This is just guessing, more wishful thinking posing as analysis. There’s no reason to believe that third party voters are more likely to support Republican state and local candidates than Democratic candidates.
If you go by Silver again, he’s got her at 49% at the lowest. Which, while not a majority, is a lot better.
Unfortunately, I don’t see a chart so I can compare that to where she was before.
I’ve got to admire your ability to find the silver lining in the darkest of clouds. You’re making Baghdad Bob look like Walter Cronkite. This isn’t a four way race, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. She is not going to drag down Senate candidates. Let’s see how many Senate candidates campaign with her and how many will campaign with Donald.
The only significant third party vote to be expected this November is a protest vote for Johnson from Republicans who know that Trump is unworthy of office but can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary. The effect of such votes is to ameliorate Trump’s boat-anchor effect on downticket Republican candidates (since these voters may still vote GOP in other races… though, if the local candidates don’t distance themselves from Trump sufficiently, perhaps not). It certainly doesn’t support any notion that Hillary is somehow dragging down downticket Democrats.
If she’s only getting 43% of the vote, that’s dragging down other candidates. Bill was zero help downballot in 1992 due to his low level of support. Actually, he wasn’t any help in 1996 either. CAndidates that fail to win majorities do not have coattails. Clinton needs 48%, at least, preferably 50% or more, for Democrats to take the Senate.
At 43%, they might not even win any seats on net.
And your basis for thinking she’d only get 43%, but will still win, would be … what? The Perot vote? 
The actual polling maybe?
But I thought you didn’t trust polling during the primaries-Kasich was always going to be the nominee regardless of the Donald’s lead. Anyways, third-party candidates if included on polls tend to overperform (see also Harambe and Deez Nutz among other eminent candidates)
That’s certainly a possibility, but you’re always safest going with the polls. Clinton is polling at 43% in a four-way probably because if the election were held today, she would actually get 43%. We’ll have to see how undecideds break over the next couple of months. I guess people are waiting for the debates, which will hopefully include Gary Johnson.
This is a pretty telling graph. And the debates (thankfully) won’t include a pothead opportunist like Gary Johnson.
Well, that’s confusing. The number is around 49% for all the main pages, but, now that I found the polling pages, the number is lower. Not even the adjustments get it up to 49%–instead it’s at 44%. Weird.
I guess state polling is pushing Clinton up.
Here the model has Clinton finishing with 48.7%:
That may be enough to get Democrats the Senate. Maybe.
Let me rephrase: What, besides your fondest dreams for Clinton to win but not deserve it, in the living *hell *makes you think Johnson and Stein combined are going to break out of poll noise?
And a follow-up: Since you do think that will happen, what data can you point to that shows the None of the Above vote they would represent coming mostly from Clinton and not Trump? Or is that just your gut talking?
That would probably be more than enough, since some of the third party vote for both Johnson and Stein will go to Democratic Senate candidates.
I have to disagree. I’ve said all along that Clinton was the most electable candidate the Democrats have. Not just because of her abilities but also because of what you’re seeing as a vulnerability: her negative image.
But I think that pre-existing negative image has actually been one of Clinton’s assets. It’s robbed the Republicans of a chance to define her - they did that back in the nineties. So it all seems like old news now. Any other Democrat would be facing a tidal wave of fresh character assassinations.
You’re assuming that Republicans can just take down anyone they want at will. I realize Democrats are used to getting nuked by oppo research during elections, but better candidate selection helps a lot with that. Nothing Republicans found on Obama hurt him. Candidates don’t actually HAVE to lie and flip flop to get elected, or at least they don’t have to do it in ways that are easily detected. Obama knew enough to only lie about what he would do rather than what he’d done.
So true.
It’s crazy talk. No candidate wins an election with a 40-55 approval rating. Unless they are lucky enough to draw Donald Trump as an opponent. She’d be getting crushed right now if she was against virtually anyone else.
I don’t buy this at all. I think any Republican would have high unfavorables after a month or two of attacks. Further, plenty of people support Hillary but don’t like her.