Can Scott Brown win with Palin leading the ticket?

[Nichlemn]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

When was the last time an incumbent Presidential race was decided on "lessor of the two evils"?  People always vote by the job the incumbent did on the economy and war. 

I can't think of any examples at the Presidential level, but there are a number of examples in gubernatorial elections: California in 2002, Illinois in 2010 for instance.

[Mr.Phips]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

When was the last time an incumbent Presidential race was decided on "lessor of the two evils"?  People always vote by the job the incumbent did on the economy and war. 

I can't think of any examples at the Presidential level, but there are a number of examples in gubernatorial elections: California in 2002, Illinois in 2010 for instance.

Statewide office is far different than the Presidency.  In early 1992, most thought Bush would get reelected over Clinton because Clinton was so weak, but it turned out that didnt matter.  If the economy is still weak in 2012, even Palin will beat Obama.

[Nichlemn]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

When was the last time an incumbent Presidential race was decided on "lessor of the two evils"?  People always vote by the job the incumbent did on the economy and war. 

I can't think of any examples at the Presidential level, but there are a number of examples in gubernatorial elections: California in 2002, Illinois in 2010 for instance.

Statewide office is far different than the Presidency.  In early 1992, most thought Bush would get reelected over Clinton because Clinton was so weak, but it turned out that didnt matter.  If the economy is still weak in 2012, even Palin will beat Obama.

What were Clinton's approval ratings like throughout the year? Also, I'm interested in the political theory that has people vote for President based on the economy, but governor more so on other issues. Do governors have proportionally less power over economic issues (or more importantly, this perception?)

[Mr.Phips]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

When was the last time an incumbent Presidential race was decided on "lessor of the two evils"?  People always vote by the job the incumbent did on the economy and war. 

I can't think of any examples at the Presidential level, but there are a number of examples in gubernatorial elections: California in 2002, Illinois in 2010 for instance.

Statewide office is far different than the Presidency.  In early 1992, most thought Bush would get reelected over Clinton because Clinton was so weak, but it turned out that didnt matter.  If the economy is still weak in 2012, even Palin will beat Obama.

What were Clinton's approval ratings like throughout the year? Also, I'm interested in the political theory that has people vote for President based on the economy, but governor more so on other issues. Do governors have proportionally less power over economic issues (or more importantly, this perception?)

Clinton had bad favorability ratings in 1992 up until the Democratic convention.

[nclib]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting, since presidential voting patterns are actually less based off income than lower-level elections. States/Districts voting GOP for Congress/Dem for Pres tend to be well-off and States/Districts voting Dem for Congress/GOP for Pres tend to be poorer. Though I suppose there may be a difference between voting based on one's personal finances and voting based on one's perception of the national economy.

[Nichlemn]

Ticket-splitting may have declined, but the South's realignment was a significant portion of that. I don't know if there's been much of a change in non-Southern states. Furthermore, ticket splitting is definitely alive and well as far as incumbents are concerned. Mike Castle, for instance, won about 40% of Obama voters in 2008.

Ticket-splitting isn't dead in the north and gives Brown a margin of error. But I think when one party is winning more than 55% of the vote, it becomes very hard for a senator of the other party to hang on. I'm thinking of people like Gordon Smith in Oregon who couldn't stand to a wave when they easily won before. If Obama gets close to 60% in Massachusetts, Scott Brown will need a quite weak Democratic opponent in order to win.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. I do think that Brown's vote share is negatively correlated with Obama's vote share. However, the things that affect Obama's vote share differ in their impact on Brown's vote share (and other downballot races). If there is general pro-Democratic or anti-Republican sentiment, then Presidential performance and Congressional performance are likely to be highly correlated. If, on the other hand, Obama wins election as the lesser of two evils against Sarah Palin, then there does not exist any great desire to support Obama's political agenda and so the Presidential race is likely to be separated to a sizeable degree from the Congressional races.

When was the last time an incumbent Presidential race was decided on "lessor of the two evils"?  People always vote by the job the incumbent did on the economy and war. 

I can't think of any examples at the Presidential level, but there are a number of examples in gubernatorial elections: California in 2002, Illinois in 2010 for instance.

Statewide office is far different than the Presidency.  In early 1992, most thought Bush would get reelected over Clinton because Clinton was so weak, but it turned out that didnt matter.  If the economy is still weak in 2012, even Palin will beat Obama.

What were Clinton's approval ratings like throughout the year? Also, I'm interested in the political theory that has people vote for President based on the economy, but governor more so on other issues. Do governors have proportionally less power over economic issues (or more importantly, this perception?)

Clinton had bad favorability ratings in 1992 up until the Democratic convention.

Wasn't he also polling badly then, too? To compare apples to apples, we need an incumbent and challenger with low approvals coming up to/on Election Day. However, since Gallup only goes back to the 1930s and there haven't been all that many Presidential elections since then, we don't have much of a sample to go with.

[Liberalrocks]

1982 was a Great Year and Coattails didnt matter much to Mr Brown back then as evidenced by the picture below !  Good Stuff...LOL