Don't Expect A Downballot Wave For Democrats On November 8th
The anecdotal evidence is piling up that Donald Trump is more likely than not to take a pounding at the polls in less than three months. The usual caveats apply here as Trump has been left for dead many times in the past before landing on his feet again a couple of weeks later, but there are an endless litany of conventional campaign metrics that point to Trump having dug himself a massive hole by which no candidate can be reasonably expected to climb out of this close to the election. Naturally, Democrats' response has been a sky's-the-limit cockiness about their chances of swamping not only Trump at the top of the ticket, but sweeping in Democrats downballot in Congressional and legislative races throughout the country. I'm skeptical.
Let's start with the Senate. The Democrats have a favorable map this cycle and if Hillary wins, they'll only need to pick up four seats for control. That's always been odds-on to happen even in a 50-50 Presidential contest. Three Republican-held Senate seats already seem heavily tilted in the Democratic direction, and if they go the Democrats' way they'll only need one more victory in a handful of competitive races. If the Democrats emerge with only 50 or 51 Senate seats on November 8, they'll have a barely functional majority but will have fallen short of what they should have given the Senate race map and Trump's countercoattails. Only if the Democrats have 53 or 54 seats come November 9th will there a sign that Trump was a serious anchor downballot in these Senate races. It's certainly possible, but thus far the stars don't seem to be aligning the way they did in 2012 where Democrats swept virtually every competitive Senate race on the table....and a couple that weren't really expected to be competitive. If you see Republican incumbents felled in Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri in three months, then you'll know I was wrong and Trump really did burn the Republican Party down.
The House of Representatives is where I really doubt the effects of a wave at the top of the ticket to be felt. The district lines are drawn and geographically sorted in a way that makes a Democratic takeover next to impossible except in a once-in-a-generation partisan wave. Obama's 2008 election was one such wave. Obama beat McCain by a decisive 7 points that year, but the Democrats won the generic Congressional ballot by an astounding 11 points that year. There was a mandate for the Democratic Party that year at the peak of Bush fatigue among the electorate, with the Democrats expanding their Congressional coalition into previously Republican portions of suburbia while hanging on to their tenuous Yellow Dog Democrat seats in the South for one more cycle. Fast forward to 2016 where a couple dozen of those seats previously held by Southern and Appalachian Democrats have realigned hopelessly to the Republican column and will not in any situation return to the Democratic fold this year. Republicans controlled redistricting in just about every battleground state after the 2010 census and further isolated Democrats. It would take at least an 8-point generic Congressional vote advantage for Democrats to regain a House majority this year. The most recent poll showed Democrats with a mere four-point generic House advantage. And keep in mind the Democrats held a four-point generic House advantage in the polls right before the 2014 midterms as well....when they lost 13 seats to plunge to the smallest Democratic House minority since the 1920s. The difference between 2008 and 2016 is that this year is not a referendum against one party's governing agenda as 2008 was. Even if it's a referendum against Trump, nobody should expect voters to punish other members of his party in numbers meaningful enough to alter the balance of power to significantly in a polarized legislative body of 435 members.
The story might be slightly more favorable to Democrats in at least some of the 50 state legislatures where elections will be held, simply because 2014 was such a disaster for Democrats that they'll likely win back many seats they lost simply because of rotten midterm turnout rising back to Presidential year levels and reinstalling some Democrats previously unseated. Again though, there's a limit to Democrats' prospects for picking up seats because the same 2010-2011 redistricting that boxed them in for Congressional races has boxed them in for legislative races too. It's not out of the question that the legislative chambers in a few states could flip, but key swing state bodies like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, or even blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin, are likely out of reach because of the redistricting hand the Democrats were dealt after their 2010 midterm wipeout.
Ultimately though, redistricting will only be part of the problem keeping Democrats from fully taking advantage of hypothetical weakness by Trump at the top of the GOP ticket. The biggest problem is that most voters don't see a problem with the Republican Party beyond Trump. Perhaps if the Democrats were running a more broadly popular nominee, the party would be better positioned to take advantage of Trump's troubles. Instead it seems as though millions of voters may be willing to hold their nose and vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Trump, but they don't trust her and want a check on her power.
Let's start with the Senate. The Democrats have a favorable map this cycle and if Hillary wins, they'll only need to pick up four seats for control. That's always been odds-on to happen even in a 50-50 Presidential contest. Three Republican-held Senate seats already seem heavily tilted in the Democratic direction, and if they go the Democrats' way they'll only need one more victory in a handful of competitive races. If the Democrats emerge with only 50 or 51 Senate seats on November 8, they'll have a barely functional majority but will have fallen short of what they should have given the Senate race map and Trump's countercoattails. Only if the Democrats have 53 or 54 seats come November 9th will there a sign that Trump was a serious anchor downballot in these Senate races. It's certainly possible, but thus far the stars don't seem to be aligning the way they did in 2012 where Democrats swept virtually every competitive Senate race on the table....and a couple that weren't really expected to be competitive. If you see Republican incumbents felled in Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri in three months, then you'll know I was wrong and Trump really did burn the Republican Party down.
The House of Representatives is where I really doubt the effects of a wave at the top of the ticket to be felt. The district lines are drawn and geographically sorted in a way that makes a Democratic takeover next to impossible except in a once-in-a-generation partisan wave. Obama's 2008 election was one such wave. Obama beat McCain by a decisive 7 points that year, but the Democrats won the generic Congressional ballot by an astounding 11 points that year. There was a mandate for the Democratic Party that year at the peak of Bush fatigue among the electorate, with the Democrats expanding their Congressional coalition into previously Republican portions of suburbia while hanging on to their tenuous Yellow Dog Democrat seats in the South for one more cycle. Fast forward to 2016 where a couple dozen of those seats previously held by Southern and Appalachian Democrats have realigned hopelessly to the Republican column and will not in any situation return to the Democratic fold this year. Republicans controlled redistricting in just about every battleground state after the 2010 census and further isolated Democrats. It would take at least an 8-point generic Congressional vote advantage for Democrats to regain a House majority this year. The most recent poll showed Democrats with a mere four-point generic House advantage. And keep in mind the Democrats held a four-point generic House advantage in the polls right before the 2014 midterms as well....when they lost 13 seats to plunge to the smallest Democratic House minority since the 1920s. The difference between 2008 and 2016 is that this year is not a referendum against one party's governing agenda as 2008 was. Even if it's a referendum against Trump, nobody should expect voters to punish other members of his party in numbers meaningful enough to alter the balance of power to significantly in a polarized legislative body of 435 members.
The story might be slightly more favorable to Democrats in at least some of the 50 state legislatures where elections will be held, simply because 2014 was such a disaster for Democrats that they'll likely win back many seats they lost simply because of rotten midterm turnout rising back to Presidential year levels and reinstalling some Democrats previously unseated. Again though, there's a limit to Democrats' prospects for picking up seats because the same 2010-2011 redistricting that boxed them in for Congressional races has boxed them in for legislative races too. It's not out of the question that the legislative chambers in a few states could flip, but key swing state bodies like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, or even blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin, are likely out of reach because of the redistricting hand the Democrats were dealt after their 2010 midterm wipeout.
Ultimately though, redistricting will only be part of the problem keeping Democrats from fully taking advantage of hypothetical weakness by Trump at the top of the GOP ticket. The biggest problem is that most voters don't see a problem with the Republican Party beyond Trump. Perhaps if the Democrats were running a more broadly popular nominee, the party would be better positioned to take advantage of Trump's troubles. Instead it seems as though millions of voters may be willing to hold their nose and vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Trump, but they don't trust her and want a check on her power.
posted by Mark at 9:32 PM
1 comments
