Is A Democratic Wave Building ?

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Think about it as a combination of two factors: respectability/image and performance. A quality candidate (measured as being reflective of a party's saner, more establishment ways) losing by 10-15 points doesn't inherently damage the party's image or ability to win long-term. A nutty candidate who is tied in polling may be damaging to the party's image, but a win is still a win. When you start combining these two variables and they add up to a certain sum (unhinged/doing damage to the party and losing by 7+ points, let's say), then it becomes an untenable situation in which both factors are too far gone to defend.

[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.

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.

It probably will be if Clinton snatches up a bunch of Republicans, but at that point, the more common reasons for straight-ticket voting kick in - Not knowing who the other people are on the ballot and voting the same way you did for president all the way down, or a repudiation of the GOP leads their breakaway voters to turn against the party downballot, and so on.

So in other words, not all of those crossover Republicans will split tickets. You would have to know why they crossed over and what their traditional electoral engagement / voting behavior is like. Given the circumstances of this election, I think that a large number of crossover Republicans will vote straight-ticket, but certainly not close to all. However, that's still a lot of support Democrats will greatly benefit from, depending on how large Clinton's winning margin is.

Also concerning for the GOP is how many of their voters will stay home when confronted with Trump v Clinton? This could influence things quite a bit.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Some observations:

1.  McGovern was down in the polls early on.  YUUUUGE.  Bigger than Trump.  The electorate, however, was more elastic, and Nixon was an incumbent President in the midst of some heady achievements (China, SALT, Vietnam negotiations).

2.  McGovern was associated with avant garde positions early on.  As early as the primaries, McGovern was the candidate of "Amnesty, Abortion, and Acid" and a $1,000 minimum income for Americans.  These positions were RADICAL for 1972. 

3.  The Democrats that were refusing to endorse McGovern (including some Congressional Democrats) were, ideologically and culturally, poles apart from McGovern in ways that cannot be said about the current GOP vs. Trump.  What kept most of the conservative Democrats, most of them from the South, in the Democratic Party was the Congressional seniority system; this gave conservative Democrats motivation to remain Democrats, remain in Congress, and wait until people died or retired so they could move up to chair powerful committees.  These folks weren't just conservative Democrats; they were conservatives, period.  Trump advocates DIFFERENT positions than the free-trading, neocon #NeverTrump crowd, but he is not poles apart, position-wise, from the rest of the GOP as McGovern was from a major swath of the Democratic Party.

The common denominator between the two situations is the distancing.  Former Sen. George Smathers (D-FL), a friend of JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, called Nixon early in 1972 to tell him that Democratic Senators Robert Byrd, Jennings Randolph, Herman Talmadge, Warren Magnuson, Joseph Montoya, and Russell Long who were very unhappy with McGovern's pending nomination and were looking for ways to avoid endorsing him.  Only Talmadge came out and said he wasn't endorsing the ticket, but this is where lots of Republicans are today.  I don't think Trump can will if he radically changes his already stated positions, but I don't think he can win if so much of the GOP won't even endorse him. 

I do believe that this election may bring about an end to the progressive inelasticity of the electorate and an increase in ticket-splitting.  Perhaps our parties have come to the realization that demonizing moderates have brought on the kind of politics we have today.  Perhaps the discomfort index in Washington, DC is at a level where folks have seen a need to ratchet down the partisanship just a bit.

[Simfan34]

It will be more 1964 than 2008, I suspect. Had we had 70s or 80s levels of partisanship, rather than today's ultra-partisanship, we'd be seriously looking at a 49/50 state landslide here. The question now is whether the Democrats will be able to effectively funnel the wave downballot. If they could they'd have a real chance at taking both the House and Senate-- and ramming through a monumental legislative agenda (if they have any sense) over the next two years, if not trying to undo gerrymandering entirely.

[NHI]

I think we're heading towards 1964. Trump is beyond repair at this point, and Hillary will likely win which is sad given how winnable this election was a year ago, let alone six months ago.

[muon2]

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.

I tend to think that it's a bit early to read too much into the generic ballot numbers. I looked at the US House polls from 2008 and in June the Dems led by an average of 12% and won in Nov by 10%, so that looks predictive. But in June 2004 the Dems led the US House polls by an average of 8% and lost by 3% in Nov - not predictive at all.

[Virginiá]

I tend to think that it's a bit early to read too much into the generic ballot numbers. I looked at the US House polls from 2008 and in June the Dems led by an average of 12% and won in Nov by 10%, so that looks predictive. But in June 2004 the Dems led the US House polls by an average of 8% and lost by 3% in Nov - not predictive at all.

Yes, that's true, but I'm inclined to think that Trump will really weigh Republicans down in November. If he somehow won, I think we might see a 2004-style scenario with the generic polling. However, if Trump loses big - Like 7 - 10 points, it's hard to see Democrats not making huge gains downballot.

What is your personal opinion on the state of downballot races, should Trump implode on November 8th?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think we're heading towards 1964. Trump is beyond repair at this point, and Hillary will likely win which is sad given how winnable this election was a year ago, let alone six months ago.

I sense that a lot of folks are saying "Trump is beyond repair." not because he can't win, but because he won't bend to the Establishment and/or the "Movement Conservatives" and switch his positions on trade, foreign policy, and immigration.

Mitt Romney . . . THE Mitt Romney . . . advocated "self-deportation" for illegal immigrants.  Every 2012 GOP candidate advocated building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants.  Yet folks are shocked when Trump advocates the same thing.  Why?  The "rapists and murderers" comment?  Is that not an accurate description of MS-13, Sur-13, Nortenos, and other transnational gang members slipping across our border and doing the business of drug cartels within OUR borders?  (It would help Trump if he'd be more wonkish on this issue, but I've given up on that.)  The GOP has pushed the envelope Trump has apparently opened for years; now, they're "Shocked!  Shocked!" that there is illegal gambling in Ric's.  The hubbub over Trump has more to do with the fact that he won't bend on trade, foreign policy, and immigration than anything else.