News • Politics • Culture
No, Trump's Presence In The Midterms Is Not "Risky" For The GOP
Without Trump, The GOP Struggles To Turnout Voters
September 05, 2022
Guest contributors: PeoplesPundit
post photo preview

How short our collective political memories are. Here we are in September, and many of the same arguments we've heard for the last three cycles are resurfacing just in time to influence the narrative before the pivot to the post-Labor Day period.

Unsurpringly, it's coming from the usual suspects.

Let's address some of those specifically, most notably a few arguments outlined by Nate Silver.

"Upset Democratic special election wins in Alaska and New York over the past two weeks are the latest sign that the political environment might be unusual for a midterm election."

Nonsense. Total nonsense.

In the Alaska at-large special election, the advantage in Republican primary vote share was twice the margin Trump won the state with in 2020, and dwarfed the 36.8% total Democratic primary share of the vote.

As all these "forecasters" know, this was the first time the state implemented rank choice voting. The referendum was pushed by a coalition of Democrats and Establishment Republicans desperately manuevering to insulate incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski from certain primary defeat at the hands of Trump-endorsed Kelly Tshibaka.

It worked, plain and simple, and more than 60% of Alaskan voters will now be representated by someone they otherwise never would've voted for, even if it is only for a few months.

It might be convienant for a liberal analyst cheering on Democrats to cite Mary Peltola's win as an example of "Republicans losing steam" or Trump being "risky for the GOP", but it's also extremely dishonest.

As far as NY-19, we'll come back to that in a bit.

"The past four special elections — two in New York, one in Alaska and one in Minnesota — all occurred after the seizure on Aug. 8, and they all showed excellent results for Democrats. And Democrats have actually gained about a point on the generic ballot since then, although it’s a small enough difference that it could be statistical noise."

Let's first deal with the polling.

Perhaps Democrats are gaining. But says who, the pollsters who routinely overstate Democratic support on the generic ballot, most recently in 2020 and 2018?

The RealClearPolitics final average for the House vote was Democrats +6.8% in 2020. That polling fueled a "consensus" narrative among forecasters expecting Democrats to expand their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives by as many as 15 seats.

How many seats did they win in 2020?

They lost 13 seats, including those rated Leans and Likely Democrat by Cook Political Report and 538. The Democratic advantage in the House vote was less than half the polling average.

In fact, in only three cycles—1986, 1990 and 2018—did Democrats NOT underperform their support indicated by the generic ballot. Further, in only one of those cycles Democrats outperformed, which was in 1990, albeit by a lousy two points. In 1986, the polling was right on the money. In 2018, the 1-point lead for Republicans published by Rasmussen Reports averaged down the Democratic edge in the RealClearPolitics final average. Without it, overstated 13-point leads for Democrats published by CNN and the Los Angeles Times would've almost assuredly resulted in another underperformance.

Democratic Midterm Vote Share vs. Generic Ballot Polls

There are only a few of us who have not blown these races cycle after cycle, Big Data Poll among them. The most recent national survey we conducted at Big Data Poll did in fact find a narrowing lead for Republicans, 42.5% to 41.2%. But that wasn't fueled by increased support for Democrats on the generic ballot, but rather decreased support for Republicans as more GOP-leaning voters moved to "undecided" or out of the likely voter screen, altogether.

None of this even begins to address the issue of summer response bias favoring Democrats before Labor Day. It's real, everyone knows that it is, and yet we are subjected to these overblown conclusions each and every election cycle. 

By the way, Donald Trump led Joe Biden by nearly 5 points—44.4% to 39.5%—in that very same national survey. Trump's outperformance of Generic Republicans and nominees has been consistent not only in our polling, but in other, reliably accurate firms.

In Pennsylvania, the CD Media Big Data Poll found Trump leading Biden 46.6% to 40.0%, while GOP gubernatorial and senatorial candidates ranged from 40.0% to 43.2%. In Georgia, Trump is outperforming GOP candidates by an even larger margin. Emerson College found the same disparity in both states, as well.

And there in lays the major problem with this narrative.

While we certainly see red flags for Republicans, we see other variables being the cause of it.

Put bluntly, elections in which Trump has not played a signfiicant role, Republican enthusiasm and turnout, thus overall electoral performance, has suffered.

"When that seizure occurred, a certain strain of conventional wisdom suggested that this could help Republicans in the midterms, such as by increasing the enthusiasm of GOP voters.2

If that’s true, it’s not showing up in the data."

First, notice how this analysis convienantly omits the historically high turnout in post-raid Republican primaries in Wyoming and Wisconsin.

In the former, normal turnout in the neighborhood of 100,000 votes swelled to more than 170,000. In the latter, what was believed to be a close proxy race pitting Trump against Mike Pence, ended up not at all that close. Trump-endorsed Tim Michels fairly easily defeated the Pence-endorsed former popular lieutenant governor, and Republican turnout increased by nearly 20% to 53% of the total two-party turnout, a reversal from 2018 when Democratic primary votes made up 53% of total turnout.

Furthermore, I reject the example of the MN-01, outright.

In 2018, Democrats outvoted Republicans in the primary districtwide, but not in 2022. In the special election, Republican Brad Finstad won the special and increased the GOP vote share to 51.1% juxtaposed to 48.6% in 2020, 50.1% in 2018, 49.6% in 2016, and 45.7% in 2014.

It's true Trump won the district by a larger margin in 2020, but that's exactly the point. He was not involved in that race, as was the case in NY-19.

Marc Molinaro ran a typical Republican campaign. Turnout suffered because of it and other factors, not because of Trump, who only lost it by 1.5% (49.8% to 48.3%). Yet, Molinaro still only lost by a point in a district the prior Democratic incumbent won by nearly 12 points with more than 350,000 votes, 52.5% to 42.9%. Only about 130,000 voters participated in the special, with the "missing" voters being from more working class precincts.

The Democratic-leaning "analysts" reading into NY-19 are beginning to remind me a little of Republican wishful-thinkers surrounding GA-06 in 2017. While Karen Handel managed to fend off John Ossoff in the special election, Republicans were unwilling to acknowledge the predictive value of the swing in the margin, itself.

Also worth noting, Republicans were at a structural disadvantage given Democrats were holding two primaries in the absense of a single GOP primary, which partly explains the closer-than-expected result in NY-23. Dutchess County, which voted for Biden in 2020, was the one area in which there was a Republican primary, and Molinaro swung it Republican.

For the last three cycles, we've had to suffer through similar narratives disguised as election analysis. Without Trump, the GOP would've lost their majority in the U.S. Senate in the last midterm election cycle. Judging by primary and special election pariticpation rates when he's not holding their hand, it's become crystal clear they are unable to motivate key voting blocs without him.

Perhaps that's what Nate Silver and others hope to help Democrats accomplish.

Nevertheless, in comparing congressional vote shares to presidential vote shares in Minnesota, ignoring entire key races and engaging in other statistical contortions, the left-leaning forecast crowd is hoping we don't notice they're falling back on apples to oranges because it's convienant, not because it's predictive.

community logo
Join the PEOPLE'S PUNDIT Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
MSNBC Focus Group on Georgia Voters Revealing, Confirmation

Hey folks,

Thought this was particularly relevant. As I've been saying, it seems to me that these indictments made Donald Trump more relatable to not only white working class who feel abused, but naturally non-white voters who know the abuses of the state better than most.

Listen to this...

Estimates for Trump Rally in Wildwood are Massive

"On May 11, 2024, a rally for Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign in Wildwood, New Jersey, drew a crowd estimated between 80,000 and 100,000 attendees, marking it as the largest political rally in the state's history. The event featured endorsements from notable figures, including NFL Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor, who publicly switched his political allegiance from Democrat to Republican, citing his meeting with Trump as the reason. The rally was widely discussed on social media, with supporters sharing images and expressing enthusiasm for Trump's policies and the significant turnout."

Holy moly. On Friday, I said during the show that 40,000 would be enormous for a Trump rally in Wildwood, New Jersey.

Folks, holy moly.

Chris Christie Caught on Hot Mic: Nikki Haley "Gonna Get Smoked"

NeverTrump stepped on their own moment!

Chris Christie was caught on a hot mic ahead of his expected announcement that he's dropping out of the presidential race saying of Nikki Haley, "she's gonna get smoked, and you and I both know it."

"She's not up for this."

He further mentions before it drifts off that Ron DeSantis called him "petrified that I would..." AND it fades as they realize the mic is hot.

H/T The Recount

Barnes and Baris Episode 29: What Are the Odds?

Watch Live 3:00 PM EST — Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss in detail bombshell results within the Public Polling Project for Early Spring 2021, and more civil unrest amid the trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.

Support the Public Polling Project

Locals Communities​​​​​​​​

Like on Facebook

Follow on Twitter​​​​​​​​

Theme Song: "Highway" By Grammy Considered Bowen Band

Barnes and Baris Episode 29: What Are the Odds?
Hulk Hogan is just pure awesome

Holy shlit he just ripped off the shirt and there was a Trump/Vance shirt under it. Lmao! Bruh, too good.

Trump Made the Republican Party Cool Again

Trump's mantra should've been "Make the Republican Party Cool Again" because that's what he's done.

He turned a boring gather of a bunch of stale, crusty old white men into a multi-racial love fest with Kid Rock and the Hulkster.

Biden Is going to survive it would appear

Stand by...

post photo preview
How Trump's Union Support Could Prove Vital in 2024
Trump's Rank-and-File Roundtable with Teamsters Is Smart and Fitting
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump met privately with Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien ahead of a rank-and-file roundtable this month. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the influential labor organization said it was "an in-depth and productive discussion on worker issues most important to the Teamsters Union."
“There are serious issues that need to addressed to improve the lives of working people across the country, and the Teamsters Union is making sure our members’ voices are heard as we head into a critical election year,” O’Brien said. “We thank the former President for taking time during this private meeting to listen to the Teamsters’ top priorities. And we are eager to bring together the rank-and-file for an important and necessary roundtable with President Trump this month.”
Democratic users and influencers on the social media site were quick to criticize the union in a flurry of replies and quote reposts. But while X is "real" as opposed to "fake" in a broader context, it is hardly representative of an electorate or even an organization.
So, what does the data say about the viability of this potential relationship?
In 2016, the then-Republican nominee for president did very well with unions, more specifically private sector unions. National Exit Polls (NEP) conducted by Edison Research found Hillary Clinton carried union households by just 5 points, 51% to 46%. President Trump carried all non-union households by a 6-point margin, 48% to 42%.
But in 2020, Democrats leaned on leadership to put the screws to rank-and-file members, much like they are in the replies here, and union support for the then-incumbent eroded. In our most recent poll conducted in December, all union households told us they voted for President Biden over President Trump 57.5% to 36.6%, a nearly identical margin (56% to 40%) published by the exit polls. Given subgroup sampling errors are higher, it's more than safe to concede the result is representative.
In addition to collecting surface-level data on union versus non-union households, BIG DATA POLL also collects data by union type: public, private, and both (dual). For the record, non-union voters back President Trump over President Biden 52.5% to 47.5% after essentially splitting their vote in 2020, a result also identical to the exit polls.
Private sector unions who claimed to have voted for President Biden 54.6% to 37.0% now only back him 51.5% to 48.5%, a significantly narrower margin fueled by both a decline in support for the current president and a significant gain in support for the former. The margin among all union households is starting to more closely resemble 2016 than 2020. Considering the survey overstated support for the Democratic candidate, there is a good argument to make that President Trump is now performing even stronger against President Biden than he did against Mrs. Clinton among union households.
While public sector union voters obviously are more likely to maintain support for President Biden—still backing him 57.8% to 42.2%—his advantage is slightly narrower than the 59.6% to 36.9% edge he held over the former president in 2020. Moreover, dual households actually break for President Trump 53.1% to 46.9%, though sample size for this subgroup is small. Undecideds voters from all three household types actually break for the 45th President when leaned.
President Trump has reportedly committed to another roundtable sit down with rank-and-file Teamsters, General President O’Brien, and General Secretary-Treasurer Fred Zuckerman in January. The event will be held at the Teamsters’ international headquarters in Washington, D.C. Despite what social media interactions might suggest, the data clearly indicates this is a no-brainer.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has more than 1 million members nationally and a not-so insignificant number in several key battleground states. Further, the organization has known its fair share of government persecution, fair and unfair. Politics make strange bedfellows and we've seen stranger. But in this case, a potential relationship would not only seem to be a good fit, but a politically smart move.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Polling Misinformation Alert: 'Unskew' the Polls Returns
Partisans Desperate to Explain Away Pro-Trump Trends Violate Key Industry Norms

Watching people attempt to "unskew" polls conducted by all walks of this industry—ranging from Nate Cohn at The New York Times to Spencer Kimball at Emerson College to Tim Malloy at Quinnipiac—all to deny Donald Trump's gains against Joe Biden with various voting blocs, is more than a little sad.

The slew of recent polls over two weeks—to include no less than four today alone—have simply confirmed prior findings published from other pollsters who have previously been "unskewed". That includes your's truly and our work at BIG DATA POLL, Mark Penn at Harvard University, Patrick Ruffini at Echelon Insights, and many others.

I'm temped to equate this with an Occam's razor-like situation. But this debate is more about likelihood than simplicity.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
A Commentary on the Presidential Vote Preference Trend, 2020 - Present
Biden v. Trump in 2024 is NOT the Same Race as 2020

Here's the Presidential Vote Preference Trend for Biden v. Trump going back to August 2020. The Public Polling Project did not begin asking the Rematch Question for 2024 until September 2021. However, we can still make some pretty important and interesting observations.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals