• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

Gaugingcatenate said:
I would agree NIMBY, if you cannot read and/or comprehend any better than cpwon't, best save your clicks.

I will give you a little for instance to whet your appetite until I have time to trounce his lame post thoroughly... ya see, he don't read so good.
Click to expand...

This from the man who couldn't be bothered to read his own articles.

You seem to be getting a high sniffing your own **** man, back off the stuff.
Click to expand...

Ah. The perennial complaint of the Pleb. Them Smart People Think They're All Smart And Stuff!!!

The coattail effect is the tendency for a popular political party leader to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election.
Click to expand...

No. The coattail effect is when a popular candidate boosts the performance of other members of his or her party, by turning out his party's base, by bringing in independents, by appealing to cross-over members of the other party, or some combination therein. Typically this impact is downticket, hence, "coat-tails" (as in, "they are hanging on his coat-tails"). This can be determined by relative performance. Because Presidential and Senatorial elections are increasingly mutually intertwined (interesting breakdown here), comparing the relative performance of the two is the best method for determining Presidential coat-tails. For example, Romney outran GOP Senate candidates by about 3 points - Romney had positive coat tails. Obama often suffers from a lack of coat-tails. Bill Clinton's coat-tails were strong enough that he could get his wife elected Senator in New York without even being on the ballot. In 2016, Trump ran behind the GOP Senators in most states, including the swing states. Nor was he personally popular - going into election day, Trump's favorability rating was upside down in the low-20s (this means that if you took the percentage of those who thought favorably of him, and subtracted those who thought unfavorably of him, the number you end up with averaged about negative 22. It means many more people thought badly of Trump than thought well of him).

THE ENTIRE ARTICLE GIVES CREDIT TO TRUMP
Click to expand...

I'm aware that you want this to be true. But we are pointing out to you that the math does not demonstrate that, and, in fact, suggests the opposite. You seem to have "Republican victory" confused with "Republican victory because of Trump's presence in the race".
 
NIMBY said:
Your focus is on three deep red southern states and their state legislatures with ZERO comparative numbers between trump and individual races.
Click to expand...


That's the key point, right there. As Senate and Presidential races are most strongly correlated, that's where you'd go to get the best numbers for comparative impact.
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Just a quick note. Romney got 4,000 more votes than trump in Wisconsin in 2012 and lost big. Yet trump won by 23, 000. 180,000 voted 3rd party this time compared to 40,000 last time. Johnson won his Senate seat by 100,000, far out-pacing trump. Since Finegold was a Sanders voter favorite, my conclusion is that Sanders voters didn't turn out. 97,000 less voters in Wisconsin in 2016 than in 2012 .
Click to expand...

Looking at the relative turnout broken down by county, as I understand it, that was common. Trump appealed to a narrow slice of crossovers, but Hillary seems to have depressed the Democrat base relative to Obama 08/12.
 
cpwill said:
[/B][/U]That's the key point, right there. As Senate and Presidential races are most strongly correlated, that's where you'd go to get the best numbers for comparative impact.
Click to expand...

One of my links only has trump numbers per congressional district for about 150 races so far. The green papers have numbers for all federal reps. Paul Ryan seemed pretty convinced of a trump House coattail effect but I can't prove it completely one way or another right now. Plus there's the factor of a number of reps who had no opposition .
 
NIMBY said:
Your focus is on three deep red southern states and their state legislatures with ZERO comparative numbers between trump and individual races.

My focus was on Federal races--34 Senate and 435 Representatives--WITH comparative numbers between trump and individual races. Which clearly show incumbent GOP Senators in five swing Obama states outpolling trump.

Too bad for the DEMs you weren't running the RNC .
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha, dude, you were way out, tho hardly alone, on a forlorn losers limb. And I am not writing a book for ya, either. Deed is done, done good by god.

Trump had coattails, undeniable, you just admitted it, you admitted it to begin with. I'd said our side, Republicans, were stronger down ballot because of Trump. Proved it. Do you really think I care what YOUR narrow focus is/was? My focus was on Republicans in general, be they states, dog catchers, fellow like minded, good Americans. Just used those southern states as easy representative examples. Truth of that which I had asserted. Trump helped us and we help him... and, despite the odds, despite the nay saying, he and we WON.

Bigly. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Massively, unarguably, indisputably.

As to your little perspective, tho, regarding Senators, they won WITH Trump. Some may well have won without him, but it wasn't them that broke the Blue Wall, it wasn't them that flipped all those "assured" for Hillary Great Lakes Blue states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, wasn't them that flipped all those formerly Democrat counties, wasn't them that beat Hillary by more than 70 electoral college votes, a landslide... that WAS all Trump.

Besides, you know as well as I, or maybe you don't, that the two major presidential candidates neither were incumbents, that most of the Senate were well known and established incumbents who in turn have a major advantage AND they were not in more than two party races like the presidential four plus way. Understanding that the other individuals, like the no name cpwon't chose to throw his vote away on, didn't really suck too many votes from the two majors, they just plain sucked. And you probably also know that some of the Republican Senate candidates who had overtly turned on Trump, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Heck and Mark Kirk... they lost. Right?

Ha ha ha yesiree, damned straight they lost, no chance for Trump's coattails for chumps.


Yeah, and fortunately for our side, people who think and feel like YOU were running the DNC and the Hillary campaign, ha ha ha. Ahhh, too bad, not sad, happy for the whole country. :2wave:
 
cpwill said:
This from the man who couldn't be bothered to read his own articles.



Ah. The perennial complaint of the Pleb. Them Smart People Think They're All Smart And Stuff!!!



No. The coattail effect is when a popular candidate boosts the performance of other members of his or her party, by turning out his party's base, by bringing in independents, by appealing to cross-over members of the other party, or some combination therein. Typically this impact is downticket, hence, "coat-tails" (as in, "they are hanging on his coat-tails"). This can be determined by relative performance. Because Presidential and Senatorial elections are increasingly mutually intertwined (interesting breakdown here), comparing the relative performance of the two is the best method for determining Presidential coat-tails. For example, Romney outran GOP Senate candidates by about 3 points - Romney had positive coat tails. Obama often suffers from a lack of coat-tails. Bill Clinton's coat-tails were strong enough that he could get his wife elected Senator in New York without even being on the ballot. In 2016, Trump ran behind the GOP Senators in most states, including the swing states. Nor was he personally popular - going into election day, Trump's favorability rating was upside down in the low-20s (this means that if you took the percentage of those who thought favorably of him, and subtracted those who thought unfavorably of him, the number you end up with averaged about negative 22. It means many more people thought badly of Trump than thought well of him).



I'm aware that you want this to be true. But we are pointing out to you that the math does not demonstrate that, and, in fact, suggests the opposite. You seem to have "Republican victory" confused with "Republican victory because of Trump's presence in the race".
Click to expand...

Straining too hard to make what you tried to assert true.

Merriam Webster = the influence or pulling power of a popular movement or person (as a political candidate)

dictionary.com = The tendency for a popular political party leader to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election. For example, the party of a victorious presidential candidate will often win many seats in Congress as well; these congressmen are voted into office “on the coattails” of the president.

about.com = In politics, the "coattail effect" describes the what happens when a very popular candidate -- usually for President -- helps sweep other members of his party into office.

Nowhere in those definitions does it say the candidate has to out poll all other candidates of his party that he helps. There are a lot of factors that go into why a candidate down ticket may have better numbers. Advantages of incumbency, ill matched and much weaker opponents than at the presidential level, more opponents dividing the vote... sorry, you get no pass on that far beyond the definition attempt.

I read my articles, YOU didn't... or if you did, wow. Listen, I am sure they have reading comprehension assistance locally. I just hope you can find your way home after dark. Suggestion: Buy a flashlight.

Pleb, eh? And you are supposed to be the Elitist in this equation, I am guessing? The one so far off on polling, on who would and should become president, the one making such dire predictions of disaster before and after, gloom theory that once called out on by, you know, a Pleb, you quickly walked it back. Yeah yeah yeah, too comical.

Done here. Dude, your thinking is so far off the path, you better get a map. Or if you are reading this in braille, a good guide dog might be helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom