History Predicts The Midterms

Luis A Mendez

Luis A Mendez

When he’s not writing supernatural stories, Luis Mendez is obsessively following public opinion trends and gauging likely election outcomes. He has written about the subject for various publications and runs a monthly updated website trying to predict coming elections.

Related Post Roulette

63 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Given the last 4 elections, I would expect the Democrats to do very well this year based on nothing but regression to the mean alone.

    This makes me see the baseline not as being up against what the Republicans have now but up against regression to the mean. If regression to the mean indicates that the pendulum is going to swing in such a way that Democrats will win 33 seats in the House, Democrats getting 28 seats in the House ought to be disappointing even if we can yell “HURRAY! DEMOCRATS WON THE HOUSE!”

    (On the flipside of that, if we could reasonably expect Democrats to win 33 seats in the House and Democrats win 38, then we can not only yell “HURRAY! DEMOCRATS WON THE HOUSE!” but “BLUE WAVE! SUCK IT!”)

    If it’s the former, Democratic Leadership needs to sit back and ask “Jeez Louise, folks. How in the hell are we shooting ourselves in the foot here?” and, if it’s the latter, Democratic Leadership can finally say “Okay… maybe we figured it out.”

    But if they get the former and yell “HURRAY! WE WON THE HOUSE! NOW WE JUST NEED TO GET HILLARY READY FOR 2020 AND WE CAN SURF THIS BLUE WAVE TO THE WHITE HOUSE!”, then…

    Well. At least they’ll have won the House, I guess.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

      So to recap:
      If the Dems don’t take the House, they need to:
      Do some soul searching and figure out why they suck.

      If the Dems take the House but don’t cover the spread, they need to:
      Do some soul searching and figure out why they suck.

      If they take the House and beat the spread, but get overly exuberant about it, they need to:
      Do some soul searching and figure out why they suck.

      Aside from the obvious silliness here, notice (once again) how the Republicans apparently don’t “need” to do anything at all, really even though they are undergoing a radical and astonishing transformation into a white nationalist party.

      Murc’s Law is a harsh but fair mistress I guess.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        I’ll post what I said back between 2008 and 2010 to the Republicans.

        The question isn’t whether the Democrats want to win elections. The pendulum will swing back and forth as pendulums do.

        It’s that if the Democrats aren’t healthy, they’ll find themselves a hollowed out shell that is easily taken over by someone who will be easily analogized to Trump. (Perhaps even including in their ability to win elections.)

        Is it merely about winning elections, Chip? If it is, well, I imagine that you’ll be delighted one week from today no matter what happens.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

          What does that even mean, a “hollowed out shell”?
          And how does this pendulum work? What “center” does it pivot about?

          And of course it isn’t about just winning, which is why I criticize the horserace/Superbowl stuff.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            What does that even mean, a “hollowed out shell”?

            I was thinking of the Republican Party when I said that.

            And how does this pendulum work?

            I’ll refer you to this post. Please note the graphics in the post that detail the numbers for presidents who win big in an election and what happens to the House and Senate in the elections that follow the next 8 years.

            What “center” does it pivot about?

            It seems to swing between “Republicans” and “Democrats”. I guess the “center” is whatever exists between those two parties. People who might vote for either, I guess.

            And of course it isn’t about just winning, which is why I criticize the horserace/Superbowl stuff.

            I tend to agree. I think that there are some serious policy and process questions that need to be hammered out over the next however many years and I have serious preferences for the outcomes.

            But I also know that winning helps with establishing preferred outcomes.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

              In this context, the pendulum metaphor doesn’t tell us anything meaningful.

              Swinging the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats changes meaning, because the parties themselves change.
              So this mysterious “center” doesn’t really exist.

              This is one reason why I get so cranky about the BSDI/ bipartisan/ centrist narrative because it continually redefines the imagined center so as to stay equidistant between whatever voices exist.

              It assumes that the equidistant point is morally good and sensible, regardless of where it happens to fall. Which is to say, that this narrative is wholly agnostic about any sort of values of justice.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Oh, I’m on record for seeing “centrists” as always wrong.

                So when I say “pendulum”, I am referring to the thing where the party in power loses it to the other party, and then the other party loses it to the first party.

                And it’s regular. Like, it happens every 8 years or so.

                And it swings back and forth.

                Like a pendulum.

                I’m not trying to imply any morality whatsover.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        Is Murc’s law the law that says a team that sucks can win elections and still suck?

        ‘Cause that’s how it works for Team Trump.

        Team SuckA won’t vote for Team SuckB, but some on Team SuckB might vote for Not-SuckA and some on Team SuckA might vote for Not-SuckB.

        At some point (may it be soon) the trick will be Not to Suck.Report

        • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Marchmaine says:

          I don’t think everyone has to agree with the Democrats ideologically. That will never happen.

          But it seems like a lot of people here and elsewhere find it incomprehensible that people like being Democrats and do like the party agenda.Report

          • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            I don’t think that.

            I do, however, think that the people who like the two parties current agenda overestimate the number of fellow believers vs. fellow travelers.

            There’s a gap there that will be exploited by one or both sides.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        Oh, one thing I also feel the need to point out.

        You say:

        If they take the House and beat the spread, but get overly exuberant about it, they need to:
        Do some soul searching and figure out why they suck.

        But here’s what I said:
        On the flipside of that, if we could reasonably expect Democrats to win 33 seats in the House and Democrats win 38, then we can not only yell “HURRAY! DEMOCRATS WON THE HOUSE!” but “BLUE WAVE! SUCK IT!”
        and
        if it’s the latter, Democratic Leadership can finally say “Okay… maybe we figured it out.”

        That’s what I said. Scroll up. It’s right there.

        I don’t think that you accurately summed up my argument, there.Report

  2. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    O/T but only sorta-
    While everyone acknowledges that the birthright citizenship idea was just one of a flurry of nonsense antics to troll the American public, it will continue to reverberate long after the election.

    As I predicted, we are seeing the first “Well, Actually” trial balloons from the right.Report

    • Avatar bookdragon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Hmm… based on the argument there, Ted Cruz is not only not natural born but not even a US citizen, having been born in another country which counted him a citizen because he had been born there.

      So, can we deport him? lolReport

      • Avatar George Turner in reply to bookdragon says:

        Ted Cruz either has a certificate of citizenship issued by the US State Department or he is not a US citizen. All those born abroad, except to diplomats, are naturalized. Natural born citizens don’t have any such State Department documentation, as no such extra paperwork is required.

        Interestingly, Superman is a natural born US citizen even though he was born on Krypton. Under US law at the time, any foundling younger than seven is considered a natural born citizen unless someone comes forward to prove otherwise prior to the foundling turning 21. Nobody outed the young Clark Kent, so he is qualified to be President, whereas Ted Cruz is actually not, despite contrary rulings in several state courts.

        I was corresponding with the lawyer who was filing those lawsuits, and unfortunately he’s one of the “birther” types who holds that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be US citizens at the time of birth, based on some Swiss book on citizenship from the mid-1700’s that one of the Founder’s owned, but probably nobody else had read.Report

    • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Is this a credible site? Meaning, do influential people read or write for it? Glancing at the headlines on the landing page, one hopes not. How much credence do we need to give stuff like this?Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

        In all honesty, I’m not sure what “credible” means given that Jim Hoft has the President’s ear and Mike Cernovich is given media exposure.

        I cal this a “trial balloon” because this is the process we’ve seen before with the birther stuff, were the fringers begin the drumbeat, then it gets picked up by more and more mainstream outlets.

        This idea is not new- its been a staple of Federalist Society who have been debating it (in the most civil and polite tones of course) here in 2011; and again in 2015 here;

        I could go on, but you get the idea, that this isn’t just some zany thing we should dismiss with a laugh.

        The goal is to move this from “unspeakable” to “debatable” and to cleanse its proponents from “radical racists” to “reasonable centrists”.Report

        • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          The hope is that you start small on the fringe and go up in respectability over the years. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were both considered nuts during the early 1960s but in a few years, what they advocated became mainstream on the Right at least. By this method what used to be considered ludicrous and ridiculous becomes mainstream thought. Rightists and leftists have used this strategy but the Right tends to be more effective with it.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

            I believe the entire right wing think tank industry (Heritage, Federalist, Hoover, et al) exists for no other purpose than to launder ideas from fringe to Fox News.Report

            • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973, the Federalist Society in 1982, and the Hoover Institution goes back to 1919. Fox News started broadcasting in 1996. That math doesn’t quite work.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to j r says:

                It doesn’t matter when or how they started, their purpose was to make a respectable intellectual case for conservatism.

                Nothing nefarious about that! There are equivalent organizations on the left.
                But as the battle for the soul of the conservative movement has raged, the intellectual case has become progressively more hollow and corrupt.

                We’ve discussed most of these here on this blog.

                Federalism, free markets, moral values, patriotism…all the high minded things that one might once upon a time have read about in National Review have been pushed aside in favor of grifting hitched to white supremacy.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If you say so, maybe I’m just not looking in the right places because I don’t go looking for crap. Heritage is the Republican’s version of the Center for American Progress. They’re mainly there to get policy ideas in front of Hill Republicans. I don’t care much about legal issues so I don’t pay too much attention to the FedSoc.

                However, one of my regular podcast listens is EconTalk by Russ Roberts of George Mason and the Hoover Institution. I’ve been listening for some time and I’ve yet to encounter any white supremacy or even anything particularly Pro-Trump. It’s mostly conversations about economics from a right-of-center, broadly libertarian-ish perspective. But as I said, you tend to find the quality of conversation that you go looking for.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to j r says:

                Honestly, I would be interested to hear what “right of center” economics looks like, that isn’t just a grift intended to funnel wealth upward.

                But first they need to come to grips with the utter trainwreck of what the contemporary Republican policies have wrought.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Honestly, I would be interested to hear what “right of center” economics looks like, that isn’t just a grift intended to funnel wealth upward.

                Like I said, you’ll usually find just what you’re willing to look for.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to j r says:

                I’m curious about right-of-center economics too. It used to mean free trade and balanced budgets. What is it nowadays?Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                The economic policy of the Democratic Party as actually practiced when in power by Democratic Majorities under Obama, Clinton and (to a more modest degree) Bush Senior is pretty much right of center when looked at globally. It certainly isn’t some kind of repainted communism or socialism as portrayed by right wingers, their media apparatus or the tiny powerless minority of the left wing fringe that those former players hold up as emblematic of the Democratic Party.Report

              • “Owning the libs.”

                It’s a lot more popular than free trade and balanced budgets.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                No kidding.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Within the world of people who study, research, and write about economics, public policy, political science, sociology and every other social science, the number of people interested in “owning the kind” or interested in owning the people trying to “own the libs” is quite small.

                There are lots of people writing about economics as economics and not from the perspective of retail politics. They’re not hard to find. But like I keep saying, you have to actually want to find them.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to j r says:

                Sure, but since the only connection those people have with the actual political or policy apparatus of political conservationism is that the republican politicians sometimes incoherently steal some of their verbiage what is the point of that?Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to North says:

                Sounds like you’re reasoning backwards to try and support Chip’s initial claim. Politicians use economic theories to support questionable political claims; therefore, economics only exists to support shitty politicians.

                This is a demonstrably false claim. I’m not sure that there is much more to it.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to j r says:

                Certainly not. But right wing economics that have some resemblance to rational economics pair up with libertarians, not modern Republicans. So I’d revise your summary to Republican politicians use faux republican-economic “theories” to support ludicrous political claims; therefore, republican-economics only exists to support shitty republican politicians.”Report

              • Avatar James K in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                As espoused by right of centre politicians or by right of centre economists?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to James K says:

                If economics is a science, I wouldn’t expect there to be right or left divisions in it.

                But to answer your question, I’ll take either one.

                I’m seriously not hearing any sort of “right leaning” economic theories that aren’t just warmed over Lafferism or justification for selfishness.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well, if you’re not hearing it, Chip, then it must not exist.

                Case closed, I guess.Report

        • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          I’m listening to the podcast you linked. Prof. Eastman, arguing the anti-birthright side, seems eager to ignore the text of the amendment, and substitute congressional debate instead. It seems to me that the wording is exactly what the Congress wanted it to say. They definitely could have been more precise if they had wanted to.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

            Remember that the federal judiciary is being packed with “originalists” and the whole point of “originalism” is to ignore precedent in favor of making shit up.Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              The history and meaning of birthright citizenship is clear and well understood, with an extensive body of law, including Calvin’s Case in 1608, and of course Blackstone’s Commentaries and American updates to Blackstone’s undertaken by legal scholars who knew the Founders, such as St George Tucker.

              One of the keys to it, cited in case after case by the Supreme Court, is allegiance and jurisdiction.

              Tucker, interestingly, maintained that states retain the right of denization, which is a status in between an alien and a citizen, since they had exercised as British colonies and under the Articles of Confederation and did not surrender the power to the federal government in the Constitution.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

            See, the thing is I’m not willing to even enter into a debate about it.

            Because I can’t accept the premise of goodwill, that this is anything other than a vicious attempt to codify racial hatred into law.Report

  3. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Nate Silver came out with an essay today that said no one should be surprised if the Democrats take the Senate and/or the Republicans retain the House while maintaining the probability is Democrats take the House and Republicans retain the Senate. There are lots of GOP held seats that are not as safe as they thought but the races are still very close.

    In more personal observations, I can see how my cohort of voters have changed since we started voting. My first election was in 1998. My first Presidential was 2000. My campus did not have a Bush v. Gore debate but we did have a lot of very heated Gore or Nader arguments. A plurality of the students were for Nader and disliked Gore. This same cohort went for Dean or Kuninich in 2004 instead Kerry in the primaries.

    My cohort is now in their mid-30s to early 40s. We are still on the left but more realistic. This article came out this week to many eyerolls:

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/12-young-people-on-why-they-probably-wont-vote.html

    My cohort is now saying “Listen kids, there is no such thing as a perfect politician. They will always believe and do something that you don’t fully support. This is okay. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      My cohort is now saying “Listen kids, there is no such thing as a perfect politician. They will always believe and do something that you don’t fully support. This is okay. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

      Are they? I was still under the impression that stuff like disagreeing on anything in the Performatively Woke platform was evidence of some kind of -phobia.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Nate Silver came out with an essay today that said no one should be surprised if the Democrats take the Senate

      So I went to Nate Silver’s site and I didn’t see that essay. I did see this one, though:

      The divide between the House outlook and the Senate outlook continues to widen. Democrats’ chances of winning a majority remain at or near their all-time highs in our House forecast — ranging between 78 percent (7 in 9) and 85 percent (6 in 7) in the various versions of our model. But they’re at their lowest point yet in the Senate. All three versions of our forecast give them only about 1 in 7 shot (about 15 percent) of taking over the Senate from Republicans.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        Oh, I see what you’re focusing on…

        This is normally the point at which you might expect us to give you a throat-clearing “well, actually” about how 1 in 7 chances happen all the time. Indeed, they do. One in seven days of the week is a Thursday. None of us woke up this morning screaming “Oh my gosh, I just can’t believe it’s a Thursday!” And nobody should really be that surprised if Democrats win the Senate next week, or if Republicans keep the House.

        Well, polls have systematic errors all the time. Maybe this one will work in Dems favor.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

          That’s a really strange analogy. I mean, it works if we collectively spin a wheel of days of the week, but not in a sequence of 7 days. We are in fact *never* surprised by Thursday. Well, almost never…

          I think the proper response to a 15% occurrence is definitionally… surprise. As in, huh, was darn near certain (85%, in fact) that this thing that happened wasn’t gonna happen. Color me surprised.

          What it oughtn’t be is existentially crippling.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

            “You shouldn’t be surprised when a guy playing craps establishes his point.”Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

              Wait, that’s a bad analogy too.

              “You shouldn’t be surprised when a guy playing craps establishes his point on the first throw.”Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                *doesn’t.

                8/9 throws will establish the point… or win.
                2 out of 3 throws establish the point only… win or lose is the other 1/3

                So you definitely shouldn’t be surprised if you win or set a point.

                The first throw is mostly safe from a non-losing perspective. Like a California primary if you are a Democrat.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Um. Don’t be surprised when your trips get beat by a flush when there’s two of a suit on the flop?Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                Sometimes the other team just has a bad split for Trump.

                You bid everything correctly, but there was no way to get back to your clubs.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                You’re not surprised when he throws a 7s, even though that’s a 17% shot. Nor are you surprised when he throws snake eyes, even though that’s only a 3% shot.Report

              • I think that Nate Silver is still irritated at Sam Wang. That’s why he put that part in there.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird says:

                Has Nate Silver explained why he shifted to fractions from percentiles? Because I find that more confusing and less informative.

                I suspect he either thinks his readers don’t have a good grip on percentages (and distributions) or he is trying to minimize the false certainty of percentages (14.29% versus one-in-seven).Report

              • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to PD Shaw says:

                Your second reason is right, but your read on things is thought to be uncommon. It’s thought that most people have an easier time understanding “1 in 6” than they do “16.66%.” So part of it is trying to communicate better, and part of it is also that he was annoyed that there was substantial misunderstanding about the degree of certainty his forecasts were intended to convey. (That, however, seems to me to be a problem of people not understanding the difference between polling and forecasting.)Report

            • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

              Makes me wonder if 1 in 6 is really an accurate assessment of the odds.

              Have we calculated how many times the 1 in 6 odds turned up the 1?

              I’m not really surprised when I lose on the come out, but I’m kinda *more* surprised when the 1 in 6 candidate wins. Might just be a frequency thing…but might also be interesting to chart the odds to the results and see how that correllates? C’mon, someone on the itntertubes has done that somewhere, right?

              Maybe 1 in 6 is shorthand for 1 in 36…Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Variance is a son of a gun, ain’t it?

                Anybody who plays D&D can tell you that some nights you throw 20s. Some nights you throw 1s.

                I’m sure that there’s a hell of a lot of “counting the hits, ignoring the misses” going on in there but, as a D&D player, lemme tell ya: Some nights you throw 20s.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Marchmaine says:

                The essential problem with these forecasts is that they’re not repeatable events, so no matter what the results, giving something a 1 in 6 chance beforehand can always be ‘correct’

                The prediction markets try to solve for this by giving the predictions some stakes, but they are hampered by a lack of deep enough liquidity and real earnest money. And they’re probably more subject to black swans than either the sports book or ‘real’ financial markets.Report

          • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Marchmaine says:

            In traditional Russian Roulette, there is a bullet in just over 15% of chambers. Landing on that c. 15% chance is definitely existentially crippling.Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to El Muneco says:

              We had a local high schooler who died after playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic. The policeman who was being interviewed at the scene by one of our local TV stations actually giggled about it on camera. All the other teens at the party were careful not to pull the slide all the way back so as not to chamber a cartridge. Our story’s hero was not quite so astute.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        That’s the essay:

        This is normally the point at which you might expect us to give you a throat-clearing “well, actually” about how 1 in 7 chances happen all the time. Indeed, they do. One in seven days of the week is a Thursday. None of us woke up this morning screaming “Oh my gosh, I just can’t believe it’s a Thursday!” And nobody should really be that surprised if Democrats win the Senate next week, or if Republicans keep the House.

        Report

    • Avatar j r in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      My cohort is now saying “Listen kids, there is no such thing as a perfect politician. They will always believe and do something that you don’t fully support. This is okay. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

      When I was younger, I remember seeing a lot of movies/TV that followed a particular form: big fish in a small pond gets the chance to come and kick it with the big boys. Could have been an elite academic institution or a sports program or dance company, but the basic plot trajectory was the same. Kid gets recruited in a process that makes him feel special, then gets to the show and has to realize that he’s not special at all. He’s just another cog in a big machine. The hero eventually prevailed and made the game winning shot or danced the big finale or whatever, but to get there they had to lose the ego and submit to the process and learn to be a team player.

      I don’t know if they make many movies like this anymore. In most of the movies that I see now, the young people get to be very important from jump. This probably comports to some part of the millennial ethos

      I say all of that to say that I have more than a little sympathy for “the kids these days.” They came of age in the era in which the media and educators continually pushed the narrative of transformational leadership. They lived through the Obama presidency, with his Nobel prize and international popularity and giving us all health care and everything. In general, this was a style of politics that implied that what was good was what made you feel good. And then, almost on a dime, the kids had a bunch of people in their face telling them that it wasn’t actually all about them and that they should shut up, hold their noses and vote pragmatically. Maybe it’s true, but it’s going to take them a minute to unlearn all that other stuff.Report

  4. Avatar North says:

    Yeah basically the historical evidence all points at Dems doing extremely well. The only serious modern blip is 2002 and we have NOT had anything that remotely resembles 9/11 in the last few years so 2002 definitely goes into the outlier bin.Report

  5. Avatar Morat20 says:

    Here’s a thought: We’ve tracked Presidential approval versus results, but what about Presidential disapproval?

    They’re not quite the same thing, and Trump seems fairly far off the standard here in one particular way: His disapproval number is above 50%. I think the latest 538 aggregates have it around 52 or 53%, and it appears to be slowly trending up.

    I don’t know if “underwater” or “negative approval ratings” really captures the exact same thing as “the majority disapproves of you”. I’ve often seen things like 42 approval, 46 disapproval — that leaves a full 12% of the electorate on the fence going into an election. It’s a really bad spot to be, because the underwater President needs 3/4s of the “undecided” to swing his way when they have to vote.

    But it’s possible, and a systemic (if very lopsided) break of the neutrals/undecideds/whatevers could mitigate the damage. Converting 75% is real unlikely.

    But “unlikely” is different than where we are now. 53% disapproval means there is no path out. There is no way the undecideds (about 7 or 8% of the electorate, given the roughly 40% Trump approval) can break enough towards Trump to bring him even to parity, much less to a positive rating. His best possible outcome, with 100% of undecideds breaking his way, is roughly -4.

    Now Trump isn’t up for election, and while the mid-terms are seen as a referendum on the President and it does color the voting, I doubt sincerely there’s a 1 to 1 correspondence. Trump at 52% disapproval doesn’t make Ted Cruz at 52% disapproval, you know?

    But in terms of Trump’s drag on the ticket, has any President gone into a mid-term election with a majority disapproval? In recent history, I mean? (Last 40 or 50 years)?

    I can’t help but wonder if that might be a tipping point of some type, that might impact the polls more heavily than historical models suggest, because it’s not “Trump is 12 points underwater” (which is bad, bad news for the mid-term chances of his party. It’s “Trump is 12 points underwater and has a full majority against him. And it might be it sorta scales normally — where 40/52 is no different than 30/42.

    But I dunno. I can’t help but think “No percentage of undecideds gets him to 50%+1”. And maybe something odd happens there, when the majority disapproves of you. Maybe it tips the outcome more one way or the other. Maybe a lot, maybe a little.

    But I can’t help but wonder.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *