Our old friend Ed Kilgore attempts to solve the puzzle presented by the difference between the special election results, which show a sharp move in the Democrats’ favor, and the comparatively weak advantage the Democrats enjoy in the generic congressional preference polls. While he doesn’t come down with a conclusive answer, he wisely suggests that the Democrats should be cautious about being overly optimistic about their chances in November.
One thing I think is not getting enough consideration in this debate, however, is the evidence that a lot of Trump voters are voting for Democrats in these special elections. We saw this in Pennsylvania’s special election and again in Arizona’s. What we might expect to see is a big difference in turnout where Democrats are turning out in higher than expected numbers and Republicans are staying home. This would explain how districts that voted for Trump in huge numbers are now nail-biters or even Democratic pickups. But, at most, this only explains a fraction of the deterioration in the Republicans’ level of support in these recent special elections. A larger factor appears to be that a significant number of registered Republicans are turning out but not voting for the Republican candidate.
This contrasts with consistent polling that shows Trump retaining a high level of support from Republicans, so it needs some explaining. It could be an artifact of the difference between looking at how people are registered and how they are currently self-identifying. If you no longer consider yourself a Republican but are still registered as one, then there can be a disconnect between the poll results and how actual ballots are cast. But, in this case, these would be registered Republicans who voted Republican as recently as 2016. As they fall off as self-reporting Republicans, Trump is still able to retain a high level of support for those who still self-identify as Republican.
I suspect this explains some of the discrepancy we’re seeing. Actual elections are an infinitely better measure than opinion surveys of what the voting public actual thinks. And by that measure, the Republicans are losing support from within.
This matters because Ed is correct when he notes that turnout in November is likely to be older and whiter than in presidential years, as is always the case, and so we should expect some of the GOP slippage to be corrected for that reason alone. It will help the Republicans counteract at least some of their enthusiasm deficit. But if the Republicans who turn out don’t vote for the Republican candidates at their normal rate, that’s how a tsunami can occur.
That makes a lot of sense. In the generic polls, they ask people their party affiliation, and weight them by what the party affiliation numbers have been in the past. People who are disgusted may no longer id themselves as Republicans. Note that the polling for the actual elections has been pretty accurate. They showed the Dem pickups in Alabama and PA and the recent close Republican win in AZ pretty much on the nose.
I suspect for many of the Rep who may move over to the Dem side it will be because their issues have not been fulfilled.
Though the Korea issue is certainly looking positive from 30,000 feet, the next 6 months will be dicey. Same with the upcoming Iran deal in May.
Trump’s presidency has certainly reached a point where results as well as non results are becoming better defined, the cover of the Obama economy is waning and though there’s still low unemployment there’s no real movement in pay raises. Nothing is trickling down.
So there’s no real reason out there to congratulate Trump or the Rep’s for a job well done with an affirmative vote in Nov.
All the more important for the Dems to strategically put together specific platforms that will give the nuts and bolts of what will benefit voters vs the bumper sticker empty promises Rep will fall back on. Now more than ever, Dems need specific policies that even a Rep Trump voter can understand.
. . . Trump voter can understand.”
Well put.
Bernie Sanders did a good job of this. He is still out there in places like W VA stumping for those well defined, simplified, and meaningful issues.
I want the Democratic Party to refine its message to a common ground that Democratic candidates across the board can campaign for. Tailor other parts of the message to the district, if need be, but everyone in this country needs to know what the Democratic Party stands for.
I think Bernie did a great job too. Interestingly, Bernie wasn’t subjected to the noise of Trump blasting the airwaves like Hillary was. He got some but at least you could hear his message on policies from time to time. Not so with Hillary, her messages were always drowned out.
They were “keeping their powder dry” for Bernie, while they focused on Hillary.
The phrase “Social Democrat” would have been hung around his neck like a millstone, which is why I will never be convinced he could have won.
Yes, I believe you are right that they would tag him as a socialist. But he is not that and I am not certain the word carries the same punch it once did. He really only wanted things that most people also care about like universal health care and a living wage.
“Socialism” is still toxic poison to Republicans, even if they don’t understand it (and would approve of it enthusiastically if it were presented to them without the name). That’s how they attacked, and still attack, Obama — even though he was a run-of-the-mill right-of-center technocrat. (Not complaining; I liked him.)
“Toxic poison” to REPUBLICANS, yes. But not necessarily to anyone left of Attila the Hun.
Yes, the mid-term in November will be older and whiter than the presidential elections, but are not special elections even older and whiter than that, generally speaking?
Of course Republicans are losing voters and crossing over to vote Democratic, and I can’t believe anyone is still disputing this despite overwhelming evidence from Doug Jones to Conor Lamb to Tipirneni. All three of their results could not be possible without crossover. The math does not add up without some persuasion. The other thing is that these swings are not just districts with a lot of college educated voters that were trending towards Clinton, they’re everywhere. If Arizona 8 is consistent everywhere else I’m hearing talks of “forget 40 seats…need to go higher” from people who seem to know what they’re talking about.
Something is wrong with the topline numbers and isn’t being translated properly, that much is for sure. These results are not consistent with a 6-7 generic ballot lead…
“Something is wrong with the topline numbers and isn’t being translated properly, that much is for sure. These results are not consistent with a 6-7 generic ballot lead…”
Could you expand on this? In what way are they not consistent?
.
See this twitter thread by Liam Donovan, but tl;dr: when you add up Trump approval, generic ballot lead, historical averages/trends, you should be seeing “toss-up” happening in the elections like the models predict, but results are blaring signals that this is a 40+ seat blow-out in the making, and it’s picking up speed and intensity rather than abating as time goes on. If you give Dems all the toss-ups, that’s the majority right there (approx 228). But there are 40-60 other races that are on those wave margins, which is around the number Dems would win of Arizona 8 translated evenly (we know it won’t, but if it did). Dave Wasserman estimated it at +88, which again won’t happen…but…
A generic ballot lead of 6-7 does not say “TN senate race is a toss-up” but that’s exactly what we see on an individual polling basis, for example, and the individual polling of races has been pretty accurate so far.
link
Oh, didn’t see this from Nate Silver but:
So, 55 seats seems very possible.
Thanks. I did not know this.
.
I wonder if there are Republicans who answer the phone and declare “Hell yes, I’m a Republican, damn it, and fiercely proud of it…absolutely, I approve of Trump!” because they’re “on stage” for a heady moment and they have to support the brand/team/tribe etc. but then in the privacy of the voting booth, as in a Catholic confessional chamber, they’ll commit the “sin” of voting for the Democrat because they know Trump has to be removed.
Just speculating.
In my experience – just the opposite. Like the Bradley effect, poll respondents will tell pollsters the `politically correct’ response and then in privacy pull the lever for the white racist misogynist who will triple the budget deficit to put $5 in their weekly pay check.
True, but that was in the pre-Trump era. Now those people are PROUD of being white racist misogynists.
I’m making this point by following your trope. I do not believe that all or even most Trump supporters actually fit that description. Clearly some do, though, and I doubt the Bradley effect would have been operative with them because Trump made racism OK.
But the ones that are not racists, etc., are the ones more likely to cross over. A lot of them were Democrats to begin with, and even Obama voters.
Hillary Clinton being out of the picture is another factor. I’m convinced, from comment after comment I’ve heard from Trump voters, that a lot of them voted for Trump not because they liked him but because they hated Hillary. This is entirely separate from the question whether that hatred was justified or not.
I think many Democrats have failed to understand this because they confuse it with the question whether people SHOULD have hated Hillary that much, and get into very intense arguments about how unjustified this is. My point is, whether they should have or they shouldn’t have, they did.
In support whereof …
Lots of people voted for Hillary not because they loved her but because they hated Trump. I don’t know how far that point gets us.
If the point is that Hillary was uniquely hated, there is some salience to that. But Hillary was also widely admired by many voters. Polarization goes both ways, particularly with someone so extremely well known. Other Democrats and liberals came out better than Hillary in favorable/unfavorable polls, but there aren’t as many Americans who so deeply love and admire those Democrats/liberals as they did Hillary. She had a bigger base which was more deeply established than other 2016 candidates.
Lots of people intensely liked Bernie, for example. But not as many as Hillary. That comparative lack of broadness in Bernie’s base bit him in the primary, and if the theft of private communications and deceptive dissemination of anti-Hillary, anti-Democratic Party propaganda would have brought Bernie the primary win, that comparative lack of broadness in his base would have hit him in the general. There would have been more room for the media and his political opponents to define Bernie negatively, particularly since Bernie’s campaign would have had a much more severe paid and earned media disadvantage.
In fact, I think it’s likely that those supporting Trump and the Republicans would have disseminated communications stolen from Bernie, his wife, and/or his campaign if he had won the primary. Enemies of the United States and the thoroughly immoral conservative movement wanted Trump and Republicans to win. They would have tried to work their filthy games on Bernie, and there’s little reason to believe his personal and campaign communications would have been more secure.
That’s all very logical.
But the point is, Trump won. That’s why we’re talking about this.
I wonder if the Republicans who are no longer Trump fans will just not vote. The divide between Democrars and Republicans is a chasm now, and Republicans are loyal to the extreme. So maybe the Dems’ wins will be not based on converts, but absent Republicans.
Much more likely.
A straight switch between parties is almost impossible for a Republican, the tribalism is too strong.
I’ve always thought that Perot’s biggest gift in `92 was providing a `halfway house’ for Republicans to move off Bush I without having to go right into the Clinton camp. Then when Perot imploded they didn’t go back to Bush. Clinton did not lead in any polls until very late in that cycle.
That’s one reason I’m always against Democrats insulting the Republican base instead of focusing on the behavior/policies of the party/politicians. `Deplorables’, as an example, is a no win strategy. It just hardens positions unnecessarily. You can make the same points without accusing the voters, or relatives of the voters, who might consider voting for you.
No, it’s a big factor with eastern suburban Republicans.