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…
Live Streamed on October 2, 2023 2:00 PM ET
Episode 400: Inside The Numbers With The People's Pundit

LIVE at 2:00 PM EST — The RFK Effect in the Rust Belt and beyond. Plus, Pennsylvania auto-registration update and… How to beat Trump in a primary alludes everyone.

4Patriots Survival Food Kits
Enter Promo Code TPP10 to get 10% off all other orders!

Jam N’ Bean
Enter Promo Code TPP40 & GET 40% 1st subscription, 10% on renewals!

Support the Public Polling Project!

Not a Locals Supporter Yet?


September 28, 2023
Did Ron DeSantis "Ban Fracking" in Florida?

Nikki Haley claimed Ron DeSantis "banned fracking" during the second presidential debate last night. It's not totally fair, but there's absolutely truth to it.

Firstly, while running for governor, DeSantis’ promised on his campaign website to "work to ban fracking" in Florida:

"With Florida’s geological makeup of limestone and shallow water sources, fracking presents a danger to our state that is not acceptable. On Day 1, Ron DeSantis will advocate to the Florida Legislature to pass legislation that bans fracking in the state."

He signed Executive Order 19-12 two days after taking office directing the Department of Environmental Protection to "take necessary actions to adamantly oppose all off-shore oil and gas activities off every coast in Florida and hydraulic fracturing in Florida."

New oil and gas permits had to include provisions forbidding the use of fracking, but pre-approved fracking still occurs.

However, DeSantis' rebuttal claiming voters approved an amendment in 2018 banning...

Live Streamed on September 25, 2023 1:59 PM ET
September 25, 2023
Episode 398: Inside The Numbers With The People's Pundit

LIVE at 12:00 PM EST — Joe Kent on the budget fight, Ukraine and 2024! Plus, making sense of the polls, and more.

4Patriots Survival Food Kits
Enter Promo Code TPP10 to get 10% off all other orders!

Jam N’ Bean
Enter Promo Code TPP40 & GET 40% 1st subscription, 10% on renewals!

Support the Public Polling Project!

Not a Locals Supporter Yet?


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?
House Votes to Remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker

The Motion to Vacate the Office of Speaker passed 216 to 210 to. Kevin McCarthy has been ousted as speaker.

More than a 100 years ago, Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon, R-Ill., essentially dared the House to vote to vacate the chair, but he survived the vote.

Today, 8 Republicans joined Democrats to remove the House Speaker for the first time in U.S. history.

It's history.

1) If McCarthy acted on political weaponization, perhaps Trump wouldn't have been too busy, too unwilling to save him.

2) McCarthy and McConnell sabotaged MAGA in 2022 to avoid this very outcome.

Many trash Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to avoid discussing the real cause of dysfunction.

Republicans have a representation problem, i.e. they have none. They lie to get elected and ostracize anyone trying to keep promises.

No political party can survive NOT representing their voters.

Republican leadership and the vast majority of the elected conference in both chambers lie to get elected, then cave in the face of opposition from media ...

McCarthy Not Running for Speaker Again

McCarthy just told the conference he will not run again for Speaker. Walked in with a quit speech.

McCarthy's Final Words to the Republican Conference

Here are a few bites from what McCarthy told the Republican Conference in announcing he would not run for speaker again.

“The Democrats came to me to make a deal. I didn’t. I wasn’t going to make a deal. When a Republican leader works with the Democrats, it’s not best for our conference. When eight people work with the Democrats, it's not for the best of our conference.”

“I got to be the 55th speaker of the House of Representatives. But my goal had been to save the country. I love a lot of you, I saw your kids grow up. Those who stuck with me I'll never forget it. I want you to all go home and see your families.”

“When we come out of the next vote, let's elect that person on the first round. If i have to be the sacrifice, then so be it.”

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
post photo preview
Why Donald Trump Is Heavily Favored to Win the Republican Nomination
Trump Has Crossed Two Very Historically Significant Milestones

I'll be discussion this subject matter in a lot more detail in the coming days on Inside The Numbers, but it's noteworthy and needed to be introduced in an article on Locals. After all, Locals First!

Donald Trump has secured more than 60 endorsements from "elected" Republicans holding national and gubernatorial office. I've heard it's possible he'll get to 70 by the end of this week. Why does that matter, given he didn't win with endorsements in 2015-2016?

For starters, he did better with endorsements than most people realize. Many early backers were unconventional endorsements, i.e. celebrities, sports figures, etc. But that's not the central point. No candidate in over four decades has ever gone on to lose their party nomination with this many endorsements at this point.

Yes, even this early in the nomination process.

As I have stated over and over—despite what you hear from DeSantis supporters on Fox News and Twitter—it is not true early frontrunners do not end up securing their party nominations, especially not when you can arguably consider Trump an incumbent rather than a non-incumbent.

The former president is certainly a known quantity on the national stage and there is no uncertainty over whether he will weather the scrunity that comes from being a top-tier candidate, both being key benefits of incumbency. But let's pretend for this discussion that we cannot and do not consider him an incumbent.

Regarding the polling, it's a little more complicated, though we're dealing with the same flawed assumptions among DeSantis surrogates and the timeframe is technically the same. While it's true declared and potential candidates polling at around 20% at this point typically have a roughly 20% chance of winning the nomination, there are mitigating factors at play this time.

Trump's polling lead is not historically normal even for a frontrunner. His dominance in our latest poll is a strong indication people are digging in their heels, as are the interviews I monitor, mode-depending. Some of them I've shared with all of you during the live show. No non-incumbent candidate polling at or above 50% at this point has lost the nomination in the modern era.

Yes, even this early in the nomination process.

The oft-cited analogy to Rudy Giuliani is grossly flawed. He never polled at these levels and in truth struggled to hold even a third of the primary vote before he lost the lead and eventually the nomination. The same is true of the equally cited example of Hillary Clinton in 2008.

DeSantis' roughly 20% historical likelihood for prior candidates polling at roughly 20% is essentially rendered irrelevant by the fact Trump is at 50% or higher. The window to seize on an opportunity to consolidate anti-frontrunner support has all but closed, if it hasn't been shut altogether. It's no longer a question of persuading Trump-fatigued voters.

Now, Trump's primary opponent must change decided voters' minds, a far more difficult task.

The Republican primary electorate is not a general election electorate. Working class voters will play deciding roles in several key early states. In our latest poll, Trump now enjoys his largest lead yet among this group, an astonishing 54 points, or 64.8% to 10.9%. Among white working class, it's an eye-popping 58 points, 69.2% to 11.4%. To put it plainly, not enough of these voters are going to change their minds. His lead hasn't fallen below 30 points with this demographic to date.

That leaves the only viable path to defeating Trump one that requires dominating among college educated primary voters, which still requires a tightening among non-college voters. But even among college educated primary voters, Trump's support has steadily improved since January 2023. He now leads with college voters by a margin that mirrors his floor with non-college voters.

And it's not just the polling.

The endorsement milestone is significant because there are not one BUT two key indicators for predicting presidential nominations heavily favoring the former president. Endorsements tend to snowball, hence the major endorsement from NRSC Chair Senator Steve Daines of Montana.

That all being said, it's unclear what they will throw at this guy next. It's possible one of these ahistorical legal attacks finally land a blow. But the Limbaugh Rule has held for nearly 7 years, and we should all be very skeptical of any outside influence's ability to break the deep connection Trump has with Republican voters. If he remains loyal to them, there's little reason—as in, we have zero reason—to believe they won't remain loyal to him.

P.S. I've added more to the crosstabs for the Polling Project May 2023. It's linked below for supporters.

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