538: Democrats Don’t Need Trump’s Voters To Retake The House

[Virginiá]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-dont-need-trumps-voters-to-retake-the-house/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This point hasn't been stressed enough.

[The_Doctor]

To be fair, Trump probably suffered from depressed GOP turnout ... House Republicans won 49% so that would be the better apples to apples comparison for 2018. I wouldn't necessarily take Trump's base as a representative sample of the GOP ballot in 2018, in term of the fact it leaves out a significant portion of voters who voted Republican in the House but not Trump.

[Nyvin]

To be fair, Trump probably suffered from depressed GOP turnout ... House Republicans won 49% so that would be the better apples to apples comparison for 2018. I wouldn't necessarily take Trump's base as a representative sample of the GOP ballot in 2018, in term of the fact it leaves out a significant portion of voters who voted Republican in the House but not Trump.

People's votes are more reflective of their perceptions of the President than the national party though,  there was a study that said even local elections more mostly tied to the party the occupies the White House more than anything.   

[Technocracy Timmy]

To be fair, Trump probably suffered from depressed GOP turnout ... House Republicans won 49% so that would be the better apples to apples comparison for 2018. I wouldn't necessarily take Trump's base as a representative sample of the GOP ballot in 2018, in term of the fact it leaves out a significant portion of voters who voted Republican in the House but not Trump.

People's votes are more reflective of their perceptions of the President than the national party though,  there was a study that said even local elections more mostly tied to the party the occupies the White House more than anything. 

That's really interesting. I'd like to see that study.

[Angrie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is really sort of misleading, because a district in which Trump did not get the majority is not the same thing as a district that Clinton won. Some of these districts were districts with a vote total like 48% Trump, 45% Clinton, 7% Third Party. If there had not been any third party candidates on the ballot, and the vote shares for Clinton and Trump had to add up to 100%, then Trump would have won majorities in some of those sorts of districts.

A district like that is much harder for a Democratic congressional candidate to win than a district that is something like 48% Trump, 52% Clinton, even though in both districts Trump has 48% (less than a 'majority').

[Skill and Chance]

Well, they can barely win it without Trump voters.  Take all but 1 or 2 of the Clinton Republican seats and a couple of the 48% Trump/46% Clinton style seats like GA-06.  That would give them a 222ish seat majority.  I wonder if Pelosi could be elected Speaker in such a situation?