North Carolina (PPP) - Cunningham +7

[Frenchrepublican]

Really trying not to make the same mistakes from 2016 by thinking conditions are favorable when they're not, but really hard to see how a major recession of which hit the economy immediately and likely won't come close to fully recovering until next year won't affect not only this Senate race, but many other races, very negatively for Republicans.

All this is to say that these numbers wouldn't be surprising if Republicans do indeed pay a large electoral penalty for being the governing party amid a recession so bad people are drawing comparisons to the 1930s.

It's no longer the economy, stupid. 2018 was a D wave despite a strong economy, there is no way to predict that 2020 will be some kind of 1932 wave because of the recession which awaits the world. Also, there is only one entity which bears the blame for the economic crisis and this person is neither Trump nor Tillis, it's China. (Memo -) People who blame Covid and/or the recession on Trump were never going to vote republican anyway).

[Frenchrepublican]

Cunningham is probably winning but not by 7, more like 2

Yes, seven points is hardly realistic, but two points, I could see that happen. Tillis is vulnerable, now especially with the Burr scandal. Cunningham is also one of the best battleground recruitment besides Mark Kelly, Steve Bullock and Sara Gideon (don't consider the Hick since his race is likely Democratic).

It's a non factor, tell me how Menendez scandal hurted other democrats in NJ two years ago.

And no, Cunningham is a C+ recruit, he is not Kelly/Bullock kind of candidate, his appeal wil mostly limited to NC progressive urban cores and his crossover appeal is close to non existent, which explains why the NC Senate race will likely follow closely the NC Presidential results.

[Frenchrepublican]

It's no longer the economy, stupid. 2018 was a D wave despite a strong economy, there is no way to predict that 2020 will be some kind of 1932 wave because of the recession which awaits the world. Also, there is only one entity which bears the blame for the economic crisis and this person is neither Trump nor Tillis, it's China. (Memo -) People who blame Covid and/or the recession on Trump were never going to vote republican anyway).

But the economy has never been a major factor in midterm elections. It's usually only dominant in presidential elections. Midterms instead go by the popularity of the incumbent president. It's why Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both had easy midterms (1998 and 2002) despite major events occurring that could have derailed them - impeachment for Clinton, recession and 9/11 for GWB. Both had the same thing in common - very high approval ratings going into the midterm election.

This is all to say that a president could weather an economic storm or other negative major event, but their approval rating would reflect it. If they are handling it poorly and poised to suffer a backlash from the electorate, their approval rating will crash. If they are are destined to perform strongly, their approval rating will be high. It's basically a barometer for the election.

Before Trump the state of the economy was a major electoral factor, even during midterms. 2010 was a horrible year for democrats in parts because the economy was still in a very bad shape and unemployment was very high. On the other hand 1998 and 2002 were realtively friendly toward the party of the president, at least in parts, because the economy was doing well.

With Trump it has changed, economy is no longer the most important factor for many voters, many people are no longer voting with their wallet but according their social values. (just look at which party is representing the richest congressional districts)

[Frenchrepublican]

With Trump it has changed, economy is no longer the most important factor for many voters, many people are no longer voting with their wallet but according their social values. (just look at which party is representing the richest congressional districts)

Right, well, all I'm saying is that would be a major change from how past elections have played out, and there have been a lot of studies on this. Changes in the economy (GDP, jobs, etc) have a direct correlation to the ruling party's performance. I posted an article about it a couple weeks ago too, which did have a small caveat that increased polarization could reduce (but not eliminate) the effect of the economy because people were so entrenched in support for their party that they are less swayed, but that has yet to be proven, because we haven't had a recession election under current levels of polarization. So this is really the first test of the idea. 2008 wouldn't count for a number of reasons, but the primary being that there was undoubtedly a lot of cross-party voting up and downballot, especially in the south, indicating notably less polarization.

Yeah, that's also my opinion, I don't really see how can Trump loses by more than six points