House: Could Trump Lead to Apocalypse for Republicans?

[Torie]

This article on the Cook Political Report has some interesting data. In the past, big swings in the POTUS vote had a very muted impact down ballot. Will that be true this time, if there is a big swing in the POTUS vote?  I'm not sure. First, if the past were the present, PVI would not be very helpful. Districts for a period of time after a blowout election could have a party PVI that seems way out of line with who gets elected. Yet today, PVI is depressingly predictable as to results. Granted, we have not had a blowout election in a long time either. And back then, the Dems had their more conservative Southern wing, now basically totally gone. Indeed, with that Southern wing, PVI was a quite problematical election. And Congressional elections overall,  particularly in the House, were much more locally based.

Beyond the different political culture prior to say sometime in the 1990'a, it seems to me that the fissures in the Pub party right now run very deep. Some of the Pub bourgeoise may be on the verge of packing their bags. I can relate. I already have, and taken  leave - sort of. That militates more in favor of the apocalypse scenario going down ballot.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the "apocalypse" is realized as to its down ballot effects. It is not so far fetched as it once was. Even with Cruz, the possibility is out there.

Speaking of the fissures in the Pub party, that may be reaching the crisis stage, here is another article on the Cook Political Report, with more data. What occurs to me, is that much of the fissure is due to the anger factor. A majority of Pubs are angry. Their economic status/well being is perceived by them to be under siege. Their cultural values too. But the Pub bourgeoise is not angry. They are doing just fine overall financially. And they don't feel that their cultural values are under siege really. In fact, some rather like much of the course of societal evolution at present. I know that I do.

And believe it or not, I don't think they think Hillary is any kind of threat to them. She is not anti-bourgeioise. She takes care of the bourgeoise. Wall Street is her friend. They like each other. The Pubs are at a tippinig point here perhaps.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This is why the Republican Establishment is dumb to rally around Cruz as an Anti-Trump. Trump is actually most likely to win in the general due to his appeal to the white working class, while Cruz's demeanor, background, and persona is off-putting to these voters and makes him most likely to lose badly.

Even if Trump runs 3rd Party, he'll still drive up turnout, which will help Republicans down-ballot, unless of course he runs his own slate of congressional candidates.

[cinyc]

Coattails are overrated.  They always have been.  A Trump victory won't mean many more seats for the GOP than they would have gotten otherwise.  A Trump defeat won't mean many more losses for the GOP than they would have gotten otherwise.  It simply doesn't work that way, and never really has. 

Most House seats are far too Gerrymandered and noncompetitive for many to be swung, even if coattails weren't overrated.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Prebius, already conceded Senate, if Clinton is president, but unless Trump runs as an indy, the House is safe.

But, nxt year, if the economy grows at an accelerated clip, the House will fall under a 2012 map.

[Adam Griffin]

In politics, expect the expected rather than the unexpected. Unlike there being evidence to suggest that "the unexpected" is unfolding with regard to a Trump nomination, there is no evidence to suggest a comparable unexpected coupling of presidential and congressional races under extreme scenarios.

The Tea Party is essentially dead. Perhaps it has been reborn into this Trump-mania, but the initial organization and dedication that we saw from 2009-2012 is mostly gone. Much like the boat is a-rocking in the Democratic Party with respect to Sanders supporters and the purist devotion to one candidate, there is practically no one organizing the recruitment of loonies down-ballot. I'd say that the GOP candidate line-up across the nation for House and Senate (at least those in districts that could be competitive in even the worst-case scenario) will be saner in 2016 than it was 4-6 years ago - or at the very least, the needle of relativity has moved and the country is more accepting of levels of crazy that would have seemed crazier a few years ago. Most will be able to stand on their own and distance themselves where necessary, and for the good bulk of them, that'll be enough - seems that congressional GOP candidates tend to run ahead of their presidential counterparts more often than not.

There's no doubt that a huge landslide - let's say Trump is nominated and loses the popular vote by 10-12 points - would move this congressional needle to a degree, and to a degree larger than what we would otherwise see. There is a connection of sorts. It would knock out a few previously-safe GOP incumbents here and there. But it's not going to be anywhere nearly comparable to the drumming that the top-ticket candidate would take, and therefore, we continue to expect the expected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is all self-inflicted. All these dumb airheads with money where their brains should be, bungled this party up so bad that now they are reaping what they have sown and are so stupid they cannot even comprehend how they did this to themselves.

I warned with Romney back in 2011, when people criticized him for embracing the hard line on Chinese currency manipulation. I said, "if something like this is not done, working class voters will rise up and demand real full on protectionism". I would like to find the post, but I don't feel like digging through 32,000 posts to find it.

And then Romney loses and what is it all blamed on. Immigration, immigration rhetoric. And any talk of China vanishes, the WSJ Editorial Board/COC people had the night of the long knives and suddenly everyone is for comprehensive Immigration Reform and China shilling. Because obviously if we pass amnesty, Hispanics are going to love keeping the Bush tax cuts, cutting spendin and all the rest, when they know from 2004, that Bush won the Hispanic vote through spending and expanding gov't, which also DOA for the most part (with the exception of Trump ironically).

Republicans don't want it, the 2013 polling was skewed by the reluctance to attack Rubio by Rush and others. 2013 was an aberation, the polling before and after looks exactly like it did in 2006 and 2007. So that meant that there was a large base, the same one Romney road to victory in the primaries or at least a portion of it looking for a candidate who shares those views, some of them are pretty moderate on other issues. But all the establishment guys suck, thus ensuring that base went to someone the establishment had no control over. What they should have done was find a way to minimize the damage, to get other minority votes on board, to divide and conquer and restrain the excessive rhetoric without embracing the policy. Cynical yes, Nixonian yes, but guess what such tactics by the GOP got them into this mess, so getting cold feat now is out of the question for the establishment hacks. Now, the risk is a nominee that not only disagrees on the issue, but has no concern about tone.

Now that they have made this mess, they are now going to run to the Democrats, play the innocent "moderate driven out" line and then pray Hillary gives them some of the crumbs. They deserve Trump, not as the nominee, but as President. There solution is as dumb as the actions that caused this mess and for that they also deserve a far right extremist GOP that wins every other election without them. We live in a two party system and the Dems won't win forever. Just remember, the GOP they leave behind is more conservative by 1 for everyone that leaves.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There are some areas were Trump could help. Assuming he remains competative nationwide, a place like Southern Illinois could come out in droves for him, which would help Kirk the way that Brady helped drive up downstate turnout in 2010. Of course Kirk has to seal the deal in Chicagoland on his own.

For the House, I think it would not be just PVI alone but PVI alongside income and education rates. He could help in Illinois 12, but hurt in Illinois 10.

[Torie]

On the immigration thing, even if Rubio had embraced what he is embracing now, except that it is all done at one time, where the illegals who are non felons are allowed to stay, with e verify in place, and Draconian penalties for employers who cheat, and the border influx cut way down, and then one waits to see that the influx is indeed stopped, and at that point, the illegals need to wait 10 years to get a green card, and 5 years after that for citizenship, the Dems would never accept that, and the Trump crowd would still be enraged. It is sort of like abortion. There is a middle position that is quite popular, but the folks who run both parties, and their respective bases, will have none of it. It's winner take all, even if it takes a 20 year battle, and nothing is done in the meantime.

[BigSkyBob]

Nominating George Herbert Walker "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Bush left the party in shambles. Not shamed by his repudiation by the American people, he leveraged his past control over the GOP apparatus to juice his boys into the nominations for Governorships in Florida, and Texas respectively. In an election where Republicans were winning in places like New York, the elder Bush boy was one of the few GOP failures that year. Because the elder Bush brother lost, daddy put his political machine behind getting George Walker Bush the GOP nomination in 2000. The Bush boy proceeded to blow it, losing all three debates very badly. He was only saved by the fact that Al Gore sighed repeatedly at his ineptitude. As President, George Walker Bush pursued neo-conservative warmongering.  Like his father before him, he squandering sky-high approval ratings from an Iraqi war. He only squeaked by to reelection when Osama Bin Laden endorsed his opponent the last week of the election. As the American people soured on our boys coming home in body bags, George Walker Bush doubled down on stupid by trying to make the 2006 midterm a referendum on neo-conservatism. The election was a disaster. The economy nearly collapsed on his watch. Between the neoconservative warmongering, and the economic mismanagement, George Walker Bush paved the way to a second consecutive electoral disaster leaving the Democrats with Presidency, a large majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Like his father before him, George Walker Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the Republican party.

After two Bushes have led the Republican party to near extinction, some are suggesting that the Republican party nominate a third Bush. The old cliché about the definition of insanity comes to mind. I, for one, consider the Bush family a blight on the Republican party that ought to be ripped out by the roots.

Ironically, others are suggesting that the party face disaster if they nominate someone else. Reagan left the Republican party in better shape, and bucked the historical trend and was succeeded by a Republican. Yet, all we read is fearmongering about a new Reagan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ironically, others are suggesting that the party face disaster if they nominate someone else. Reagan left the Republican party in better shape, and bucked the historical trend and was succeeded by a Republican. Yet, all we read is fearmongering about a new Reagan.

What new Reagan? None of the GOP field this year is in the least Reaganesque.

[Maxwell]

Well, Trump is the most Reaganesqe candidate since Reagan in terms of his actual qualities as a candidate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There wont be an apocolapse, the country is very much divided, and the result may still be divided govt. Either a GOP prez, least likely with no filibuster proof senate, or in all likelihood,  a prez Clinton and divided congress.

The GOP still have control of budget and sequestration for foreseeable future.

[Virginiá]

If split ticket voting rates remain as low as the 5% mentioned in this article, then a large loss by Trump could definitely bring down a bunch of Republican House members as well. But I think the Democratic nominee would have to win by a truly-historical landslide to have even a chance at taking back the House - Like, possibly a 1964-style landslide, and even then, large portions of the South are still likely safe.

I think in the event of a large Trump loss, Democrats could pick up a lot of seats, but not quite enough to take back the House. They would then likely lose a lot of these seats in 2018. So really the Senate is the best chamber to reap dividends from such a scenario. Large enough gains could help insulate Democrats from losses 2 years later.

Though this is all speculation. Were Trump the nominee, he could lose small or lose big. Depends how the campaign goes. Impossible to say how such a situation will effect these races at this point.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/how-democrats-could-win-the-house-213318

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems were looking back before the Paris bombings and had a decent shot at taking back House, as Obama's approvals hovered at 50 %. If his approvals approach 50 by election day, dems have a chance.

52/48 Senate instead of 50/50 control and 218 House Dems instead of 206, with a 2012 map.

But, for now, Pa, CO, NV & NH is Clinton route to prez.