An illustration of the position some GOP Senate candidates are in.
I’d bet getting her college funding plan through and movement on a living wage, while meanwhile working out the bugs in Obamacare. Also modest tax system changes that include small business tax relief coupled with things like ending the “carried interest” loophole and enacting the so-called “Buffett Rule.” I think she’ll also get a moderate to slightly left (or two) on the court and some decent people put in financial system watchdog positions. The selling point will be movement on the first two.
Not just veterans, but an important sub-set: POWs. Because they’re to blame for getting captured, remember.
I will be shocked if we don’t get the Senate (and of course the presidency). The House is a heavier lift, and I think our chances are only about 25%; however, a year ago I would have said less than 1%, so that is still a pretty exciting possibility.
Rooting for the House to flip also helps keep the election from being too anticlimactic, and really gives us something to shoot for and work for. And it provides a psychological possibility of upside: if it seems like this whole thing is in the bank, then when we get it, it’s not that exciting–and there’s only a downside of incredible disappointment if we don’t.
I think the House only flips if Trump depresses GOP turnout on the day (he certainly depresses me, fnar, fnar). But I suspect in the end the Trump effect will only flip close races at most and the NeverHillary crowd will hold their noses and plump for The Donald.
Voters don’t seem to have a lot of problems with ticket splitting. If the fundamentals favor Republicans heading into November as models seem to predict, then Republicans should be able to hold the Senate.
Yes, John Kasich will lead the GOP to victory!
There is certainly a “coattail” effect, (that has a number of Republican leaders scared), but a pronouncement that all downstream elections are going to be affected is similar to the bold (and silly) claims from some members of the SDMB that GWB was doomed to lose the 2004 election. It seems more like the views of an echo chamber found in a Democratic neighborhood than a reasoned opinion based on actual evidence.
I disagree with your premise (and whatever models you are referring to). I never believed Republicans would win the presidency, even before they selected a terrible nominee; and as a corollary I always believed Democrats ought to be able to retake the Senate. It’s not just the pure number of seats each party is defending (although that is quite the contrast), but just the dynamic of presidential vs. off year turnout. That high/low tide dynamic is accentuated in the Senate by the six year term: everyone up for reelection in a presidential cycle was last elected in an off year, and vice versa.
“There you go again.” Making these statements as if they are facts to support conclusions you like when they really are not facts at all.
Voters do seem to have a lot of problems with ticket splitting.
There are a few other items of interest in that particular article, too: more third parties share tend to move the median slightly to the D side; and in general fewer vote for representative than president.
No doubt this trend can change on a dime. 2016 can show a sudden increase in split tickets, reversing the trend to straight ticket votes of the past 16 years. Nevertheless as of now voters do have problems with ticket splitting.
Next, the fundamentals? Favoring Republicans? Only by a very selective choice of models.
Most fundamentals models look at items like the approval rating of the current President (currently doing quite well), unemployment rate (doing pretty well), gas prices (low), and performance on the generic Congressional ballot (moved positive to Democrats this year after a long stretch mostly positive for the generic GOP).
So you have fundamentals models ranging from Moody’s strong to the D side, to Goldman Sachs’ toss-up …
No, there is no consensus among the fundamentals-based models that favor Republicans. Maybe you can find one or two that do if you search hard though!
Maybe the GOP will hold onto the Senate, after all individual elections are still individual elections, but let’s keep the arguments based on reality shall we?
Undecided voters were in decline too. Not so much this cycle. 39-29 is a pretty incredible polling number. I see no evidence that Republicans who hate Trump are going to vote for Democratic Congressional candidates. Nor do I see any evidence that the independents who voted for Republicans in 2014 are switching. The Senate polling shows no sign of a Trump effect. Things look about as you’d expect in Senate races if there was a better Republican at the top of the ticket.
Which is a completely different statement than what you said before.
Senate polling is early and sparse. The race itself is early. The impact, if any, is likely going to be on partisan turnout and will have a few points impact only … but 2 points one way or the other? A big deal in a close race.
No, I stand by my statement that voters don’t have a problem with ticket splitting, and I used the supposedly disappearing undecided voter as evidence that trends don’t always go just one way. And even Nate Silver will tell you that Presidential elections do not provide a big enough sample size to draw firm conclusions from. The fact that ticket splitting has been in decline does not mean it will continue to be in decline. The years 2000-2012 have seen remarkable levels of partisanship, which has resulted in less ticket splitting and lower numbers of undecided voters. Clinton and Trump have created a perfect storm of suck that is causing all but the most devoted partisans to go into the undecided column. And those 20% or so who are undecided can also go either way on downballot races.
Agreed that the fact that voters have been having a problem with ticket splitting does not mean that they for certain will have a problem with ticket splitting … but the fact remains that voters for the last 16 years have had an increasing problem with ticket splitting and that a statement that they do not is one based in no fact whatsoever.
It may change this time, may not. My WAG is not, that there will be some who dislike Trump who will just stay home (and be at the poll to vote for the GOP candidate who disavowed Trump) and some who love Trump who leave Senate blank and will not vote for the GOP candidate who did disavow Trump to punish the traitor. And some swing voters who just go straight ticket Dem, only a few who will split.
The only “fact” that it’s based on is the fact that the Republican party will be identified with their presidential nominee to a much lesser extent than in any prior election.
How much this works is uncharted waters. But it’s not like it’s based on nothing either.
It should also be noted that in 2012, House Democrats underperformed Obama by 2% or so.
That’s an argument in the other direction. The way things are looking, if the Democrats underperform Clinton by 2% that would be a huge sweeping victory for them. Republicans need to change that big time.
This whole argument about ticket splitting misses the point: Democrats don’t need straight ticket voting to win back the Senate. We will turn out enough actual Democrats (including consistently Democratic-voting independents) to do that even if Republican-leaners split their tickets. The House is another story.
RIght now Republican incumbents are mostly outperforming Trump by a wide margin. But the thing about Senate races is that you don’t really get a feel for how your incumbents are doing until October. We know that Johnson and Kirk are probably toast, but Toomey, Portman, and the Florida seat it’s hard to tell right now.
And McCain is unclear.