Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
So says Alan Abramowitz, in Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:
In recent years, there has been a very close connection between voting for presidential candidates and voting for House and Senate candidates. There is less ticket splitting and more party-line voting than at any time since the 1950s. So if either President Obama or the Republican nominee wins a decisive victory in the presidential election, the winning candidate’s party should benefit from a coattail effect in the House and Senate elections.
A decisive Obama victory could help Democrats make substantial gains in the House and help them limit their losses in the Senate while a decisive Republican victory in the presidential election could help Republicans make substantial gains in the Senate and limit their losses in the House. Either of these scenarios could result in a wave election. On the other hand, a very close presidential election could increase the likelihood of a status quo congressional election with only modest Democratic gains in the House and only modest Republican gains in the Senate.
Which makes sense, I think. But it also makes me nervous, because like a lot of others, I think it's important to retake the senate. And having a lackluster field of candidates challenging Obama doesn't make me any less nervous. It may come down to this:
Regardless of who wins the presidential election, though, it is highly unlikely that Democrats will make large enough gains in the House to regain control of that chamber and that Republicans will simultaneously make large enough gains in the Senate to regain control of that chamber. Either one of these scenarios is possible, but the chances of both occurring in the same election are minimal because Senate and House elections are both affected by the same national political forces.
So that's something to add into the calculation: which candidate currently running for president is more likely to achieve a "decisive" victory?
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
The Democrats have a lot more Senate exposure this year than in years past, and a lot of clunkers, to boot. What's the possibility of the opposite being the case, that is, strong Republican Senate candidates pulling the top of the ticket across the finish line as well as insulating the House races? Here in Illinois that won't be the case, so we here in the Prairie State cast our eyes elsewhere for salvation.
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
I'd actually argue it's more important to have the Senate than the White House for the next four years. But that's something I'd have to write out in a post at some point!
Sep '10
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
Wisconsin could easily see a split ticket.
The Senate race is likely to come down to popular ex Governor (and noted RINO squish) Tommy Thompson and a marxist US Representative from Madison (Tammy Baldwin). It is almost impossible for me to see a scenario in which Obama's coattails are long enough to carry a Madison radical across the finish line.
Sep '10
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
It seems to me that Obama won a great many independants last time by being vague and because of his race. Now that they've made themselves feel good about electing an African American and one hopes a few of them are somewhat disillusioned about the "newness" of refurbished keyensian welfare-statism...well I can imagine that nobody in this catagory would be as likely to answer a poll in the negative than they would be to simply not show up next time, so this give me hope even though I would use the phrase I heard regarding the US equity market to describe Mitt Romney and his campaign..."the best looking horse in the glue factory"
Aug '11
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
Current Occupant with a GOP Senate and House?
vs.
GOP White House with Democrat Senate and GOP House?
I'll take the former. Imagine "President Romney" working with a Democrat-controlled Senate, . . . and shudder.
May '10
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
The midwest is the battleground for this coming election. Republicans will surprise there because of the worries over EU troubles and Barry's inability to deal with them. Midwesterners have figured out that he is no friend to job creation.
Look for President Romney and the Republican Congress to repeal Obamacare and for Romney to nominate 2 SC justices in his first term. I'm looking at you, Janice Rogers Brown.
Don't underestimate Romney (and I am no great fan of his) but he has been acting like a long-term investor...willing to look RINO squishy in order to own the independents come November. He's a buy-and-hold kind of guy. And Michelle Antoinette's latest "let them eat pineapple" gaffes are hurting the last untouched popularity of his administration. Don't underestimate her hen-pecking, self-righteous attitude and it's unpopularity with female voters.
Edited on Dec 27, 2011 at 7:55amJan '11
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
Rob Long:
So that's something to add into the calculation: which candidate currently running for president is more likely to achieve a "decisive" victory? ·
Conventional wisdom tells us that Romney is the guy. But conventional wisdom is sometime wrong on matters. I honestly believe that Ron Paul would siphon votes from the middle, more than making up for the Republicans who who vow to sit on their hands while throwing their tantrums if Paul should become 'the guy' who represents.
Yes, Paul's foreign policy stances are nuttier than squirrel excrement but I am sure that if the congress were to decide to get behind a true declaration of war [or even an authorization to use force; like in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan] -- with Iran, for example -- Paul would prosecute the war ably. And, really, shouldn't the U.S. get back in the habit of congressional declarations of wars and stop ceding so much power to the executive branch?
Dec '10
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
Have down ticket races ever driven turnout or excitement before? Can a great slate of senate and house contenders carry the victory for an unexciting or problematic presidential candidate? We're doomed.
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
It's relatively simple. If the economy accelerates meaningfully in 2012, we lose. End of story. If we keep the House it will be a victory. If the economy deteriorates appreciably from where it is today, virtually any Republican will win, and we will likely pick up the Senate regardless of who the nominee is. But if the economy keeps limping along -- a little good news here, a little bad news there, modest growth, not much change in unemployment -- then the nominee matters. In this scenario, I don't see any of the current crop beating the Big O decisively. A narrow win or narrow loss probably doesn't affect the Senate battle in any meaningful way. The question is -- who carries the least risk of losing decisively enough to lengthen the odds of recapturing the Senate? Pending new news or further developments, I still think the answer is Mittens.
Dec '10
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
Still feels like trying to bunt the runner in instead of swinging for the fences. And isn't it premature to be planning our strategy for the best loss we can achieve?
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
The King Prawn
Still feels like trying to bunt the runner in instead of swinging for the fences. And isn't it premature to be planning our strategy for the best loss we can achieve? · Dec 27 at 1:47pm
Sure. But when you don't have any home run hitters on your team -- they're either injured or holding out -- sometimes bunting the guy home is the best strategy you've got. Agree that we need more home run hitters, and we need the ones we've got to play. But right now they're not.
Apr '11
Re: Winning the Senate Means Winning the White House
It'll be an exciting race. The Obama first term has been an interesting and exciting time. I'm happy to be focused on that.
I think that people down ticket will be even happier. The same commercials that killed in 2010 (Essentially "My opponent may seem like a great guy, but I have photographic evidence that he once shook the President's hand") will work again in 2012 if we don't have a more colorful alternative making Obama look reasonable.
Fwiw, my order for coat-tails is Mitt>Perry>Bachmann>Santorum>Newt. Paul and Huntsman's problems are different; both dislike the party and are poor team players. As such, we'd be more likely to see an Ike phenomenon where a popular GOP President meant death to his party. See also Clinton until Newt cured his electoral problem.
Edited on Dec 27, 2011 at 7:13pm