NYT: Downballot Republicans running for the hills

[Badger]

I really think too many people give too much credit to natural/partisan gerrymandering. Yes, Democrats need a pretty large win in the House PV to have a shot, but it is not impossible. Republicans are vulnerable when there are such large shifts in portions of the electorate that they depend on, such as in this cycle. If Hillary wins by a lot and the party's share of the electorate sees relatively large realignments among various subgroups, those patterns could reverberate downballot and sweep seats in places we may not have expected. That's the whole point of a wave (more or less)

At the very least, folks shouldn't act so confident. The polls are not at all favorable for Republicans right now and have not been for over a year now.

Exactly. That's one of the points I was really trying to make. Once you hit a certain number in the overall popular vote, gerrymanders start to disintegrate. In 2006, Pennsylvania blew up badly for Republicans. This isn't 1972 or even 1984. Split-ticket voting isn't remotely as prevalent as it once was. If current polling holds, I don't see how Republicans keep the House. I hope that their overconfidence in their gerrymanders will be their undoing and actually cost them the majority. I think this is the kind of year that Nancy Pelosi has been looking for. I think she want another two-year term as Speaker.

If Republicans do lose the House this year, they could probably take some solace in the fact that I think Pelosi would be almost certain to retire after the 2018 midterms (after over 30 years in Congress and 16 years leading House Democrats.). No matter what happens this election, I will be very sad  to see Pelosi leave Congress whenever she decides to do so. I know a big part of her staying as Leader has been to stop Hoyer from taking over, but I think Pelosi ultimately wants another term as Speaker and this year presents the biggest opportunity. I'd love to see Nancy Pelosi introduce the first woman President to Congress next year (not to mention it would be another first in its own right by having two women among the three you see when the President addresses Congress).

Few are saying the GOP is a lock to hold the House. However, due to gerrymandering the national Dem House vote can't fall more than a few points behind Hillary for a flip, and few GOP Congresscritters are as unpopular with their constituents as Trump is.

[windjammer]

If Clinton wins the presidency by the current margin the polls are giving her right now, yes the House falls.

[politicallefty]

If somehow Dems take the House, if I'm team Clinton I dump the entire leadership in a second. I would use younger, new faces to attempt to build public confidence and get the country on track. That would be the only way Dems could hold it in 2018.

I don't agree at all. If Democrats can win back the House, it's a two-year deal no matter what happens. I want Nancy Pelosi back as Speaker for one last time. She's easily one of the most powerful Speakers in history. She knows how Congress works and how to actually get stuff done. Without Pelosi, I don't think the ACA would be law. I think she should get just as much credit as the President himself. If Democrats are lucky enough to win the House back, let Nancy Pelosi have two more years as Speaker and let her retire from the top and hopefully pass the leadership to her top ally, Xavier Becerra.

[Averroës Nix]

If Clinton wins the presidency by the current margin the polls are giving her right now, yes the House falls.

Not necessarily. See: 1972. Even 1964 and 1984 yielded unimpressive congressional gains for the winning party relative to the size of their margins in the national popular vote for president. I doubt that even with a popular vote margin of 10% or more for Clinton would be enough to overcome the structural Republican advantage in the House.

[Nyvin]

If Clinton wins the presidency by the current margin the polls are giving her right now, yes the House falls.

Not necessarily. See: 1972. Even 1964 and 1984 yielded unimpressive congressional gains for the winning party relative to the size of their margins in the national popular vote for president. I doubt that even with a popular vote margin of 10% or more for Clinton would be enough to overcome the structural Republican advantage in the House.

That was back when split ticket voting was far more common then it is today though.

[Adam Griffin]

Everything - and I do mean everything - would have to go right for Democrats to retake the House, and even then, it'd be by fewer than five seats. On paper, there are dozens upon dozens of seats that could flip, but when you factor in the adeptness of those individual members of Congress, their constituencies and said constituencies' historic behaviors, it is unlikely that more than a nominal majority of them could flip even in a disastrous cycle.

We also seem to be forgetting that - whether there's any split-ticket voting or not - House Democrats' national margins are going to be less than Clinton's margins. That'd apply in virtually any cycle but especially in this one. I'm not sure whether Cook's estimates for what it'd take to flip the House are specifically the margins needed in the national House result or the margins in the presidential race that would in effect trigger the flip, but anything short of 2008 is going to leave us high and dry.

Does it really matter, though? I mean, chances are that if the Democrats get 218-220 seats in the House + the Senate, we're still not going to be able to get anything done; I imagine there'll be at least a few Blue Dogs in that situation that'll screw it up for everybody. Additionally, both chambers (and not just the House, but the Senate as well) are all but guaranteed to flip back come 2018. Even if these aren't problems, Schumer better be ready to change the filibuster rules on day one or none of it matters at all. As has already been mentioned, appointing Scalia's replacement at this point is the only salvation out of this mess, so if that doesn't happen...hello GOP House majority until 2032.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FTFY.

You do realize the reason that there is a house split is because of all the 'historically black' seats?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Clinton wins the presidency by the current margin the polls are giving her right now, yes the House falls.

Not necessarily. See: 1972. Even 1964 and 1984 yielded unimpressive congressional gains for the winning party relative to the size of their margins in the national popular vote for president. I doubt that even with a popular vote margin of 10% or more for Clinton would be enough to overcome the structural Republican advantage in the House.

That was back when split ticket voting was far more common then it is today though.

Could those conditions be coming back?

1964 was a year where a significant number of GOP officeholders openly declined to endorse Goldwater (although few endorsed LBJ).  It was also a year where a number of elected Southern Democratic officeholders endorsed Goldwater, including Rep. John Bell Williams (D-MS), Rep. William Colmer (D-MS), and Rep. Albert Watson (D-SC).  Watson switched to the GOP in 1965 after the Democratic caucus stripped him of his seniority.

There is a correlation between ticket-splitting by voters and party-bolting by elected officials in that party.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. I'll be one of those folks going straight ticket downballot. Will be amusing watching everyone except Trump do well on election day.

Nominate a conservative next time, morons!

[Averroës Nix]

If Clinton wins the presidency by the current margin the polls are giving her right now, yes the House falls.

Not necessarily. See: 1972. Even 1964 and 1984 yielded unimpressive congressional gains for the winning party relative to the size of their margins in the national popular vote for president. I doubt that even with a popular vote margin of 10% or more for Clinton would be enough to overcome the structural Republican advantage in the House.

That was back when split ticket voting was far more common then it is today though.

And yet ticket-splitting was even more common in each of the elections that I referenced, most especially in 1972. (The relationship between the Democratic Party in 1972 and George McGovern is the only best precedent for the fraught relationship between Trump and the Republican Party in 2016.)

Could it be different today? Absolutely, it could, especially if a large number of Republican voters fail to turn out, but there's not much reason to believe (yet) that even Republicans who are disgusted with Trump are ready to turn on the party's Congressional and state-level candidates. And the difference would need to be very large to overcome structural Republican advantages in House contests.

[Gass3268]

If Clinton wins the presidency by the current margin the polls are giving her right now, yes the House falls.

Not necessarily. See: 1972. Even 1964 and 1984 yielded unimpressive congressional gains for the winning party relative to the size of their margins in the national popular vote for president. I doubt that even with a popular vote margin of 10% or more for Clinton would be enough to overcome the structural Republican advantage in the House.

That was back when split ticket voting was far more common then it is today though.

And yet ticket-splitting was even more common in each of the elections that I referenced, most especially in 1972. (The relationship between the Democratic Party in 1972 and George McGovern is the only best precedent for the fraught relationship between Trump and the Republican Party in 2016.)

Could it be different today? Absolutely, it could, especially if a large number of Republican voters fail to turn out, but there's not much reason to believe (yet) that even Republicans who are disgusted with Trump are ready to turn on the party's Congressional and state-level candidates. And the difference would need to be very large to overcome structural Republican advantages in House contests.

The question with those disgusted Republicans is whether or not they choose to vote at all in November rather than flip to the Democrats.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Few are saying the GOP is a lock to hold the House. However, due to gerrymandering the national Dem House vote can't fall more than a few points behind Hillary for a flip, and few GOP Congresscritters are as unpopular with their constituents as Trump is.

More than a few ought to say the GOP is a lock.  Even with a ten point swing in House races and factoring in Democrats doing even better than that in open seats no longer defended by a Republican incumbent, you just barely get close to a tied House.  We're not seeing in the polls a ten point presidential swing, let alone in the downballot races.  The Democrats should make gains, but their focus for this election needs to be the Senate and possibly some State Houses, if they are in a condition to be flipped.