- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,655
- Reaction score
- 39,918
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.
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.
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
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".