Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

groundloop

(11,519 posts)
Tue Aug 16, 2016, 01:15 PM Aug 2016

The GOP’s Chances Of Holding The Senate Are Following Trump Downhill

Source: FiveThirtyEight

Donald Trump’s post-conventions polling slump seems to be having an effect on the Republican Party’s U.S. Senate candidates. We thought this might happen: There’s been an increasingly strong relationship between how a state votes for president and how it votes for Senate over the past few election cycles. And, indeed, Trump’s tumble has coincided with worsening GOP numbers in key states. It may cost the party the Senate.

Democrats need to gain a net of four or five seats to win control of the Senate, depending on whether Hillary Clinton or Trump wins the presidency.1 Before the conventions, polling in the 10 states whose Senate seats were most likely to flip between parties this November showed a pretty close race. Democratic candidates led in Illinois and Wisconsin, both of which would be pickups for their party. The Republican candidate was leading in Nevada (a seat that Democrats currently control). I didn’t include Indiana in my pre-convention analysis because of Democrat Evan Bayh’s late entrance into the race — we had just one partisan poll that included Bayh — but Democratic chances seemed good there (it would be another Democratic pickup). And Republicans led in the other competitive Senate races, all seats the GOP currently holds, so Democrats looked like they could pick up a net of two seats if everything stayed as it was and the polling leader in each state went on to win.

Since the conventions, however, Trump’s polling has worsened — overall and in states with key Senate races. In the eight states with competitive Senate races and both pre- and post-conventions polling. Trump had previously been down an average of about 6 percentage points; he’s now down an average of 9 points.3 And while Republican Senate candidates had been up by an average of a little more than 1 percentage point before the conventions in these eight states, they are now down by a little more than 1 point. That is, Republican Senate candidates in key states are still running ahead of Trump, but that cushion may no longer be enough to win now that Trump’s fortunes have worsened.

Six of the eight Republican candidates for Senate are polling worse than they were before the conventions. Nothing has changed in Florida, according to the polls. And Sen. Rob Portman in Ohio is the only Republican whose fortunes have improved. (That may be partially because he has a massive fundraising edge over his Democratic opponent, Ted Strickland.) The biggest shifts have been in Illinois, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and in the latter two, the leader flipped.



Read more: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-chances-of-holding-the-senate-are-following-trump-downhill/



I imagine the GOPers in Congress wish they'd have gone ahead with a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Frank Cannon

(7,570 posts)
2. Don't listen to them, Don! Never give up, my man!
Tue Aug 16, 2016, 01:44 PM
Aug 2016

In fact, you should be Tweeting MORE now. Like tax cuts, the reason your Tweets aren't working is that you're not doing enough of them! Really let those 140-character shitballs fly! Let the hate flow through you!

Yes. YES! Good... good...

George II

(67,782 posts)
3. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, if Clinton wins we'll be in the best position....
Tue Aug 16, 2016, 01:58 PM
Aug 2016

....in which we've been in a long time.

Not to be morbid, but there were rumors even when Obama was elected in 2008 that a couple of Justices were thinking of retiring. All of them are now 8 years older, and even before the 2020 election will be a couple of more years older.

Kennedy is now 80, Ginzburg is now 83, and Breyer is now 78. Unfortunately the 2 most conservative justices are still in their '60s (so it Roberts but he's been a little more reasonable). But we have two of the youngest (Kagan and Sotomayor) with one opening. So Clinton could very well be in a position to appoint four soon after being elected.

That would make a 6-3 alignment! "Citizen's United" and other right wing rulings over the last few years could be distant memories by the time she runs for re-election.

 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
4. HRC could go on to nominate Garland, proving to all Americans that the GOP is only in it for the $$$
Tue Aug 16, 2016, 02:56 PM
Aug 2016

groundloop

(11,519 posts)
5. True, but IMO Garland was a centrist choice in order to get repub Senate approval
Tue Aug 16, 2016, 03:42 PM
Aug 2016

IF we can take the White House AND Senate, President Clinton won't have to limit herself to centrist judges. More left leaning judges should slide through relatively unhindered.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»The GOP’s Chances Of Hold...