Republicans prepare to cast congressional candidates as check on Hillary

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republicans-prep-break-glass-emergency-plan-as-trump-tumbles-227217

This strategy actually seems like it could be pretty effective.  What do you all think?

[136or142]

It worked for them in 1996 (sort of, although the Republicans held the House, the Democrats actually received a slightly higher share of the aggregate House vote.)

But, I think George W. Bush sums it up for trying it again:

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

[Mr.Phips]

Republicans tried all throughout the 80s and early 90s to try and nationalize congressional voting to get voters who voted  GOP in Presidential races to stop voting Dem downballot.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they want it the other way?  I don't think so.

[Virginiá]

This strategy actually seems like it could be pretty effective.  What do you all think?

Trump has cratered Republicans in the generic ballot, and polarization is worse than in 2012 when we saw levels of split ticket voting not seen in over a hundred years. It's not going to magically snap back to 90s levels just because Republicans execute some desperate "check on Hillary" strategy. They may get slightly better numbers of ticket splitters, but that won't matter if Hillary wins by Obama 2008 margins or more. Even more so if we outspend them, which is even more likely if Hillary redirects unneeded money later on to help other campaigns.

Republicans thinking they can even come close to pulling a 1996 again completely ignores the realities of politics in America right now. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Trump is a noose around their neck and the best they can hope for is that someone cuts the rope a little bit before the stool is kicked out from underneath them.

[Xing]

Most Republicans think Trump is done for (even though they'd never say so publicly), and are obviously trying to limit their losses by focusing on downballot races. However, Republicans who have endorsed Trump are going to have a tough time distancing themselves from Trump, since Democrats are going to do everything they can to tie these Republicans to Trump (it might not be the kindest strategy, but let's be honest, Republicans did something very similar in 2010 and 2014.) I'm not saying there won't be any split-ticketing, but I doubt we'll see anything like 1996. If Trump crashes and burns, the Republican majority in the Senate is probably gone, and Republicans will lose a large chunk of their majority in the House. We won't see a Clinton landslide while Republicans only lose 1-2 Senate seats and 5-7 House seats. Trust me on that.

[Mehmentum]

Well, if any election could bring about a surge in split ticket voting, its this one.  So far, the generic congressional ballot seems to be closely tracking the Clinton v. Trump vote in polls, which is a good sign for the Democrats.

I think any attempt to do this strategy needs to be a unified response by the Republicans.  I have my doubts that the party leadership can marshal the organization necessary to present a unified front (after all, if they could do this, they also probably could have stopped Trump in the primaries).  You're going to have most elected officials split to the four winds based on their district/state.  Those who are safe in the general are going to be more inclined to stick with Trump to protect themselves in the primary, and tons of people (like Kelly Ayotte) will be trying to play both sides.

[Heisenberg]

Democrats are in for a rude awakening if they think that they'll win every single Senate race just because of Donald Trump. Ticket splitting might not exist in the levels seen 50 years ago, but it still DOES exist. This isn't like 2008 when one party was as popular as cancer and Republicans across the board were linked to the unpopular Bush administation. This year, both nominees are quite unpopular, so it'll be very hard to nationalize these Senate races. This reminds me of 2012, when the Senate map looked so good for Republicans on paper, but we all know what happened in the end.

Yeah, I hear there is likely to be a lot of people who vote for Clinton, but hate both and vote for the Republican Senate and House candidates as a "slap in the face" to her and implicitly vote for Republican majorities to keep her from pushing her agenda. There will be ticket splitting this year in swing districts.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Democrats are in for a rude awakening if they think that they'll win every single Senate race just because of Donald Trump. Ticket splitting might not exist in the levels seen 50 years ago, but it still DOES exist. This isn't like 2008 when one party was as popular as cancer and Republicans across the board were linked to the unpopular Bush administation. This year, both nominees are quite unpopular, so it'll be very hard to nationalize these Senate races. This reminds me of 2012, when the Senate map looked so good for Republicans on paper, but we all know what happened in the end.

Democrats are in for a rude awakening if they think that they'll win every single Senate race just because of Donald Trump. Ticket splitting might not exist in the levels seen 50 years ago, but it still DOES exist. This isn't like 2008 when one party was as popular as cancer and Republicans across the board were linked to the unpopular Bush administation. This year, both nominees are quite unpopular, so it'll be very hard to nationalize these Senate races. This reminds me of 2012, when the Senate map looked so good for Republicans on paper, but we all know what happened in the end.

I tend to agree with this, I will go one step further and say Clinton will be little help to down ballot races in Atlas blue states. The only way I see a Democratic wage is if Republicans stay home and Democratic turnout stays high. I just don't see that happening, Republicans  no the stakes are too high  to allow a Democratic Congress, and won't stay home. 

[Xing]

Democrats are in for a rude awakening if they think that they'll win every single Senate race just because of Donald Trump. Ticket splitting might not exist in the levels seen 50 years ago, but it still DOES exist. This isn't like 2008 when one party was as popular as cancer and Republicans across the board were linked to the unpopular Bush administation. This year, both nominees are quite unpopular, so it'll be very hard to nationalize these Senate races. This reminds me of 2012, when the Senate map looked so good for Republicans on paper, but we all know what happened in the end.

No one's saying Democrats will win every single senate race. There will almost definitely be some split decisions this year. What I'm saying is that we're not going to see Republicans doing very well in Senate races while Trump tanks. If Republicans have an abysmal night at the presidential level, that probably means they're going to have a bad night in Senate and House races as well. That's not to say that if Trump lost Georgia, Isakson would lose too, but I think if Clinton wins by 7-8% nationally, Republicans will lose at least 6 seats, if not more. A lot of people thought that Democrats could do well in gubernatorial races in 2014, even if they did badly in the Senate, and we saw how that turned out (there were split decisions like Colorado, but the point is that Democrats lost the vast majority of competitive races.)

[Pragmatic Conservative]

This strategy actually seems like it could be pretty effective.  What do you all think?

Trump has cratered Republicans in the generic ballot, and polarization is worse than in 2012 when we saw levels of split ticket voting not seen in over a hundred years. It's not going to magically snap back to 90s levels just because Republicans execute some desperate "check on Hillary" strategy. They may get slightly better numbers of ticket splitters, but that won't matter if Hillary wins by Obama 2008 margins or more. Even more so if we outspend them, which is even more likely if Hillary redirects unneeded money later on to help other campaigns.

Republicans thinking they can even come close to pulling a 1996 again completely ignores the realities of politics in America right now. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Trump is a noose around their neck and the best they can hope for is that someone cuts the rope a little bit before the stool is kicked out from underneath them.

I see this argument made but how exactly is this going to work. Do you expect Republicans to simply stay home? Hilary to bring in new voters? While Hispanic turnout will be up this will largely cancelled out by a decrease in  white voters turnout, in particular younger voters who do not like either choice. Republicans will also be motivated to show up because of the negitive consequences many conservatives see from a Democratic Congress.

Hillary Clinton is also not particularly  popular among the general  electorate and many will be more open to electing a strong Opposition that will hold her accountable. Whiles your right, those in competitive races  that tie themselves to closely  to Trump may  be negatively effected. Many Republicans in competitive races have distanced themselves from Trump, ensuring they won't be as negatively effected by Trump beeing at the top of the ticket. Finally while  2016 won't be exactly like 1996 it is not 2008 or 1980, in both of those years you had a very popular nominee and an unpopular president.

[politicallefty]

I don't think the 1996 example holds water for another reason. Bill Clinton basically coasted to reelection. I'm pretty sure I remember reading in his autobiography (which I bought and read 12 years when I was 17) that he basically admitted he could have won by a few more points and won a few more states. If Republicans try to fall back on Congress, I don't think Democrats are going to let them do that without a fight like they did in 1996. I mean, looking at the results from 1996, there's no reason why Democrats shouldn't have won back the House. They only had a +2 net gain from 1994. Democrats just didn't run a good campaign. Bill Clinton should have won by 15 points and at least 40 states and Democrats should have easily taken the House back. I could also excuse not winning the Senate back, but Republicans actually gaining two seats is absolutely not (the worst offense being losing a Senate seat in President Clinton's home state).

I don't think Republicans can really do much to save the Senate. If anything, the map is actively moving away from them. Charlie Cook currently has nine tossups (8 Republicans, 1 Democrat). On average, the tossups tend to go about 80% to one party overall. Since 1998, one party has always won between 67-89% of the tossup races. They're not going to split down the middle. It just doesn't work like that (see here).

As for the House this year, it's really too early to say. I agree with most people that say that it would take a wave (i.e. anywhere from a solid Clinton win to a landslide) for Democrats to win back the House. That cake isn't even done mixing, let alone ready to bake. I don't think we'll know the true House landscape until after the first debate. Waves really tend to materialize in October. I think there will be races not on the radar that will be if we're at this point in late September (which basically has to happen if a Democratic takeover is to actually happen). Split-ticket is sure to increase this year, but if Trump is losing suburban Republican-held seats by 15 or even 20-points or more, very few will survive. No gerrymander will protect against a 40-point or even a 2-1 Hillary win in the Philly suburbs (which is the current polling). I think it's general political conventional wisdom with gerrymanders that the bigger they are, the harder they can fall. I think it will take a sizable win for the House to fall, but it is a significant possibility that cannot be ignored.

[Figueira]

Problem with this is it assumes that there's a 100% chance of Trump losing. If Trump wins, the congressional candidates won't be much of a check on him.

[politicallefty]

Problem with this is it assumes that there's a 100% chance of Trump losing. If Trump wins, the congressional candidates won't be much of a check on him.

Exactly. Does anyone here remember the hardline immigration bill the House passed in 2006 that prompted massive protests (i.e. the "Sensenbrenner Bill")? That would be nothing compared to what would actually become law if Trump won and had both Houses of Congress.

[Virginiá]

I see this argument made but how exactly is this going to work. Do you expect Republicans to simply stay home? Hilary to bring in new voters? While Hispanic turnout will be up this will largely cancelled out by a decrease in  white voters turnout, in particular younger voters who do not like either choice. Republicans will also be motivated to show up because of the negitive consequences many conservatives see from a Democratic Congress.

Voters crossing over for Hillary, increased Democratic turnout, decreased Republican turnout in states where Trump is not fighting on the air/ground and the GOP has pulled out due to limited resources and no race worth contesting statewide.

You can look up why people vote straight ticket yourself, but there are numerous reasons. Not only do Democrats seem to have an edge on enthusiasm vs Republicans this cycle (last I checked), but we have more voters than Republicans. Further, when people repudiate the person at the top and vote against them, many people who might have considered other candidates individually will punish the party by voting against them downballot. Then you have people who almost always vote the same way downballot as they vote at the top, either because they don't know enough about the other candidates or for other reasons. Again, as I said, there are many reasons for why people do this.

You remember 2014, right? Those candidates tried to cast themselves as their own person, and voters still punished them based on their dislike of Obama, the guy at the top (while not on the ticket, he still defines the party just the same). I don't understand why people think Republicans will be able to run from Trump far more effectively. What magical powers of persuasion do they have that Democrats lack?

Anyway, as I said, if straight ticket voting is close to 2012, the GOP in general is going to suffer the more Trump suffers at the polls.

[136or142]

Democrats are in for a rude awakening if they think that they'll win every single Senate race just because of Donald Trump. Ticket splitting might not exist in the levels seen 50 years ago, but it still DOES exist. This isn't like 2008 when one party was as popular as cancer and Republicans across the board were linked to the unpopular Bush administation. This year, both nominees are quite unpopular, so it'll be very hard to nationalize these Senate races. This reminds me of 2012, when the Senate map looked so good for Republicans on paper, but we all know what happened in the end.

Yeah, I hear there is likely to be a lot of people who vote for Clinton, but hate both and vote for the Republican Senate and House candidates as a "slap in the face" to her and implicitly vote for Republican majorities to keep her from pushing her agenda. There will be ticket splitting this year in swing districts.

I hear this is what some people say.

[Virginiá]

Yeah, there really was no split ticket voting in 2012 at all:

Some of those states you posted have a long history of splitting tickets - Missouri, Montana, and Massachusetts (gubernatorial at least). Meanwhile, I can also point to states where the Senate race and Presidential race had similar results in 2012, PA and OH, for instance. When I say split ticket voting is not going to be nearly as prevalent, that does not mean it'll be the same/low everywhere, yet it seems like whenever this topic comes up you assume that is what is being said.

Look at the number of Congressional districts that split their votes in 2012. It was the lowest it's been in generations. I'm aware this is Senate races but the same effect applies, albeit probably on a somewhat diminished level due to the spending differences & higher profile nature of those races.

TN Volunteer, you keep acting like I or others are saying all of them are going down if Trump loses, which is flat out not the case. Even analysts promulgate that on average they can outrun Trump by 5 points or so. I'm sure it will vary, but it's going to have a large effect.

Stop being so absolute. If I mean to say "all" of them are going down because of Trump or Obama, I'll say "all." If I mean every single voter is not splitting their ticket, I'll say every single one isn't splitting their ticket. Otherwise, no.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In PA and OH, you had popular Democrats running for reelection who would have been reelected even if Romney had carried their state. My point is that it's almost impossible for an incumbent Senator to underperform their party's presidential nominee. At least 90% of the Republican Senators running for reelection this year will outperform Trump, and in many cases by a lot.

In fact, the real problem with this strategy (which hasn't been implemented yet, btw) is this:

Problem with this is it assumes that there's a 100% chance of Trump losing. If Trump wins, the congressional candidates won't be much of a check on him.

If Trump rebounds and his chances of winning the presidential election improve, I don't necessarily think that Republicans' chances of holding the Senate will improve by a lot or at all because of that.

Uh, you just said that it's pretty much impossible for a downballot candidate to underperform their party's presidential nominee, then you make this statement? uhh, what?

Reality: If Trump is winning the election, the only R seats in any danger are IL, WI, NH, IN, and LA (due to the runoff system). Everything else comes off the map. Republicans only have to hold 1/5 to get the senate under Trump because of the VP tiebreaker. If they are picking up NV, they can actually afford to lose all 5 of those seats.

[Ronnie]

McCain is now campaigning as a check on President Hillary Clinton:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/mccain-is-now-campaigning-as-a-check-on-president-clinton.html

[Figueira]

In PA and OH, you had popular Democrats running for reelection who would have been reelected even if Romney had carried their state. My point is that it's almost impossible for an incumbent Senator to underperform their party's presidential nominee. At least 90% of the Republican Senators running for reelection this year will outperform Trump, and in many cases by a lot.

In fact, the real problem with this strategy (which hasn't been implemented yet, btw) is this:

Problem with this is it assumes that there's a 100% chance of Trump losing. If Trump wins, the congressional candidates won't be much of a check on him.

If Trump rebounds and his chances of winning the presidential election improve, I don't necessarily think that Republicans' chances of holding the Senate will improve by a lot or at all because of that.

Uh, you just said that it's pretty much impossible for a downballot candidate to underperform their party's presidential nominee, then you make this statement? uhh, what?

Reality: If Trump is winning the election, the only R seats in any danger are IL, WI, NH, IN, and LA (due to the runoff system). Everything else comes off the map. Republicans only have to hold 1/5 to get the senate under Trump because of the VP tiebreaker. If they are picking up NV, they can actually afford to lose all 5 of those seats.

Trump, contrary to popular belief, can win without PA, so I could see McGinty winning there as well. FL isn't out of the question either.