Connecticut, where Linda McMahon (R) appears likely to come up short in the second consecutive Senate election despite her millions and a better campaign this time (including strong TV ads), this time to Rep. Chris Murphy (D). LEANS DEMOCRATIC

INDIANA: Despite a lousy campaign, Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) was on track to defeat Rep. Joe Donnelly (D). Now, after Mourdock’s Akin-esque gaffe about abortion and rape, Donnelly’s numbers have gone up. We’re certainly not 100% sure, and maybe Romney’s big expected Hoosier margin will pull Mourdock in despite himself, but now Donnelly seems to us to be the favorite. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

MASSACHUSETTS: The same phenomenon propelling Murphy to victory in the Nutmeg State is boosting Elizabeth Warren (D) over Sen. Scott Brown (R). President Obama is sweeping Massachusetts, and his coattails are too long for Brown to survive. There are already rumblings that Sen. John Kerry (D) could be passed over for secretary of state in a hypothetical second Obama administration to prevent Brown from winning the seat in yet another special election. Brown could also run for governor in 2014 (Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick is not running for reelection) if he loses. One way or the other, we suspect Brown will be back. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

MISSOURI: Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) is this year’s Senate Lazarus; Rep. Todd Akin (R) is this year’s Icarus. Republicans found the one Republican who could lose to McCaskill, who was halfway out the Senate door in this increasingly conservative state. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

MONTANA: The race between Sen. Jon Tester (D) and Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) remains close, and Libertarian Dan Cox could be a spoiler (see story below). We still narrowly like Rehberg’s chances, but we might revisit this one in our Monday update, especially in light of breaking news regarding Rehberg and a 2009 boat crash. LEANS REPUBLICAN

NEVADA: While President Obama is probably leading here, so apparently is appointed Sen. Dean Heller (R). There probably will be too many Obama-Heller voters for Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) to overcome. LEANS REPUBLICAN

NORTH DAKOTA: Democrat Heidi Heitkamp has run an excellent race against a sub-par GOP nominee, but we’re hearing that this might be a bridge too far for any Democrat. Rep. Rick Berg (R) may just narrowly pull it out, and he’ll benefit from Romney’s landslide victory (though he won’t share in it). LEANS REPUBLICAN

OHIO: Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) is running ahead of President Obama in Ohio, and Treasurer Josh Mandel’s (R) campaign has been such a disaster that typically mainline Republican newspapers like the Cincinnati Enquirer and Columbus Dispatch have endorsed the liberal Brown. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

PENNSYLVANIA: Despite a real scare from Tom Smith (R) and a lackluster campaign effort, Sen. Bob Casey (D) should limp to a second term. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

VIRGINIA: Ex-Sen. George Allen (R) needs a fairly substantial Romney tide in Virginia to send him back to the Senate, as ex-Gov. Tim Kaine (D) appears to be running a few points ahead of Obama here. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

WISCONSIN: Give it to Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) and national Democrats for running a good race here, but ex-Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) might still pull out a win. A lot depends on the top of the ticket, and this one — which has swung back and forth like the runaway New York City crane in Sandy’s aftermath — is too close to call at the moment. TOSS-UP

We’ll try to call the two toss-ups on Monday, and we might also revisit some of these other ratings — the squishiest “lean Democratic” seats are probably Indiana and Virginia, and the shakiest “lean Republican” seats are probably Montana and North Dakota.

Map 2: Updated Crystal Ball Senate ratings

If we’re right in the Senate (small Democratic edge) and in the House (we will tweak some races Monday, but we do not expect the overall projection of Democrats +5 and solid overall GOP control to change much), and IF President Obama wins a second term, it is possible that we will have spent $6 billion or $7 billion on the 2012 campaigns in order to produce a status quo government, with each party controlling the pieces of the federal government they started with. Whether this would work any better the second time around, we’ll just have to see.

Updating the gubernatorial races

The one other layer of this election is of course the 11 governorships on the ballot. Our calls are as follows: Delaware, Missouri, and Vermont are safe or likely for the Democrats, and Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota and Utah are safe or likely for the Republicans. Note that the one party change state here is North Carolina, switching from D to R. That leaves four competitive races:

MONTANA: The race to succeed Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is still too close to call; Attorney General Steve Bullock (D) is the more agile candidate, but ex-Rep. Rick Hill (R) will have Romney coattails, even if he might be short on funds in the race’s final days. TOSS-UP

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Maggie Hassan (D) has a leg up on Ovide Lamontagne (R), who we’ve long suspected might be just a bit too conservative for quirky, libertarian New Hampshire. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

WASHINGTON: The Evergreen State race has tightened, but we still slot Rep. Jay Inslee (D) as a narrow favorite over Attorney General Rob McKenna (R). LEANS DEMOCRATIC

WEST VIRGINIA: The rematch between Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) and businessman Bill Maloney (R) doesn’t seem as competitive as it was during last year’s special election. LEANS DEMOCRATIC

We will try to pick Montana on Monday, and also potentially revisit New Hampshire and Washington.

Depending on the call in Montana, Republicans would control 30 or 31 of the 50 statehouses, leaving them one or two short of matching their post-World War II high, 32 governorships, last achieved in 1998. Earlier in the Crystal Ball, Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures examined the 6,034 state legislative seats up for grabs on Tuesday, and we’ll see substantial changes there, too.

Look for our special, final Crystal Ball of the 2012 election season on Monday, where we plan to call all the remaining states and races in this utterly unforgettable election. It’s been a wild ride, and our overriding hope — for us, for you, and for the nation — is that the election doesn’t go into overtime with an inconclusive result.

Chart 1: Crystal Ball Electoral College, Senate and gubernatorial ratings changes