CNN's Harry Enten analyzed the range of outcomes likely in November's midterm elections, and he found that massive gain were within reach for the Democratic Party.

The political landscape was convulsed by the mid-decade redistricting war kicked off by President Donald Trump in Texas, and last month's Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana's congressional map set off another mad dash of partisan gerrymandering, so Enten tried to determine the possible outcomes based on this new reality.

"I'm going to put on my professor cap here," Enten said. "I think that, you know, sometimes we sort of get lost, right, we focus in on one poll and one narrative, and sometimes there are competing narratives, and I think it's worth just taking a step back because I think some people are like, well, the polls showed one thing and another thing happened."

Enten examined five polls showing Democrats with a lead in voters' choice for Congress, but they led by 3 percent in one poll, 5 percent in two polls and 10 percent in two others.

"There's quite this bit of variance that is going on right here, and you know what?" Enten said. "This is actually a good thing. This is a normal thing, this is what happens when you have margins of error that are going out there. You'd expect an average, but then you have a range of possible results around that average, and we're not necessarily sure which one is right if the election were held today, and, of course, there's the extra variance of the fact that the election is not being held until November."

Enten drilled in further to try and predict how many seats Democrats could gain if those polling leads held firm.

"What's the difference between, let's say, Democrats winning by 100 versus winning by three, and this is where it gets really interesting," he said. "Okay, so even if you take redistricting into account, given a popular vote win of, let's say, three points, what would that mean for Democratic House gains? They gain probably somewhere in estimate is between zero and six seats, which at the upper end of that range would be enough to take back the House. But on the lower end of that range, that would not be, that would be Republicans holding on."

"But what about that 10-point lead that you see in Marist, the New York Times?" Enten added. "Well, that would be a ginormous blowout, and this is just an estimate. It could be higher, a little bit higher, a little bit lower. But we're talking about an estimate of a Democratic gain of between 20 to 30 seats or more. They could be ending up 245 seats or north of there potentially, versus being stuck, let's say 213, 214, 215 to 216, maybe barely getting to a majority. So look, when you see this range of potential results, I want you to keep in mind, yes, Democrats are probably favored to take back the House. It's by no means a guarantee, but they could end up blowing the Republicans right out of the water. All of that is within the margin of error at this point, especially given that months from the election."

- YouTube youtu.be

The Trump administration was hit with a major lawsuit Tuesday filed by a coalition of 25 Democratic-led states over a new rule the plaintiffs alleged to be “unlawful,” The Washington Post reported.

Published on May 1 and set to go into effect on July 1, the new rule narrows the definition of what constitutes a professional degree, and thereby, imposes new limits on loans that graduate students are eligible for. A number of graduate degrees often sought by health care workers would become ineligible for higher loans under the new rule, and as such, could exacerbate the ongoing health care worker shortage, the plaintiffs argue.

“Higher education is expensive, and our health care system is already under immense strain,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition of 25 states in the lawsuit, in a statement, per the Post. “This rule will shut talented people out of critical professions and leave communities with fewer healthcare providers they desperately need.”

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs called the Trump administration’s new rule “arbitrary,” “contrary to law” and “unlawful.” Filed in federal court in Maryland, the lawsuit includes language asking the court to reverse the Trump administration’s new rule and to prohibit its implementation.

“The Rule is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the [Administrative Procedure Act],” the lawsuit reads. “The [Education] Department arbitrarily relied on several factors Congress did not intend it to consider – such as whether professionals are subject to supervision and the ‘historical context’ of the Department’s regulation – and its application of those factors is inconsistent and contradictory.”

President Donald Trump stepped outside the White House on Tuesday to survey the sprawling construction site where his prized ballroom is rising from the rubble of the demolished East Wing — and delivered a lengthy, freewheeling tour that touched on drone warfare, Greek architecture, and his place in history.

"This is my gift to the United States of America," Trump told reporters as he gestured at the concrete skeleton taking shape on the White House grounds. "I'm going to be able to use it very little. When it's finished, we're talking about six or seven months. But it will be used for hopefully hundreds of years by other presidents."

Trump's remarks ranged across the building's classical facade ("This is Rome. They like the flat roof. Greece likes the triangles"), its four-inch-thick bulletproof glass, and its "dead flat roof" — designed, he said, specifically to serve as a military drone port. "It's built for our snipers," he added, "not the enemy's snipers."

The president also took a swipe at a federal judge who has repeatedly tried to halt construction. "We have a judge that thinks it's a terrible thing that we're making a gift," Trump said. "He said it's terrible — that it should be paid for by the taxpayer. That's something I've never heard before."

The ballroom, now projected to cost $400 million and set to open around September 2028, has been a near-daily obsession for the president. Trump has publicly highlighted the ballroom project on roughly a third of all days this year — and it shows no sign of slowing down.

When a reporter pressed Trump on why Congress was being asked to weigh in if the project is privately funded, he acknowledged the tension — barely. "Congress is approving money for security," he said. "It may go — some of it may go here for additional security. I don't know."

That's something of an understatement. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has introduced legislation including $1 billion earmarked for security improvements accompanying the ballroom project — a far cry from Trump's repeated vow that "not one penny" of taxpayer money would be spent.

The project has been dogged by legal challenges, design mockery from architects, and polls showing Americans oppose it 2-to-1. A YouGov survey found that 61% of U.S. adults did not approve of the construction, and the National Capital Planning Commission received over 32,000 public comments, overwhelmingly opposing it — some comparing its aesthetics to a "Vegas casino."

None of that appeared to dampen Trump's enthusiasm on Tuesday.

"There will never be anything like this built again," he said. "There will never be a roof built with this kind of safety."