Political Connections

The GOP’s Uphill Senate Climb

The decline in ticket-splitting will make it hard for Republicans to hold the chamber.

AP Photo/David Smith
Ronald Brownstein
Add to Briefcase
Ronald Brownstein
Aug. 31, 2016, 8 p.m.

Holding the Senate was always an uphill climb for Republicans this year because they are defending so many more seats than Democrats. But Donald Trump’s polarizing candidacy is converging with long-term shifts in voting patterns to make the hill even steeper.

Since the 1970s, the share of voters who split their tickets—supporting one party for president and the other in Senate races—has steadily declined. If that pattern persists in November, Republicans will likely lose their slim upper-chamber majority because the most competitive Senate races are clustered in blue or purple states where Trump faces the greatest resistance. To maintain control, Republicans will need either a dramatic Trump recovery in states such as Illinois and Wisconsin—or to convince more voters to split their ballots in Senate races than either side has typically persuaded lately. Neither will be easy.

In one respect, Democrats have helped Republican candidates to escape any Trump undertow. Although some individual Senate candidates have linked their opponents to the blustery nominee, Hillary Clinton has mostly chosen not to tie Trump to conservative thought but rather to define him as a fringe departure from it. Republicans are hopeful that will help conservative-leaning voters who can’t stomach Trump revert to their usual party loyalties in Senate races. “Voters are [receiving] multiple messages telling them that you can vote a different way down the ticket,” says Alex Lundry, cofounder of the GOP voter-targeting firm Deep Root Analytics.

But those messages are competing against a long-term evolution in voters’ behavior that has made it tougher for all senators to survive in effect behind enemy lines—in states that usually prefer the other party for president. As party-line voting inside Congress has reached near-parliamentary levels, voters have responded by treating congressional elections less as a choice between individuals and more as a parliamentary-style referendum on which side they prefer to control the majority.

That’s a big change from even the 1970s and 1980s, when conservative Democratic senators still dominated Southern states stampeding toward the GOP in presidential elections, just as moderate Republican senators thrived in coastal states trending toward the Democrats. In the modern apex of cross-pressured voting, fully 28 percent of voters supported one party’s presidential nominee and the other’s Senate candidate during Richard Nixon’s 1972 landslide, according to data from the National Election Studies analyzed by Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Since then, as Abramowitz has calculated, the share of voters who back one party for president and the other for Senate has fallen relentlessly. It declined to 23 percent on average during the 1980s, 16 percent across Bill Clinton’s two races, 13 percent in 2008, and just 10 percent in 2012.

With fewer voters dividing their loyalties, Senate results have increasingly followed the presidential map. After the reelection victories of both Richard Nixon (in 1972) and Ronald Reagan (in 1984), Republicans controlled only about half the Senate seats in the states that voted for each man twice. After President Obama’s reelection, Democrats held more than four-fifths of the Senate seats in the 26 states that backed him twice (although the party lost some of those seats in 2014).

That history is especially relevant this year because Republicans are defending seven (of the 11 total) Senate seats they still hold in the two-time Obama states. Of those, Clinton is solidly leading in Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire; the Democratic Senate nominees also lead in those states. The presidential race is much closer in Iowa, Ohio, and Florida—where the Democrats’ Senate prospects are also cloudier.

The final margin between Clinton and Trump will shape all of these contests. In 2012, exit polls showed that about 85 percent or more of both Obama and Mitt Romney voters also supported their party’s Senate candidates in almost every competitive state. Recent public polling shows that at least 82 percent of Clinton and Trump supporters are also backing their party’s Senate candidate in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Florida, as well as in North Carolina which Obama won once. (Those numbers are likely to rise by Election Day because they still include undecided voters.) If Trump slips further, these dynamics suggest that he could endanger GOP senators in Arizona and Missouri.

Some talented, or well-entrenched, politicians have always defied these patterns and more undoubtedly will in 2016. Public polls show Republican Sens. Rob Portman in Ohio and Chuck Grassley in Iowa drawing large crossover votes from Clinton backers and leading comfortably overall. Conversely, former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh leads in Indiana despite Trump’s solid advantage there. Still, it’s more common now for attitudes toward the presidential nominees (or incumbent president) to tip close Senate races.

If Trump can’t close the gap, Republicans will likely encourage more ticket splitting by explicitly urging voters to maintain a GOP Senate as a check on Clinton. Republicans raised that argument with some success late in Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory, and party strategists hope it may resonate again with ordinarily Republican college-educated white voters who dislike both Trump and Hillary Clinton. “Those are precisely the voters … who could split their tickets this year,” said the GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

But Jim Jordan, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says those voters are equally likely to be “pretty disgusted” by the refusal of most Republican candidates to renounce Trump—or may simply stay home if the presidential race looks decided. Most Republican candidates have tied themselves in knots to separate, but not break, from their tempestuous nominee. After all those contortions, many may still find their fate uncomfortably intertwined with his.

What We're Following See More »
DOESN’T RULE OUT FUTURE CASES
Supreme Court Punts Gerrymandering Cases
33 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"The Supreme Court on Monday passed up its two opportunities this term to rule on when and whether states violate the Constitution by drawing electoral maps that sharply favor one political party." In a dispute over Maryland's congressional map, the Supreme Court "upheld a district court judge’s decision not to grant a preliminary injunction" blocking the map. In the Wisconsin case Gill v. Whitford, the justices ruled that Democratic voters lacked standing to challenge the redrawn electoral boundaries at the Supreme Court. Seven justices
"agreed to give the challengers another shot at making their case in the lower courts."

Source:
ALSO RUSSIA, CYPRUS CONCERNS
Ross Still Has Stake in Chinese Companies
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross failed to keep his promise to divest from his company holdings upon entering government, a Forbes investigation has found. Ross reportedly kept his stakes in companies co-owned by the Chinese government, a firm linked to Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, and a Cyprus bank caught up in the Robert Mueller investigation. Forbes reports that Ross’s family continued to have an interest in these holdings while he dealt with China and Russia in his official role, even while knowing that his family’s fortunes were linked to the countries. Although the arrangements appear to be legal, Forbes says Ross may have broken the law by submitting a sworn statement to officials in November saying he divested of everything he promised he would. His spokesperson said Ross did not lie and has filed amended paperwork.

Source:
MORE LEEWAY FOR GENERALS
Pentagon Greenlights Offensive Cyberattacks
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Pentagon has quietly empowered the United States Cyber Command to take a far more aggressive approach to defending the nation against cyberattacks, a shift in strategy that could increase the risk of conflict with the foreign states that sponsor malicious hacking groups." The policy change empowers the command to conduct cyberattacks against adversaries, including "nearly daily raids" against enemy networks and "non-kinetic" attacks against military targets. The purpose of the change, according to policy documents, is to “contest dangerous adversary activity before it impairs our national power" and to impel adversaries to "shift resources to defense and reduce attacks.”

Source:
“WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING”
Border Patrol Chief Weighs In On Family Separation
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Manuel Padilla, the Border Patrol chief for the Rio Grande Valley, expressed his desire to CBS News for action to be taken to address family separation at the border. Separations have spiked under the Trump Administration's "zero-tolerance" policy. "We created this situation by not doing anything," Padilla said, arguing that previous immigration policy had created a "vacuum" for other families to attempt to cross the border.

Source:
MCCONNELL WANTS A TREATY
Senators Want to Rubber Stamp Any North Korean Deal
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"As Trump signed a joint statement with Kim Jong Un that offered few details on how the North Korean leader would make good on his vow to denuclearize, Republicans on Capitol Hill said Tuesday that they want and expect the White House to submit any final agreement for their approval." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for any agreement to be in the form of a treaty.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login