The American Research Group (ARG) gets a C+ grade in Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings. They are punished modestly for having a slight Republican bias, and punished heavily for only calling the correct winner in 75% of the 260 polls that Silver analyzed. In other words, they’re less partisan hacks than just crappy pollsters. They do not appear to be good at their jobs.
This could explain why they are the only polling outfit that sees Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire with a lead in her reelection bid against Democrat Maggie Hassan. ARG gives Ayotte a comfortable nine-point lead, outside the margin of error, while three other recent polls have shown the race essentially tied (Public Policy Polling: Hassan +2, WBUR/MassInc: Hassan +1, Boston Herald/FPU: Ayotte +1).
In any case, Ayotte’s reelection prospects are a thin reed to rely on if you want to rationalize Mitch McConnell’s kneecapping of Donald Trump as an essentially rational decision to cut bait on the Oval Office and focus on preserving his Senate majority. Here’s Allahpundit of the right-wing blog, HotAir:
Let’s recap McConnell’s choicer soundbites about Trump over the past two months. On May 4th, the day after Trump won Indiana and Cruz and Kasich dropped out, McConnell endorsed him, albeit tepidly. A month later, after watching Trump spend several weeks talking about the “Mexican” judge in his civil suit instead of Hillary Clinton, McConnell urged him at a press conference to get on message. Three days after that, he tore Trump apart in an interview with Bloomberg, admitting “it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues” and hinting that he might yet rescind his endorsement. After that, he stopped taking questions about Trump at his weekly press briefings altogether. Then, two days ago, he was asked on “This Week” whether Trump is qualified to be president. He dodged, saying that’s for voters to decide. And so we arrive at today, with McConnell responding to a question about whether he thinks Trump is a “credible” candidate for the presidency with this withering backhanded reply: “He’s getting closer.”
Question: Does Mitch McConnell want Trump to win? Before you answer, note that when he was asked about Hillary Clinton in this same interview, he described her as “intelligent and capable.” If I told you that Mitch the Knife had described one candidate in a certain race as capable and the other as not quite credible (yet), which one would you assume he’s supporting?
The obvious explanation for his hedging on Trump is that he’s trying to protect his caucus. He had to endorse him for the same reason Paul Ryan did, because it’s unthinkable for a Republican congressional leader to hold out for long on a Republican nominee, but I’m sure McConnell cares more about retaining a Senate majority than he does about Trump winning the White House. If Trump falls far behind Clinton later this summer, McConnell and other top Republicans will shift quickly to a “Save the Senate!” message encouraging ticket-splitting. He’s laying the groundwork for that now: If you’re an independent who’s disgusted with Trump, well, just know that your friendly neighborhood Republican majority leader shares your disgust and strongly believes you shouldn’t punish Republican incumbents for Trump’s sins. So far, it’s working!
The evidence Allahpundit provides that this strategy is working is the aforementioned ARG poll and a generic congressional preference poll from NBC/Wall Street Journal that shows the public tied 46%-46% between Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the overall Real Clear Politics polling average on this question gives the Democrats a two point advantage, and the latest Fox News poll gives the Dems a five point edge.
To his credit, Allahpundit seems to understand that McConnell is engaged in risky business:
The more McConnell and other big-name Republicans badmouth Trump, the more Republican voters who are skeptical of Trump may take it as a green light to abandon him at the top of the ticket so long as they vote in congressional races. We’ve seen several polls lately showing that Trump’s support among Republicans has begun to lag Clinton’s support among Democrats, making his task this fall that much harder. He needs a unified party to stand a solid chance of winning, but the more unified the party is, the easier it’ll be for Democrats to connect Republicans down-ballot to Trump. McConnell’s trying to play a game right now where he both is and isn’t behind the nominee, having endorsed him formally while spending nearly every opportunity since then tearing him down. He’s taking a serious gamble in betting that attacking Trump will somehow inoculate the Senate instead of helping to send Trump crashing to a landslide defeat that ends up dragging the whole party down with him. I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating that I don’t think the GOP leadership can be “half-pregnant” towards their nominee. Either they’re all-in for a big win or it’s time to cut him loose. The fact that McConnell keeps kneecapping him suggests that he’s already resigned himself to Trump’s defeat and is doing what he can now to create some distance.
I basically agree with this analysis. I’d add that the way downballot races work in presidential elections, it’s more important that the top of the ticket doesn’t get swamped than it is that you can convince some folks to split their tickets. People will not show up to vote if they’re unwilling to support anyone on the top of the ticket, and if they’re only showing up to vote for the other party’s candidate, you’re going to get stomped. For a ticket-splitting strategy to work, the top race has to remain at least modestly competitive.
So, my money is not on McConnell or Ayotte or any of the other vulnerable senators and representatives who think they can survive by tearing Trump down. A collapse at the top will cascade down and wash away these folks like so much flotsam and jetsam.
But what about asymmetry between Dem and Rep voting behavior? Republicans are well known to be reliable voters. Could it be that its Dems that don’t show at the polls if there is a lack of enthusiasm, whereas grandma and grandpa Republican are going to the polls because that’s what they do? I think I agree that a collapse of support for Trump is going to be the most salient feature here, but could Republican turnout be rather less susceptible to being depressed, and therefore Republican ticket splitting much more likely?
Relatively speaking, if you’re winning with a population (senior citizens) who are going to vote out of a sense of moral obligation, then that gives a bit of a buffer against a collapse in enthusiasm.
So, you have a point.
On the flip side, a senator can’t do a whole lot to boost turnout on their own, but they’re particularly incapable of overcoming a lack of turnout arising from disinterest in the presidential campaign.
If the polls show that your party’s candidate is going to get crushed, a ton of your voters will decide that a round of golf or a Netflix marathon are better uses of their time than going to the polls or filling out an absentee ballot.
It’s just like how West Coast voters sometimes go home on Election Night without voting if it’s clear by the time they get off work who has won the presidency.
If there is at least some doubt about the outcome, then turnout will be substantially better. And, in a blowout, turnout collapses much more substantially for the losing side, as people still enjoy voting for a winner.
What we’re ultimately talking about is a universe of voters. And if that universe is voting heavily for the other party at the top, you’re already in a big hole. But, if your voters aren’t even joining that universe, it’s a recipe for a catalytic catastrophe.
Turnout is reasonably predictable. I am not much of a believer you change it very much. It is possible for one party to get depressed and not vote in a Presidential Year, and both of these candidates are really disliked, but I am not sure it will be dispostive.
The generic ballot numbers don’t show a GOP collapse down ballot. The NH numbers (and why don’t people read the whole poll, because ARG has Clinton up 5, her best result in NH in months) suggest a close race. Which is hardly a surprise.
“A collapse at the top will cascade down and wash away these folks like so much flotsam and jetsam.”
Either way you go I don’t see anything but the above happening. It’s quite a dilemma.
They are dead.
.
My naturally skeptical nature tells me that they are not quite dead yet, but the vital signs are not looking very promising. There is still just enough murk in the water to keep me a bit on edge as to the overall prospects for the final end game.
If this Republican convention turns out to be the amazing clusterfuck that it appears it might be, then we could see a massive panic soon after among down-ballot GOP candidates. Right now, the convention seems like it’s taking shape as kind of a political version of a Jerry Lewis Telethon, where we just see a steady stream of past-their-prime stars, a smattering of currently recognizable bigger names, and the rest of the time filled with anything or anyone that will consume time until the clock runs out and it’s over.
But they will always have the big balloon drop at the end. For the grand finale they could always get Gallagher to smash a watermelon with his big sledge hammer. And maybe they can prop up the corpse of Reagan in a corner so people can pay homage to that fallacious legacy.
Oh, Gallagher! Just the right amount of creepiness.
Has there been any improvement on his building a campaign structure? Add that to the list.
.
Down ballot candidates are going to argue that you need a counterbalance to Clinton.
I suspect it will be a good argument absent improvement in Clinton’s favorable numbers.
interactive map
.
Clinton is going win. Your link says nothing about her favorability.
Hillary is only underwater with whites. I would strongly suspect that a lot of the unfavorability is dominated by the South. Non-white, liberals and Democrats are foursquare approving.
Its hard to get an accurate picture of the actual effect of high unfavorables in the dominant group. It is especially difficult when your favorability can be approximated by the percentage of non-whites in an area.
Keep in mind that in the end, what the fav/UNfav ratio is only matters in those states that are in play. MA and MS DON’T COUNT. The national numbers show what would happen today in gross percentages.
Ohio? Good question. I don’t know.
Yes, the visceral hatred of Clinton on the right certainly could be sufficient to motivate people to come to the polls, just to do anything they feel they can do to stem the tide of any Democratic advantage there might be in the case of a collapse at the top of the ticket. That’s why I am still skeptical about how this is all going to play out. Certainly, there is a lot of glee on the left about the unprecedented disarray in the GOP. But I am far from ready to pop any champagne corks at this juncture. Hell, I’m not to the point of having enough confidence to even BUY any damn champagne.
It will all depend on the degree of just how bad Trump is doing.
Personally, I’m encouraged that the discussion is shifting to “How badly will Trump lose?” rather than being “Will he win?”
the 20% chance of win the 538 still has him at is still too high for comfort if you ask me
I know what you mean.
But, after all, the magical 27% will always be there for Ferret Head.
yeah but there’s also a difference in getting 27% of the vote and 20% chance of winning. Silver is saying he has a 20% chance of actually winning. I’ll feel better when that number is in the single digits
How about skullcapping?
Really. This one is truly strange. Middle America won’t like it.
Read on:
It goes on. Worth reading for the sheer strangeness of it. A thoroughly researched piece about sheer, self-loving idiocy. I laughed my ass off. This kind of mockery will work, I think. It ‘s kinda like that thing with John Edwards preening in front of a mirror while the soundtrack plays “I Feel Pretty.”
That was the true beginning of the end for John Boy.
Real ‘Muricans like the Trump followers ain’t gonna elect no dude who goes this far…and this expensive…to end up looking like a latter day Gorgeous George. (Start watching at about 1:03 in.)
It just ain’t…manly…if y’know what I mean.
Delightful.
I said a year ago regarding Trump that you cannot laugh a clown offstage.
Maybe I was wrong. If the clown appears to take himself too seriously? Maybe I was wrong.
Kudos to Ms. Feinberg. Brilliant…and hurtful…comedy.
Later…
AG
Now a standalone post.
At Last!!! Something Truly Damaging About Mr. Trump!!!
Please comment there if you wish to do so.
AG
So, this happened today:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/mike-lee-trump-rant-224970
Sen. Mike Lee goes on epic rant about Donald Trump
By LOUIS NELSON 06/30/16 06:58 AM EDT
Pressed during a telephone interview Wednesday night to explain why he has not yet endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential bid, Sen. Mike Lee unloaded.
“Hey look, Steve, I get it. You want me to endorse Trump,” Lee (R-Utah) told NewsMaxTV host Steve Malzberg. “We can get into that if you want. We can get into the fact that he accused my best friend’s father of conspiring to kill JFK. We can go through the fact that he’s made statements that some have identified correctly as religiously intolerant. We can get into the fact that he’s wildly unpopular in my state, in part because my state consists of people who are members of a religious minority church. A people who were ordered exterminated by the governor of Missouri in 1838. And, statements like that make them nervous.”
But OMG, the punchline:
“Despite all that, the senator went on to say that his concerns with Trump were not irreversible and that the presumptive GOP nominee could win his support “if I heard the right things out of him.”
These guys, swear to God…
The scariest part of all this: Mitch McConnell has weekly press conferences.