NBC/WSJ/Marist: Clinton up in CO, FL, NC, VA

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Vosem, that can't be right and you know it.

It's obvious the inflated Clinton numbers come from Anti-Trump Republicans. We should give them more time to come home.

I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that (as impressive as Hillary's margins are, her actual percentages are pretty pathetic for a Democratic presidential nominee in July). But even if we do go with that as the explanation, what makes you think currently anti-Trump Republicans are likely to back him in meaningful numbers?

There really doesn't seem to have been any improvement since he received the nomination (he received a bounce, which has since faded) -- he was at 40.5 in the national 2-way polling then, and he is at 40.9 now (I would use the multi-party version, which I think reflects the reality much better, but RCP only started keeping track of it in June). What will Trump do, that he hasn't been doing over the past two months, to get voters like this to back him?

(As an aside, I think you predicted back in April or May that I, as a stalwart of anti-Trump Republicanism, would end up voting Trump in November -- still supporting Johnson here, and still intending to take a few shots and mark Hillary on the ballot if the election seems to be close).

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

The NC governor is in a tight race; the CO Sen seat is safe DEM and wait until the FL Dem primary is over before making any proclamations - Rubio below 50 for an incumbent is bad. Same for Toomey in PA.

Gubernatorial elections are dissociated from national ones (Republicans likely winning VT-Gov this year says nothing about the national situation) and national Republicans gave up on the CO race in 2015, so neither of those are too significant.

The "incumbent under 50 will lose" meme is old and tired. Rubio could of course still lose, but a poll showing him up is good news for him and bad news for Murphy. (Just as the poll showing Toomey losing to McGinty is terrible news for Toomey). But even that's not really my point -- my point is that Burr's margin is 13 points ahead of Trump, and Rubio's margin is 8 points ahead. Your Republican congressional incumbents, notwithstanding their free trade votes and Washington insider statuses and other heresies, are running far ahead of Trump. Even if they lose, they'll come much closer to winning than Trump does. That should say a great deal about where the party needs to go in order to win a national election.

[Vosem]

The state-level polling numbers all look about right (North Carolina is maybe too favorable for Democrats, but I might just be underestimating the pace of demographic change or Trump's toxicity in certain areas or something). I'm very encouraged by the poll showing Rubio+3 even as Clinton+5 (Burr+7 even as Clinton+6 is even more impressive); polling from all outfits continues to underscore that Republican congressional incumbents are running significantly ahead of Trump, which augurs well both for the elections this year and for future intraparty battles generally. People want Republicanism more than they want Trumpism.

Incumbents have an inherent advantage regardless of party affiliation. Even if people hate Congress, they don't necessarily hate their Congressman. Comparing Trump to an incumbent R is like comparing apples to oranges. Plenty of states will have an incumbent D running for Senate but vote R for President and vice versa.

This is true, but the gaps are not usually that large (+8 and +13, respectively) except for particularly entrenched, long-time, popular Congressmen. In 2012, the Democratic Senators in Ohio and Pennsylvania (both freshmen seeking reelection) overperformed Obama's margin by 3 points each; the Senator from Florida, a long-serving Senator whose opponent collapsed, managed 12 (and in a similar case in Michigan, 10 was achieved). So, the effect that you talk about does exist, but you still wouldn't expect freshmen Senators to achieve these massive gaps of 8 and 13 points.

Also, the only D Senator running for reelection in a state where Trump has even the remotest hope of winning is Michael Bennet in Colorado (though even that is unlikely, even in a Trump victory scenario). Every other D Senator is running in a state that would vote Clinton even if Trump were winning by double-digits nationally. So...no.