538: The GOP’s Chances Of Holding The Senate Are Following Trump Downhill

[Gass3268]

Republican Senate candidates in key states are still running ahead of Trump, but that cushion may no longer be enough to win now that Trump’s fortunes have worsened.

[ElectionsGuy]

In the end, all but maybe two or so of the competitive Senate races will break to the Dems (if I had to guess, AZ and OH will be the two seats the GOP keeps). Dems are looking at a net gain of 8-10 right now.

lol

[heatcharger]

In the end, all but maybe two or so of the competitive Senate races will break to the Dems (if I had to guess, AZ and OH will be the two seats the GOP keeps). Dems are looking at a net gain of 8-10 right now.

lol

IL, WI, IN, NH, PA, FL, NC, and OH/AZ/MO. I think getting one of the last three is quite difficult, but it's certainly plausible.

[ElectionsGuy]

In the end, all but maybe two or so of the competitive Senate races will break to the Dems (if I had to guess, AZ and OH will be the two seats the GOP keeps). Dems are looking at a net gain of 8-10 right now.

lol

What's funny about that? Usually almost all of the competitive Senate seats break to the winning party each election cycle. Dems gaining IL, WI, NH, IN, PA, NC, AZ, and MO (just one combination for the record) for a total of D+8 looks plausible as of now, and certainly is far more likely than Republicans somehow holding the Senate.

The problem is Missouri and North Carolina have an R advantage at least, Arizona is a toss-up at best. The others you haven't mentioned (FL, OH) are where Democrats have fell behind despite Clinton winning the states. Its definitely a possibility but wouldn't say its plausible that every race that's competitive goes Democrat.

[Virginiá]

lol

The problem is Missouri and North Carolina have an R advantage at least, Arizona is a toss-up at best. The others you haven't mentioned (FL, OH) are where Democrats have fell behind despite Clinton winning the states. Its definitely a possibility but wouldn't say its plausible that every race that's competitive goes Democrat.

I forget who said it, but something like 80% of competitive Senate seats broke for the winner of the state in a presidential election year. It's also not that crazy when you think Republicans won a boatload of Senate seats in 2010 and 2014 in their blowouts, and if Democrats have their own (mini)landslide this year, it should hardly be written off.

However, I'm not exactly advocating a +8-10 seat gain, either. I think it's entirely possible and even more so the larger Clinton wins by, but if Clinton wins by 2008 margins or more, to think Democrats would only pick up a handful of Senate seats would just be crazy talk (not implying you said that, obviously)

Simply put: I think Senate gains are again going to strongly correlate with Clinton's winning margin, and a total blowout would send shockwaves downballot. Given Clinton's current numbers and polling trends, +8 is not a fever dream (imo)

[Xing]

I think this has become most evident in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. While Ohio looks to be going the other way, it'll be interesting to see what happens after the primaries in Arizona and Florida.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems will win NH,PA, WI and IL for a 50 seat majority, with Kane as the tiebreaker.  Followed by OH, FL and NC as the 51st or more seats.  It will follow the 272 advantage Clinton has built up in the electoral college.

[The Mikado]

In the end, all but maybe two or so of the competitive Senate races will break to the Dems (if I had to guess, AZ and OH will be the two seats the GOP keeps). Dems are looking at a net gain of 8-10 right now.

lol

8 is very possible. Contested races tend to all break in the same direction.

[ElectionsGuy]

lol

The problem is Missouri and North Carolina have an R advantage at least, Arizona is a toss-up at best. The others you haven't mentioned (FL, OH) are where Democrats have fell behind despite Clinton winning the states. Its definitely a possibility but wouldn't say its plausible that every race that's competitive goes Democrat.

I forget who said it, but something like 80% of competitive Senate seats broke for the winner of the state in a presidential election year. It's also not that crazy when you think Republicans won a boatload of Senate seats in 2010 and 2014 in their blowouts, and if Democrats have their own (mini)landslide this year, it should hardly be written off.

However, I'm not exactly advocating a +8-10 seat gain, either. I think it's entirely possible and even more so the larger Clinton wins by, but if Clinton wins by 2008 margins or more, to think Democrats would only pick up a handful of Senate seats would just be crazy talk (not implying you said that, obviously)

Simply put: I think Senate gains are again going to strongly correlate with Clinton's winning margin, and a total blowout would send shockwaves downballot. Given Clinton's current numbers and polling trends, +8 is not a fever dream (imo)

Not writing it off of course, just the implication that it its the most likely scenario I don't think is realistic. If Clinton wins by the margin she's polling over Trump now, I expect her to win Pennsylvania and the four others, but Florida, Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio are all states where the senate Democrat is a slight underdog at least. Democrats winning 3-5 of those is quite hard and will likely require more unity between the presidential race and down ballot.

[heatcharger]

People forget how unpopular both of these candidates are. Trump is such a bad candidate that split-ticket voting will be at record levels by default, like in 1996. Most incumbents simply don't lose by wide margins, unless they're Blanche Lincoln.

In 2008, there was a backlash against pretty much all Republicans and the entire GOP. That is not the case this year.

No one said anything about wide margins. This is also not 1996. The Republican Party will not be able to detach themselves from the nominee no matter how hard they try. You're only fooling yourself if you think that's possible.

Also there's no denying Democrats have higher turnout in presidential years. That, combined with a potential depressed Republican turnout (there's real evidence of this), anonymous backbenchers like Blunt and Burr can get washed away in a wave.

[Mr.Phips]

People forget how unpopular both of these candidates are. Trump is such a bad candidate that split-ticket voting will be at record levels by default, like in 1996. Most incumbents simply don't lose by wide margins, unless they're Blanche Lincoln.

In 2008, there was a backlash against pretty much all Republicans and the entire GOP. That is not the case this year.

The electorate was far less polarized in 1996. 

[Mr.Phips]

The only seats that are clearly gone for Republicans right now are NH and WI. We need more polls from IL and IN.

I'd say Illinois too.  Kirk was never gonna win with Presidential year Chicago turnout.

[Gass3268]

The only seats that are clearly gone for Republicans right now are NH and WI. We need more polls from IL and IN.

I'd say Illinois too.  Kirk was never gonna win with Presidential year Chicago turnout.

Kirk should be expecting a good Blanching.

[Heisenberg]

People forget how unpopular both of these candidates are. Trump is such a bad candidate that split-ticket voting will be at record levels by default, like in 1996. Most incumbents simply don't lose by wide margins, unless they're Blanche Lincoln.

In 2008, there was a backlash against pretty much all Republicans and the entire GOP. That is not the case this year.

The electorate was far less polarized in 1996. 

True, but there are plenty of NeverTrump Republicans who will continue to vote for downballot Republicans.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In the end, all but maybe two or so of the competitive Senate races will break to the Dems (if I had to guess, AZ and OH will be the two seats the GOP keeps). Dems are looking at a net gain of 8-10 right now.

lol

IL, WI, IN, NH, PA, FL, NC, and OH/AZ/MO. I think getting one of the last three is quite difficult, but it's certainly plausible.

McCain is far more vulnerable than Burr, I think he's probably the slight underdog at this point tbh.

[heatcharger]

McCain is far more vulnerable than Burr, I think he's probably the slight underdog at this point tbh.

I don't think so. A number of advantages Ross has over Kirkpatrick:

• Democrats have had more success in NC than AZ
• African-American turnout is more reliable than Latino turnout
• Unpopular GOP governor to run against
• Clinton campaign has already been in NC for months, haven't been focused on AZ much at all yet

Is McCain vulnerable? Absolutely. But the fundamentals of Arizona have me wary of it as a possible pickup.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

The one thing most haven't mentioned if it looks like it will be a huge landslide in the Presidency do you start to see voters looking at electing a strong opposition. Remember Clinton despite being well ahead is still not particularly well liked or trusted by a majority of voters. I think you may see an effect where in Atlas blue states like Missouri, Indiana where voters become more interested in keeping Clinton accountable by supporting the Republican candidate. This probably will  be less of a factor in Wisconsin, Illinois, NH, Nevada though and Democratic held Senate seats. Not suggesting it will play a huge roll but I think this could still be in play.

[Mr.Phips]

The one thing most haven't mentioned if it looks like it will be a huge landslide in the Presidency do you start to see voters looking at electing a strong opposition. Remember Clinton despite being well ahead is still not particularly well liked or trusted by a majority of voters. I think you may see an effect where in Atlas blue states like Missouri, Indiana where voters become more interested in keeping Clinton accountable by supporting the Republican candidate. This probably will  be less of a factor in Wisconsin, Illinois, NH, Nevada though and Democratic held Senate seats. Not suggesting it will play a huge roll but I think this could still be in play.

Almost all of the voters thinking this way will likely vote for Trump anyway. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The one thing most haven't mentioned if it looks like it will be a huge landslide in the Presidency do you start to see voters looking at electing a strong opposition. Remember Clinton despite being well ahead is still not particularly well liked or trusted by a majority of voters. I think you may see an effect where in Atlas blue states like Missouri, Indiana where voters become more interested in keeping Clinton accountable by supporting the Republican candidate. This probably will  be less of a factor in Wisconsin, Illinois, NH, Nevada though and Democratic held Senate seats. Not suggesting it will play a huge roll but I think this could still be in play.

Almost all of the voters thinking this way will likely vote for Trump anyway. 

The voters most likely to take that stance are independents, and right now I don't think Trump is winning them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would strongly recommend not underestimating Burr. He typically deploys a similar strategy as Portman, holding off until the last three months or so.

[Mr.Phips]

The one thing most haven't mentioned if it looks like it will be a huge landslide in the Presidency do you start to see voters looking at electing a strong opposition. Remember Clinton despite being well ahead is still not particularly well liked or trusted by a majority of voters. I think you may see an effect where in Atlas blue states like Missouri, Indiana where voters become more interested in keeping Clinton accountable by supporting the Republican candidate. This probably will  be less of a factor in Wisconsin, Illinois, NH, Nevada though and Democratic held Senate seats. Not suggesting it will play a huge roll but I think this could still be in play.

Almost all of the voters thinking this way will likely vote for Trump anyway. 

The voters most likely to take that stance are independents, and right now I don't think Trump is winning them.

Independents have recently voted for the same party down ballot as they do for President, which is why Senate races and the House vote have closely tracked that of the Presidential race since 2000.  This isn't like the 1970s and 1980s when you had reliably Democratic voters switch to vote for Nixon and Reagan at the top of the ticket.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The one thing most haven't mentioned if it looks like it will be a huge landslide in the Presidency do you start to see voters looking at electing a strong opposition. Remember Clinton despite being well ahead is still not particularly well liked or trusted by a majority of voters. I think you may see an effect where in Atlas blue states like Missouri, Indiana where voters become more interested in keeping Clinton accountable by supporting the Republican candidate. This probably will  be less of a factor in Wisconsin, Illinois, NH, Nevada though and Democratic held Senate seats. Not suggesting it will play a huge roll but I think this could still be in play.

Almost all of the voters thinking this way will likely vote for Trump anyway. 

The voters most likely to take that stance are independents, and right now I don't think Trump is winning them.

Independents have recently voted for the same party down ballot as they do for President, which is why Senate races and the House vote have closely tracked that of the Presidential race since 2000.  This isn't like the 1970s and 1980s when you had reliably Democratic voters switch to vote for Nixon and Reagan at the top of the ticket.

Speaking as an Independent, back in the 1970s and 1980s (and yes, I have been voting that long ) it was much easier to find good candidates to vote for on either side of the aisle.  If you vote for the best candidate in a race, regardless of party, it was quite common to go back and forth between parties as you worked down the ballot.

The increasing ideological purity of each party in recent years makes this much more difficult.  The Republicans in particular have become quite extreme compared to a few decades ago.  The Democrats have also started becoming more extreme, after a lurch back toward the center in the 1990s, but aren't as far from the center as the Republicans.  (This is my perspective as a centrist, and I recognize that others might view it differently.)  It's very difficult to find a centrist candidate that I truly like these days.  However, in recent years I have more often voted for Democrats.  This is because with polarized parties, the best way to find a middle ground is through compromise and consensus.  The Republicans have become increasingly unwilling to do so.

[smoltchanov]

The one thing most haven't mentioned if it looks like it will be a huge landslide in the Presidency do you start to see voters looking at electing a strong opposition. Remember Clinton despite being well ahead is still not particularly well liked or trusted by a majority of voters. I think you may see an effect where in Atlas blue states like Missouri, Indiana where voters become more interested in keeping Clinton accountable by supporting the Republican candidate. This probably will  be less of a factor in Wisconsin, Illinois, NH, Nevada though and Democratic held Senate seats. Not suggesting it will play a huge roll but I think this could still be in play.

Almost all of the voters thinking this way will likely vote for Trump anyway. 

The voters most likely to take that stance are independents, and right now I don't think Trump is winning them.

Independents have recently voted for the same party down ballot as they do for President, which is why Senate races and the House vote have closely tracked that of the Presidential race since 2000.  This isn't like the 1970s and 1980s when you had reliably Democratic voters switch to vote for Nixon and Reagan at the top of the ticket.

Speaking as an Independent, back in the 1970s and 1980s (and yes, I have been voting that long ) it was much easier to find good candidates to vote for on either side of the aisle.  If you vote for the best candidate in a race, regardless of party, it was quite common to go back and forth between parties as you worked down the ballot.

The increasing ideological purity of each party in recent years makes this much more difficult.  The Republicans in particular have become quite extreme compared to a few decades ago.  The Democrats have also started becoming more extreme, after a lurch back toward the center in the 1990s, but aren't as far from the center as the Republicans.  (This is my perspective as a centrist, and I recognize that others might view it differently.)  It's very difficult to find a centrist candidate that I truly like these days.  However, in recent years I have more often voted for Democrats.  This is because with polarized parties, the best way to find a middle ground is through compromise and consensus.  The Republicans have become increasingly unwilling to do so.

Exactly my thoughts, reasonings and feelings as well. Thank you!