Is A Democratic Wave Building ?

[Indy Texas]

No way.  The Kochs are going to continue to pour money into downballot races, and their already existing state gov advantage will stem the bleeding, even if Trump implodes

Charles Koch already said in an interview earlier this year that he will not be spending as much on campaigns as he usually does. He's redirecting money into starting a new think tank in DC focused on a non-interventionist foreign policy and funding more research institutes at universities. Basically, he's seeing the diminishing returns of trying to influence politicians and is going to try to influence what ideas voters are receptive to to begin with.

[Indy Texas]

It's going to be rough if Trump doesn't get his act together now.  I'm thinking nuking him at the convention is the right approach.

Too late.

And that doesn't solve the root problem that 40% of your party's voters are absolutely horrible, disgusting people.

[fldemfunds]

It's going to be rough if Trump doesn't get his act together now.  I'm thinking nuking him at the convention is the right approach.

Too late.

And that doesn't solve the root problem that 40% of your party's voters are absolutely horrible, disgusting people.

This. Reps gotta decide which base they want to live with at some point.

[Bojack Horseman]

I honestly think it's more of a Democratic undertow. It'll be like 1988: a landslide presidential election but a negligible impact on Congress.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

No indication of one yet.

It could happen, though.

[Suburbia]

It's mid June. I would wait until after both conventions are over in late July and then see where the election goes from here. But as of now, it is leaning towards Clinton. Trump wins if he gets his act together and if the economy declines and national security remains on the front headline of the news.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The GOP needs some serious message discipline on Trump.  If a candidate simply states that he/she is a Republican, but is focusing on their own campaign and blows off the press, it's better than saying, essentially, "I'm voting for Trump, but he's an a---h---."  The first option gives you needed flexibility in this uncomfortable (for a Republican officeholder) situation.  The second option locks you into things you can't walk back, and that's never good.

But is a Republican candidate criticizing Trump bad for that individual candidate, or just bad for Trump?  Might there not be some benefit to individual members of Congress to put up some explicit distance between themselves and Trump?

If I were a Republican elected official, or a candidate for office, here's what I'd do if I didn't like Trump:

(A)  During the primary season, I'd observe the 11th commandment.  I'd say only positive things about my choice, or abstain and defer to the wisdom of the voters.  While I may think Trump is a fraud or a carnival barker, or have a really bad idea regarding immigration, I will not make statements I would have to walk back later on.  After all, if a guy really is a fraud, a carnival barker, a racist, etc., why would you even vote for him?  I would not want to have to defend the preposterous argument that Trump's a racist, carnival barker, fraud, racist, con man, reality show star, etc. but he's better than Hillary.  That's a position that will only appeal to the most obtuse hacks.

(B)  I would not only NOT make derogatory statements about Trump; I'd criticize those who did as folks who were breaking Reagan's 11th commandment, and leave it at that.

(C)  When asked about the Presidential race, I would make some statement to the effect that I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote the Republican ticket  I would avoid saying the word "endorse" That includes statements such as, "I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not endorsing him."  And I would NEVER state that I am not supporting the ticket.  Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election, but it will DOOM you for future advancement, particularly if you have Presidential ambitions.

History is littered with folks who doomed their careers by not supporting their party's unpopular nominee.  George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton all refused to endorse Goldwater; their Presidential prospects tanked, while the has-been Nixon and the rising star Reagan actively campaigned for Goldwater, and became President.

John Connally chaired Democrats for Nixon.  Not a single prominent Democrat for Nixon ever launched a viable Presidential campaign.  Connally, who probably hoped to be Nixon's VP in 1972, did not get that slot, but he was so far out on a limb that he switched parties, only to bomb when he ran for President.  It did not help that the GOP that he joined in Texas had been fighting folks like John Connally (Tory Democrats) their entire political lives.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a leader in the ABM (Anyone But McGovern movement).  Carter did not campaign for McGovern (after being rebuffed in his attempts to be on the ticket as McGovern's VP) but he did state that he would vote for McGovern.  Jimmy Carter went on to be President.  The Southern Democrats that supported McGovern, if only to say that they would vote for him, had better careers than the ones that refused to support him.  (By "supporting", I mean merely saying that they would vote for McGovern, and shutting their mouths otherwise.)  The only Southern Democrat that vocally did not support McGovern, but who had a long career with the Democratic Party and was seriously considered Presidential timber was Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).

Governors, Senators, and big-city Mayors that don't support their party's nominee, at least to the point of not trashing the candidate AND stating that he/she (at a minimum) will vote for "the nominee" or "the ticket".  That's the minimum standard.  Bolting the party is a ticket for failure.  You can get re-elected by shifting to the right (if you're a Democrat) or to the left (if you're a Republican) if you are going to be loyal to the national ticket, but if you bolt the party, you have black-marked yourself to where you will not be able to gain the support you need from your party to run for higher office.

[Indy Texas]

The GOP needs some serious message discipline on Trump.  If a candidate simply states that he/she is a Republican, but is focusing on their own campaign and blows off the press, it's better than saying, essentially, "I'm voting for Trump, but he's an a---h---."  The first option gives you needed flexibility in this uncomfortable (for a Republican officeholder) situation.  The second option locks you into things you can't walk back, and that's never good.

But is a Republican candidate criticizing Trump bad for that individual candidate, or just bad for Trump?  Might there not be some benefit to individual members of Congress to put up some explicit distance between themselves and Trump?

If I were a Republican elected official, or a candidate for office, here's what I'd do if I didn't like Trump:

(A)  During the primary season, I'd observe the 11th commandment.  I'd say only positive things about my choice, or abstain and defer to the wisdom of the voters.  While I may think Trump is a fraud or a carnival barker, or have a really bad idea regarding immigration, I will not make statements I would have to walk back later on.  After all, if a guy really is a fraud, a carnival barker, a racist, etc., why would you even vote for him?  I would not want to have to defend the preposterous argument that Trump's a racist, carnival barker, fraud, racist, con man, reality show star, etc. but he's better than Hillary.  That's a position that will only appeal to the most obtuse hacks.

(B)  I would not only NOT make derogatory statements about Trump; I'd criticize those who did as folks who were breaking Reagan's 11th commandment, and leave it at that.

(C)  When asked about the Presidential race, I would make some statement to the effect that I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote the Republican ticket  I would avoid saying the word "endorse" That includes statements such as, "I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not endorsing him."  And I would NEVER state that I am not supporting the ticket.  Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election, but it will DOOM you for future advancement, particularly if you have Presidential ambitions.

History is littered with folks who doomed their careers by not supporting their party's unpopular nominee.  George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton all refused to endorse Goldwater; their Presidential prospects tanked, while the has-been Nixon and the rising star Reagan actively campaigned for Goldwater, and became President.

John Connally chaired Democrats for Nixon.  Not a single prominent Democrat for Nixon ever launched a viable Presidential campaign.  Connally, who probably hoped to be Nixon's VP in 1972, did not get that slot, but he was so far out on a limb that he switched parties, only to bomb when he ran for President.  It did not help that the GOP that he joined in Texas had been fighting folks like John Connally (Tory Democrats) their entire political lives.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a leader in the ABM (Anyone But McGovern movement).  Carter did not campaign for McGovern (after being rebuffed in his attempts to be on the ticket as McGovern's VP) but he did state that he would vote for McGovern.  Jimmy Carter went on to be President.  The Southern Democrats that supported McGovern, if only to say that they would vote for him, had better careers than the ones that refused to support him.  (By "supporting", I mean merely saying that they would vote for McGovern, and shutting their mouths otherwise.)  The only Southern Democrat that vocally did not support McGovern, but who had a long career with the Democratic Party and was seriously considered Presidential timber was Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).

Governors, Senators, and big-city Mayors that don't support their party's nominee, at least to the point of not trashing the candidate AND stating that he/she (at a minimum) will vote for "the nominee" or "the ticket".  That's the minimum standard.  Bolting the party is a ticket for failure.  You can get re-elected by shifting to the right (if you're a Democrat) or to the left (if you're a Republican) if you are going to be loyal to the national ticket, but if you bolt the party, you have black-marked yourself to where you will not be able to gain the support you need from your party to run for higher office.

There is functionally no difference between saying publicly that you will vote for someone and saying that you endorse them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The GOP needs some serious message discipline on Trump.  If a candidate simply states that he/she is a Republican, but is focusing on their own campaign and blows off the press, it's better than saying, essentially, "I'm voting for Trump, but he's an a---h---."  The first option gives you needed flexibility in this uncomfortable (for a Republican officeholder) situation.  The second option locks you into things you can't walk back, and that's never good.

But is a Republican candidate criticizing Trump bad for that individual candidate, or just bad for Trump?  Might there not be some benefit to individual members of Congress to put up some explicit distance between themselves and Trump?

If I were a Republican elected official, or a candidate for office, here's what I'd do if I didn't like Trump:

(A)  During the primary season, I'd observe the 11th commandment.  I'd say only positive things about my choice, or abstain and defer to the wisdom of the voters.  While I may think Trump is a fraud or a carnival barker, or have a really bad idea regarding immigration, I will not make statements I would have to walk back later on.  After all, if a guy really is a fraud, a carnival barker, a racist, etc., why would you even vote for him?  I would not want to have to defend the preposterous argument that Trump's a racist, carnival barker, fraud, racist, con man, reality show star, etc. but he's better than Hillary.  That's a position that will only appeal to the most obtuse hacks.

(B)  I would not only NOT make derogatory statements about Trump; I'd criticize those who did as folks who were breaking Reagan's 11th commandment, and leave it at that.

(C)  When asked about the Presidential race, I would make some statement to the effect that I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote the Republican ticket  I would avoid saying the word "endorse" That includes statements such as, "I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not endorsing him."  And I would NEVER state that I am not supporting the ticket.  Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election, but it will DOOM you for future advancement, particularly if you have Presidential ambitions.

History is littered with folks who doomed their careers by not supporting their party's unpopular nominee.  George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton all refused to endorse Goldwater; their Presidential prospects tanked, while the has-been Nixon and the rising star Reagan actively campaigned for Goldwater, and became President.

John Connally chaired Democrats for Nixon.  Not a single prominent Democrat for Nixon ever launched a viable Presidential campaign.  Connally, who probably hoped to be Nixon's VP in 1972, did not get that slot, but he was so far out on a limb that he switched parties, only to bomb when he ran for President.  It did not help that the GOP that he joined in Texas had been fighting folks like John Connally (Tory Democrats) their entire political lives.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a leader in the ABM (Anyone But McGovern movement).  Carter did not campaign for McGovern (after being rebuffed in his attempts to be on the ticket as McGovern's VP) but he did state that he would vote for McGovern.  Jimmy Carter went on to be President.  The Southern Democrats that supported McGovern, if only to say that they would vote for him, had better careers than the ones that refused to support him.  (By "supporting", I mean merely saying that they would vote for McGovern, and shutting their mouths otherwise.)  The only Southern Democrat that vocally did not support McGovern, but who had a long career with the Democratic Party and was seriously considered Presidential timber was Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).

Governors, Senators, and big-city Mayors that don't support their party's nominee, at least to the point of not trashing the candidate AND stating that he/she (at a minimum) will vote for "the nominee" or "the ticket".  That's the minimum standard.  Bolting the party is a ticket for failure.  You can get re-elected by shifting to the right (if you're a Democrat) or to the left (if you're a Republican) if you are going to be loyal to the national ticket, but if you bolt the party, you have black-marked yourself to where you will not be able to gain the support you need from your party to run for higher office.

There is functionally no difference between saying publicly that you will vote for someone and saying that you endorse them.

There's a subtle difference.  "Endorsing" means (A) that you're in significant agreement with your candidate and (B) you're asking other people to vote for your candidate as well.  If I say "I'm voting the Republican ticket." and cut off the discussion, I've not asked anyone else to.  I get props for being a good Republican in the voting booth, but I'm not tying the ticket around my neck. 

"Endorsements" are usually made with some fanfare, and there is usually an appeal to the voter to support that candidate.  The candidate being endorsed is often on hand for the announcement.  There's more of a linkage than the other way.  It's the difference between making the minimum payment on your credit card and paying the entire balance.

[cinyc]

Was a Republican wave building last week when Trump was leading some polls?

I think this is your typical Atlas overreaction to transient polling.  We haven't even held the conventions yet.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Was a Republican wave building last week when Trump was leading some polls?

I think this is your typical Atlas overreaction to transient polling.  We haven't even held the conventions yet.

When a wave is building, one of the first signs is prominent folks in the party that's about to lose begin to abandon the nominee, to the point of refusing to endorse the candidate.  The number of elected Republicans who have flat-out said they aren't going to vote for Trump is building to where it's looking like the way Democrats bailed on McGovern, even before the convention.

[Desroko]

Was a Republican wave building last week when Trump was leading some polls?

I think this is your typical Atlas overreaction to transient polling.  We haven't even held the conventions yet.

Trump hasn't led a national poll since mid-May. This is usually the point where one says "Nice try", but honestly, that was a pathetic attempt at deflection.   

[Virginiá]

If the rate of split-ticket voting remains at < 10% in 2016, as it did in 2012 (5%~), then Clinton winning by 2008 margins or higher would certainly deliver a decent Senate majority and seriously cut into the Republican House majority. Unfortunately, due to various reasons, Democrats need to win the House PV about 7% - 8% to claw back a slim majority. Hard to see that happening unless Clinton wins by possibly 10 points or more.

Right now, the Generic Congressional poll is giving Democrats a 2.2% average. Democrats have been leading or tied in this poll since last summer:



This is June 2006, where Democrats won the House PV by 7.9%:



Obviously things have changed in the past ten years (map lines/population movement), so a 31 seat gain at 7.9% seems unlikely right now. However, it doesn't take 7.9% to at least significantly hurt the GOP nationwide. Half that would still be very good. Also worth noting is that Democrats under-performed their poll numbers in 2006, which stood at an 11.6% average by November. Finally, a large Clinton win would most likely flip numerous state legislature chambers. This election could really shore up Democrats for 2018.

In the end, I think it is going to come down to Clinton's winning margin and where she performs best.

[Indy Texas]

The GOP needs some serious message discipline on Trump.  If a candidate simply states that he/she is a Republican, but is focusing on their own campaign and blows off the press, it's better than saying, essentially, "I'm voting for Trump, but he's an a---h---."  The first option gives you needed flexibility in this uncomfortable (for a Republican officeholder) situation.  The second option locks you into things you can't walk back, and that's never good.

But is a Republican candidate criticizing Trump bad for that individual candidate, or just bad for Trump?  Might there not be some benefit to individual members of Congress to put up some explicit distance between themselves and Trump?

If I were a Republican elected official, or a candidate for office, here's what I'd do if I didn't like Trump:

(A)  During the primary season, I'd observe the 11th commandment.  I'd say only positive things about my choice, or abstain and defer to the wisdom of the voters.  While I may think Trump is a fraud or a carnival barker, or have a really bad idea regarding immigration, I will not make statements I would have to walk back later on.  After all, if a guy really is a fraud, a carnival barker, a racist, etc., why would you even vote for him?  I would not want to have to defend the preposterous argument that Trump's a racist, carnival barker, fraud, racist, con man, reality show star, etc. but he's better than Hillary.  That's a position that will only appeal to the most obtuse hacks.

(B)  I would not only NOT make derogatory statements about Trump; I'd criticize those who did as folks who were breaking Reagan's 11th commandment, and leave it at that.

(C)  When asked about the Presidential race, I would make some statement to the effect that I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote the Republican ticket  I would avoid saying the word "endorse" That includes statements such as, "I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not endorsing him."  And I would NEVER state that I am not supporting the ticket.  Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election, but it will DOOM you for future advancement, particularly if you have Presidential ambitions.

History is littered with folks who doomed their careers by not supporting their party's unpopular nominee.  George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton all refused to endorse Goldwater; their Presidential prospects tanked, while the has-been Nixon and the rising star Reagan actively campaigned for Goldwater, and became President.

John Connally chaired Democrats for Nixon.  Not a single prominent Democrat for Nixon ever launched a viable Presidential campaign.  Connally, who probably hoped to be Nixon's VP in 1972, did not get that slot, but he was so far out on a limb that he switched parties, only to bomb when he ran for President.  It did not help that the GOP that he joined in Texas had been fighting folks like John Connally (Tory Democrats) their entire political lives.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a leader in the ABM (Anyone But McGovern movement).  Carter did not campaign for McGovern (after being rebuffed in his attempts to be on the ticket as McGovern's VP) but he did state that he would vote for McGovern.  Jimmy Carter went on to be President.  The Southern Democrats that supported McGovern, if only to say that they would vote for him, had better careers than the ones that refused to support him.  (By "supporting", I mean merely saying that they would vote for McGovern, and shutting their mouths otherwise.)  The only Southern Democrat that vocally did not support McGovern, but who had a long career with the Democratic Party and was seriously considered Presidential timber was Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).

Governors, Senators, and big-city Mayors that don't support their party's nominee, at least to the point of not trashing the candidate AND stating that he/she (at a minimum) will vote for "the nominee" or "the ticket".  That's the minimum standard.  Bolting the party is a ticket for failure.  You can get re-elected by shifting to the right (if you're a Democrat) or to the left (if you're a Republican) if you are going to be loyal to the national ticket, but if you bolt the party, you have black-marked yourself to where you will not be able to gain the support you need from your party to run for higher office.

There is functionally no difference between saying publicly that you will vote for someone and saying that you endorse them.

There's a subtle difference.  "Endorsing" means (A) that you're in significant agreement with your candidate and (B) you're asking other people to vote for your candidate as well.  If I say "I'm voting the Republican ticket." and cut off the discussion, I've not asked anyone else to.  I get props for being a good Republican in the voting booth, but I'm not tying the ticket around my neck. 

"Endorsements" are usually made with some fanfare, and there is usually an appeal to the voter to support that candidate.  The candidate being endorsed is often on hand for the announcement.  There's more of a linkage than the other way.  It's the difference between making the minimum payment on your credit card and paying the entire balance.

In this case it's very different. Furthermore, if you won't endorse a member of your own party, something must be very wrong. What is so wrong that they're not good enough for your endorsement but good enough for your vote?

And in the case of Trump specifically, there are two kinds of Trump voters: racists and idiots. If you're a Republican and you go on the record as saying you're voting for Donald Trump, the voters get to decide which one you are.

[cinyc]

Was a Republican wave building last week when Trump was leading some polls?

I think this is your typical Atlas overreaction to transient polling.  We haven't even held the conventions yet.

Trump hasn't led a national poll since mid-May. This is usually the point where one says "Nice try", but honestly, that was a pathetic attempt at deflection.   

So I was off by a few weeks?  So what?   My point still stands.  It is far too early to claim any wave is building in any direction, or to even pay attention to the polls, really.

[Desroko]

Was a Republican wave building last week when Trump was leading some polls?

I think this is your typical Atlas overreaction to transient polling.  We haven't even held the conventions yet.

Trump hasn't led a national poll since mid-May. This is usually the point where one says "Nice try", but honestly, that was a pathetic attempt at deflection.   

So I was off by a few weeks?  So what?   My point still stands.  It is far too early to claim any wave is building in any direction, or to even pay attention to the polls, really.

"I was completely wrong but my point still stands."

[Fuzzy Bear]

The GOP needs some serious message discipline on Trump.  If a candidate simply states that he/she is a Republican, but is focusing on their own campaign and blows off the press, it's better than saying, essentially, "I'm voting for Trump, but he's an a---h---."  The first option gives you needed flexibility in this uncomfortable (for a Republican officeholder) situation.  The second option locks you into things you can't walk back, and that's never good.

But is a Republican candidate criticizing Trump bad for that individual candidate, or just bad for Trump?  Might there not be some benefit to individual members of Congress to put up some explicit distance between themselves and Trump?

If I were a Republican elected official, or a candidate for office, here's what I'd do if I didn't like Trump:

(A)  During the primary season, I'd observe the 11th commandment.  I'd say only positive things about my choice, or abstain and defer to the wisdom of the voters.  While I may think Trump is a fraud or a carnival barker, or have a really bad idea regarding immigration, I will not make statements I would have to walk back later on.  After all, if a guy really is a fraud, a carnival barker, a racist, etc., why would you even vote for him?  I would not want to have to defend the preposterous argument that Trump's a racist, carnival barker, fraud, racist, con man, reality show star, etc. but he's better than Hillary.  That's a position that will only appeal to the most obtuse hacks.

(B)  I would not only NOT make derogatory statements about Trump; I'd criticize those who did as folks who were breaking Reagan's 11th commandment, and leave it at that.

(C)  When asked about the Presidential race, I would make some statement to the effect that I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote the Republican ticket  I would avoid saying the word "endorse" That includes statements such as, "I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not endorsing him."  And I would NEVER state that I am not supporting the ticket.  Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election, but it will DOOM you for future advancement, particularly if you have Presidential ambitions.

History is littered with folks who doomed their careers by not supporting their party's unpopular nominee.  George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton all refused to endorse Goldwater; their Presidential prospects tanked, while the has-been Nixon and the rising star Reagan actively campaigned for Goldwater, and became President.

John Connally chaired Democrats for Nixon.  Not a single prominent Democrat for Nixon ever launched a viable Presidential campaign.  Connally, who probably hoped to be Nixon's VP in 1972, did not get that slot, but he was so far out on a limb that he switched parties, only to bomb when he ran for President.  It did not help that the GOP that he joined in Texas had been fighting folks like John Connally (Tory Democrats) their entire political lives.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a leader in the ABM (Anyone But McGovern movement).  Carter did not campaign for McGovern (after being rebuffed in his attempts to be on the ticket as McGovern's VP) but he did state that he would vote for McGovern.  Jimmy Carter went on to be President.  The Southern Democrats that supported McGovern, if only to say that they would vote for him, had better careers than the ones that refused to support him.  (By "supporting", I mean merely saying that they would vote for McGovern, and shutting their mouths otherwise.)  The only Southern Democrat that vocally did not support McGovern, but who had a long career with the Democratic Party and was seriously considered Presidential timber was Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).

Governors, Senators, and big-city Mayors that don't support their party's nominee, at least to the point of not trashing the candidate AND stating that he/she (at a minimum) will vote for "the nominee" or "the ticket".  That's the minimum standard.  Bolting the party is a ticket for failure.  You can get re-elected by shifting to the right (if you're a Democrat) or to the left (if you're a Republican) if you are going to be loyal to the national ticket, but if you bolt the party, you have black-marked yourself to where you will not be able to gain the support you need from your party to run for higher office.

There is functionally no difference between saying publicly that you will vote for someone and saying that you endorse them.

There's a subtle difference.  "Endorsing" means (A) that you're in significant agreement with your candidate and (B) you're asking other people to vote for your candidate as well.  If I say "I'm voting the Republican ticket." and cut off the discussion, I've not asked anyone else to.  I get props for being a good Republican in the voting booth, but I'm not tying the ticket around my neck. 

"Endorsements" are usually made with some fanfare, and there is usually an appeal to the voter to support that candidate.  The candidate being endorsed is often on hand for the announcement.  There's more of a linkage than the other way.  It's the difference between making the minimum payment on your credit card and paying the entire balance.

In this case it's very different. Furthermore, if you won't endorse a member of your own party, something must be very wrong. What is so wrong that they're not good enough for your endorsement but good enough for your vote?

And in the case of Trump specifically, there are two kinds of Trump voters: racists and idiots. If you're a Republican and you go on the record as saying you're voting for Donald Trump, the voters get to decide which one you are.

That's absolute crap.

There are lots of folks like me that are not racists, but who have legitimate concerns about security, the effects of illegal immigration, the effects of free trade, etc.  Trump's not a perfect candidate, but Hillary's no bargain, either.  Lots of folks that are not racists or idiots are going to be doing the best they can do with what they're offered this election season.

Trump's persona bothers me, but on immigration, trade, and foreign policy, I am more in agreement with Trump than Clinton.  I am also more in agreement with Trump on issues than I am with other Republicans running this year.  So, again, I'm doing the best I can do given what I've been offered.

[cinyc]

Was a Republican wave building last week when Trump was leading some polls?

I think this is your typical Atlas overreaction to transient polling.  We haven't even held the conventions yet.

Trump hasn't led a national poll since mid-May. This is usually the point where one says "Nice try", but honestly, that was a pathetic attempt at deflection.   

So I was off by a few weeks?  So what?   My point still stands.  It is far too early to claim any wave is building in any direction, or to even pay attention to the polls, really.

"I was completely wrong but my point still stands."

No, my theory is completely right.  Trump was leading some polls at some point in the recent past.  That I said last week instead of last month is, quite frankly, irrelevant.  Atlas overreacted then.  Now, Clinton is leading.  Atlas is overreacting now. 

It is far too early to trust the polls and extrapolate that one party or the other is going to lose in a wave.  Most pollsters haven't even gone to their likely voter models yet.  The conventions haven't occurred.  And the election isn't for another five months.  That's five eternities in politics.  Talk to me after Labor Day.

[Hermit For Peace]

Then don't trust the polls, trust your gut instincts. Trump is no politician and no leader in that arena. He's crazy. He puts his foot in his mouth on a consistent basis.

I read an article today that said he was even ready to go out on his own. There is no love between him and the GOP.

Trump's overly large ego and desire for domination is showing, and he's alienating the very people who can help him in this campaign.

My gut tells me that that is a relationship on the road to hell that no one can save. I don't need polls to show me that.

[IceSpear]

How many times is this forum going to flip flop back and forth from "HILLARY IS DOOMED, DUMP HER FOR BIDEN!11!!" to "HILLARY IS THE SECOND COMING OF LBJ!1!!!!"

[cinyc]

Then don't trust the polls, trust your gut instincts. Trump is no politician and no leader in that arena. He's crazy. He puts his foot in his mouth on a consistent basis.

I read an article today that said he was even ready to go out on his own. There is no love between him and the GOP.

Trump's overly large ego and desire for domination is showing, and he's alienating the very people who can help him in this campaign.

My gut tells me that that is a relationship on the road to hell that no one can save. I don't need polls to show me that.

Many people's guts, including many famous pundits, didn't think Trump could win the Republican nomination.  He was no politician and no leader in that arena.  He put his foot in his mouth on a consistent basis.  Yet, somehow, he won.

The laws of conventional political wisdom just don't seem to apply anymore.  Should Trump's lack of infrastructure hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it didn't matter in the primaries.  Should Trump's lack of money hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it didn't matter in the primaries.  Should Trump's penchant for putting his foot in his mouth hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it didn't matter in the primaries.  Should Trump's tepid backing (at best) from Republican elites hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it was probably a net benefit for him in the primaries.  Will the answers to these questions be different in the general election?  Only time will tell, I suppose.

I wouldn't rule anything out in an election between two candidates that a majority of voters dislike - Clinton blowout, Trump blowout, Clinton squeaker, Trump squeaker. 

[Hermit For Peace]

Then don't trust the polls, trust your gut instincts. Trump is no politician and no leader in that arena. He's crazy. He puts his foot in his mouth on a consistent basis.

I read an article today that said he was even ready to go out on his own. There is no love between him and the GOP.

Trump's overly large ego and desire for domination is showing, and he's alienating the very people who can help him in this campaign.

My gut tells me that that is a relationship on the road to hell that no one can save. I don't need polls to show me that.

Many people's guts, including many famous pundits, didn't think Trump could win the Republican nomination.  He was no politician and no leader in that arena.  He put his foot in his mouth on a consistent basis.  Yet, somehow, he won.

The laws of conventional political wisdom just don't seem to apply anymore.  Should Trump's lack of infrastructure hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it didn't matter in the primaries.  Should Trump's lack of money hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it didn't matter in the primaries.  Should Trump's penchant for putting his foot in his mouth hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it didn't matter in the primaries.  Should Trump's tepid backing (at best) from Republican elites hurt him?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it was probably a net benefit for him in the primaries.  Will the answers to these questions be different in the general election?  Only time will tell, I suppose.

I wouldn't rule anything out in an election between two candidates that a majority of voters dislike - Clinton blowout, Trump blowout, Clinton squeaker, Trump squeaker. 

People might not like Hillary, but she is not putting her foot in her mouth on a daily basis, nor is she alienating the very people in her own party. She is showing leadership qualities on a consistent basis, that's what I see.

I'll go with my gut. I feel that most people in the country are too decent to want such a controversial figure as President, one who doesn't have a clue what he's doing and who is alienating everyone who wants to help him in his campaign.

Of course people's intuition can be wrong, but every day Trump makes it easier and easier to want to vote for Hillary.

[Mr. Morden]

(C)  When asked about the Presidential race, I would make some statement to the effect that I'm a Republican and I'm going to vote the Republican ticket  I would avoid saying the word "endorse" That includes statements such as, "I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not endorsing him."  And I would NEVER state that I am not supporting the ticket.  Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election, but it will DOOM you for future advancement, particularly if you have Presidential ambitions.

History is littered with folks who doomed their careers by not supporting their party's unpopular nominee.  George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton all refused to endorse Goldwater; their Presidential prospects tanked, while the has-been Nixon and the rising star Reagan actively campaigned for Goldwater, and became President.

John Connally chaired Democrats for Nixon.  Not a single prominent Democrat for Nixon ever launched a viable Presidential campaign.  Connally, who probably hoped to be Nixon's VP in 1972, did not get that slot, but he was so far out on a limb that he switched parties, only to bomb when he ran for President.  It did not help that the GOP that he joined in Texas had been fighting folks like John Connally (Tory Democrats) their entire political lives.

But there are many candidates who don't care about advancing to national office.  They just want to hold onto their current office for as long as possible.  Even you just admitted that "Not supporting the ticket may get you through the rough spot of the current election".  For many of these guys, getting through the current election may be all that they care about, so breaking with Trump might just be smart politics.

Also, I don't buy the Goldwater analogy.  Goldwater was at the bleeding edge of the conservative movement.  Is Donald Trump leading a Trump-ist movement, that'll be the new base of the Republican Party?  I'm not convinced that he's much more than a sui generis personality cult, and that the "movement conservatives" like Cruz will continue to represent "the base", and they'll dump Trump after he loses the election, blaming his loss on the fact that he wasn't sufficiently conservative.  Might not talk radio go on a tear after the election, talking about how Trump was a Democratic interloper, who tried to take over the party and tanked the election?  Why would they then go after people who weren't sufficiently loyal to him?  Heck, some anti-Trump figures are already going after him from the right.

[Mr. Morden]

When a wave is building, one of the first signs is prominent folks in the party that's about to lose begin to abandon the nominee, to the point of refusing to endorse the candidate.  The number of elected Republicans who have flat-out said they aren't going to vote for Trump is building to where it's looking like the way Democrats bailed on McGovern, even before the convention.

But wasn't McGovern down in the polls pretty substantially early on?  The difference here is that Trump isn't actually doing *that* badly by historical standards in the horserace polls.  Head to head against Clinton, it's still single digits in most polls.  I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but I'm pretty sure that Dole was doing worse than this at a similar point in 1996, yet no one in the party was "un-endorsing" him.  But of course, even though Trump isn't doing that badly in the GE matchups, his favorability #s are terrible.

If the rate of split-ticket voting remains at < 10% in 2016, as it did in 2012 (5%~), then Clinton winning by 2008 margins or higher would certainly deliver a decent Senate majority and seriously cut into the Republican House majority.

But might the ticket splitting be a bit higher this time, if many Republicans are distancing themselves from the nominee?  None of the Republican downballot candidates in 2012 were running away from Romney, so of course his #s closely matched those of the downballot candidates.  There might be at least a little more of a spread this time, if candidates are able to convince a few voters that they're not Trump.  Also, if Johnson gets 2% or more, then that could cause a further complication with regard to ticket splitting.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not sure how exactly to articulate it, but...under almost any other circumstance in the modern political climate, a wave wouldn't be possible. However, both candidates are intensely disliked - not by equal amounts, but both by unprecedented amounts - and I think that creates the conditions for some tectonic plates to snap in ways that normally wouldn't. There will be a lot of people going into the voting booth who say "I don't like either of these choices" but are going to feel compelled to vote against somebody above and beyond what is usually the case.

The fact that Trump has lower favorables - by a good bit - makes me think it'll be to his detriment. They may both be underwater, but he's fifteen points below his opponent in terms of favorables; when was the last time there was such a huge gap in a presidential election? That's an intensity that is very uncommon.