For the sake of discussion in this thread let us accept that Hillary is a good enough nominee against any of the current GOP contenders to do no more than two percent worse than Obama with the White vote and GOP Black share goes up no more than from 6 to 10% with Black turn-out dropping by no more than 5% (A 50/50 popular vote that gives an Electoral victory to the Democrat) … IOW that none of the GOP nominees will win. (See this app for a tool to play with, thanks again adaher for the link.)
IF one accepts that as inevitable (and no fighting the hypothetical) then which GOP nominee makes the most sense to help downticket?
I would guess not the same as the one who comes closer to winning although some of the Senate seats in contention are also potential battleground states. And some not. By a quick search these are the 10 closest Senate races and the likely match-ups in reverse closeness order. If anyone knows better please correct me!
Arizona ®: (Republican-controlled): Ann Kirkpatrick (D) v. Sen. John McCain ®
North Carolina ®: Hagan (D)? v. Richard Burr ®
Ohio ®: Ted Strickland (D) v. Rob Portman ®
Colorado (D): Bennett Bennett (D) v. ?
New Hampshire ®: Kelly Ayotte ® v. ?
Pennsylvania ®: Pat Toomey ® v. Joe Sestak (D)?
Nevada (D): Catherine Cortez Masto (D) v. Joe Heck ®
Florida ®: ? v. ?
Wisconsin ®: Sen. Ron Johnson ® v. Russ Feingold (D) as predicted match up
I don’t know enough about the other races to comment but I don’t see how any of the nominees can help Ron Johnson or Mark Kirk. Those two are unlikely to end up being close races; the challengers will probably win by at least 5% of the vote.
Also, if you were trying to include a link to something in the sentence where you say “See this app for a tool to play with, thanks again adaher for the link.”, it appears you left it out. Just sayin’.
I think Chris Christie is the nominee who would be best for the Republican Party because he’s an excellent communicator. He’s good at expressing ideas and summarizing explanations into a quick soundbite that looks on television or Youtube. He’s intelligent and rarely gets caught flat-footed. He doesn’t make gaffes and doesn’t get caught without an answer.
I’d say Rubio. The Republicans have to develop a base that goes beyond white men. Hispanics are the best chance they’ve got. Running a Hispanic nominee, especially if they do it before the Democrats do, will create an opening for them.
As for how competitive each one is, here is Cook’s placement of the races, and a Politico analysis. Indiana might be also on the list as a relatively longshot possible Democratic pick up too (as is Arizona) but really only if Clinton fights for the state like Obama did round one.
Duckworth is favored in IL but it is still considered a toss-up and I am not sure how it will go. A Presidential election that is by that point polling to be a blow out with a low turn-out as a result (lower 50’s is very realistic for IL, where many feel the die is so cast for the Presidential result that well why bother?) could bode well for Kirk.
Likewise Nevada with Heck is considered toss-up by both sources.
I do think that turnout in each state matters and will vary with different Presidential match ups, that Hispanic vote and turn out matters in some of those contests and varies depending on who is running as the GOP candidate, and that whether or not Clinton fights for a particular state matters too.
I’ve got a rather unorthodox suggestion: the GOP should decide not to run a Presidential candidate in 2016.
The gamble would be that in the absence of a genuine Presidential race, turnout might look less like that of a Presidential election year, and more like that of a midterm. Not to mention, they wouldn’t have one of these clowns making a national laughingstock of himself and the party.
The downside risk is that Hillary, all but assured of an overwhelming Electoral College win, would be able to spend her campaign focusing on helping Senate and House candidates. Of course, that might be the case anyway, just with the EC margin a little less overwhelming.
Cute idea, but I don’t think it would work. I think part of the bump in turnout in presidential years is simply the desire to vote for your parties presidential candidate. In that case the Dems would get a a partial presidential year bump from having Clinton on the ballot, but the Reps wouldn’t.