An interesting difference between 2016 and 2024

[Pericles]

I'll use one example, but the pattern applies to multiple states and races.

Wisconsin 2016 election:
President-Trump +0.8%
Senate-Republican (Johnson) +3.4%
2.6% difference for Democratic nominee.

Wisconsin 2024 election:
President-Trump +0.9%
Senate-Democratic (Baldwin) +0.9%
1.8% difference against Democratic nominee.

If you took it at face value, this would suggest Hillary Clinton was a better candidate than Kamala Harris. That doesn't pass the smell test. However, it is an interesting change over eight years. The appeal of Donald Trump has changed, it is yet another example of how he apparently became more popular over the years. It does suggest that Kamala Harris was weaker than a generic Democrat, though we can't infer much about why that was. It's worth being aware of the patterns because it's clear enough both times, and seeing if anything can be learned from it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think it mostly just shows that senate incumbents tend to overperform (unless your name is Ted Cruz)

[Pericles]

I think it mostly just shows that senate incumbents tend to overperform (unless your name is Ted Cruz)

I picked the Wisconsin example because Feingold was Senator for a lot longer and had a stronger brand, so Johnson's win didn't come down to just 'incumbency'.

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

I think Harris was a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton because the Clintons were popular with Hispanics and white suburbanites historically speaking even before 2016 while Harris was not. Clinton might have had a lower favorability, but favorability often doesn't translate to votes.

[E-Dawg]

I think Harris was a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton because the Clintons were popular with Hispanics and white suburbanites historically speaking even before 2016 while Harris was not. Clinton might have had a lower favorability, but favorability often doesn't translate to votes.

I'd say that Harris was the weaker candidate, but that Clinton ran the worse campaign. It's clear that 2016 was winnable for Clinton and she botched it, while I'm not sure if Harris ever could have won 2024.

[Chief Justice PiT]

I think Harris was a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton because the Clintons were popular with Hispanics and white suburbanites historically speaking even before 2016 while Harris was not. Clinton might have had a lower favorability, but favorability often doesn't translate to votes.

I'd say that Harris was the weaker candidate, but that Clinton ran the worse campaign. It's clear that 2016 was winnable for Clinton and she botched it, while I'm not sure if Harris ever could have won 2024.

     A friend of mine who used to work in Democratic Party campaigns and was highly connected at the national level said that Clinton was very bad at interacting with people. If Clinton has poor interpersonal skills it would explain why she botched a winnable race.

[Skill and Chance]

I think it mostly just shows that senate incumbents tend to overperform (unless your name is Ted Cruz)

Yes, I definitely think the takeaway here is the importance of individual candidates in the Senate vs. in the House or for the presidency.  The latter two almost always follow the partisan "baseline" of the election, but sometimes you actually can win on your personality in the Senate, particularly in smaller states.  This is even more dramatic for governors vs. state legislatures. 

TBH I think this is what led to an incorrect reading of 2022.  At the US House generic ballot level, 2022 and 2024 were basically the same election run twice.

[New World Man]

I'll use one example, but the pattern applies to multiple states and races.

Wisconsin 2016 election:
President-Trump +0.8%
Senate-Republican (Johnson) +3.4%
2.6% difference for Democratic nominee.

Wisconsin 2024 election:
President-Trump +0.9%
Senate-Democratic (Baldwin) +0.9%
1.8% difference against Democratic nominee.

If you took it at face value, this would suggest Hillary Clinton was a better candidate than Kamala Harris. That doesn't pass the smell test. However, it is an interesting change over eight years. The appeal of Donald Trump has changed, it is yet another example of how he apparently became more popular over the years. It does suggest that Kamala Harris was weaker than a generic Democrat, though we can't infer much about why that was. It's worth being aware of the patterns because it's clear enough both times, and seeing if anything can be learned from it.

A ton of people simply left the senate race blank and voted for Trump this year.

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

I think Harris was a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton because the Clintons were popular with Hispanics and white suburbanites historically speaking even before 2016 while Harris was not. Clinton might have had a lower favorability, but favorability often doesn't translate to votes.

I'd say that Harris was the weaker candidate, but that Clinton ran the worse campaign. It's clear that 2016 was winnable for Clinton and she botched it, while I'm not sure if Harris ever could have won 2024.

That's my assessment. Clinton went to Nebraska-2 more than she went to Wisconsin. Harris prevented the most important states from swinging much because she used resources better.

[jaichind]

One clear pattern in 2024 is that Trump tends to run ahead of GOP Senate candidates but behind GOP congressional votes in terms of margins.  Most of this is about more people voting in the Prez race than the Senate race and more people voting in the Senate race than voting in the House races.  This seems to imply that the marginal voter leans Dem but ultra-low propensity voter leans Trump

[Progressive Pessimist]

Harris did do better in some states than Clinton did.

This entire election is exemplified by changing coalitions and the environment more than candidate quality, I would say.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

One clear pattern in 2024 is that Trump tends to run ahead of GOP Senate candidates but behind GOP congressional votes in terms of margins.  Most of this is about more people voting in the Prez race than the Senate race and more people voting in the Senate race than voting in the House races.  This seems to imply that the marginal voter leans Dem but ultra-low propensity voter leans Trump

Because Rs had house incumbency but not Senate incumbency whereas in 2016 they had both.

[Tekken_Guy]

One clear pattern in 2024 is that Trump tends to run ahead of GOP Senate candidates but behind GOP congressional votes in terms of margins.  Most of this is about more people voting in the Prez race than the Senate race and more people voting in the Senate race than voting in the House races.  This seems to imply that the marginal voter leans Dem but ultra-low propensity voter leans Trump

Because Rs had house incumbency but not Senate incumbency whereas in 2016 they had both.

The GOP got the trifecta for totally different reasons in each part of it. It was Biden’s unpopularity in the presidential race, incumbency advantages at the house level, and the brutal map for the Senate.

[jaichind]

One clear pattern in 2024 is that Trump tends to run ahead of GOP Senate candidates but behind GOP congressional votes in terms of margins.  Most of this is about more people voting in the Prez race than the Senate race and more people voting in the Senate race than voting in the House races.  This seems to imply that the marginal voter leans Dem but ultra-low propensity voter leans Trump

Because Rs had house incumbency but not Senate incumbency whereas in 2016 they had both.

Agreed that incumbency plays a big role in the pattern I noticed.  Still, the GOP narrowly won the House in 2022 so the GOP incumbency advantage in the House is not that great in 2024.

[Samof94]

I think it mostly just shows that senate incumbents tend to overperform (unless your name is Ted Cruz)

Yes, I definitely think the takeaway here is the importance of individual candidates in the Senate vs. in the House or for the presidency.  The latter two almost always follow the partisan "baseline" of the election, but sometimes you actually can win on your personality in the Senate, particularly in smaller states.  This is even more dramatic for governors vs. state legislatures. 

TBH I think this is what led to an incorrect reading of 2022.  At the US House generic ballot level, 2022 and 2024 were basically the same election run twice.

Both elections even had Kari Lake blow  it in statewide elections

[Pericles]

I think it mostly just shows that senate incumbents tend to overperform (unless your name is Ted Cruz)

Yes, I definitely think the takeaway here is the importance of individual candidates in the Senate vs. in the House or for the presidency.  The latter two almost always follow the partisan "baseline" of the election, but sometimes you actually can win on your personality in the Senate, particularly in smaller states.  This is even more dramatic for governors vs. state legislatures. 

TBH I think this is what led to an incorrect reading of 2022.  At the US House generic ballot level, 2022 and 2024 were basically the same election run twice.

Even so, almost all the time the opposition does better in the midterms than in the next presidential election. So even if 2022 was a narrow Trump win, it was a surprise that didn't budge for two years. 2018 was more Democratic than 2020, 2014 was more Republican than 2016, 2010 was more Republican than 2012, and so on.

[Brad Note]

The GOP brand was much different in 2016 than it is today. Back then, you still had an appreciable amount of Never-Trump voters voting Republican downballot while leaving the presidential ballot blank. You're more likely to see the reverse nowadays, with a lot of GOP voters voting Trump and leaving the downballot blank.