Why many voters may pull the lever for Hillary Clinton — and their local Republican candidate.
Republicans have made considerable gains over the past several cycles: They now control both houses of Congress and many lesser offices as well. In particular, the GOP controls 31 state legislatures while splitting power in an additional eight. Many of these seats are up again this year — and the fear is that, with the controversial and historically unpopular Donald Trump heading the ticket, it’s all endangered.
Conventional wisdom has it that voters don’t split their ticket anymore. They don’t vote for a president of one party and for the state assembly with another. Pundits point to statistics showing how ticket-splitting dwindled over the past several decades. We are too polarized; party identification is too strong.
But I think it’s precisely because of that polarization that we may see more ticket splitting this year. Ticket splitting has gone down because the parties have become more homogeneous. Whereas, in the past, it was common to have liberal northeastern Republicans and conservative Democrats, that’s no longer the case. Not a single Senate Republican voted for President Obama’s signature accomplishment — the Affordable Care Act. Likewise, there are now very few pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats.
During the period between 1968 and 1992, Republicans held the White House for all but one term (and even then, they lost by only 2 percent), including the blowouts of 1972 and 1984. But the Democrats held on to the House. Why was that? Because voters in the South had little affinity with the northern, urban, liberal wing of their party at the presidential level, but would vote for local Democrats. Many of those local Democrats were very similar on policy to the Republicans, especially on foreign policy. An example that comes to mind is Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas, who was a Democrat in the ’80s. He didn’t change, his party did.
Many of those local Democrats were very similar on policy to the Republicans, especially on foreign policy.
Donald Trump is running on a white-identity platform. He appeals to a different constituency than traditional Republicans. On many policy issues, such as foreign policy, legal immigration, trade, and the size of government, his views are at odds with the party he leads. Many prominent Republicans haven’t endorsed him. Even some of those that have distance themselves from him when they can. Meanwhile, Speaker Paul Ryan penned an op-ed criticizing President Obama’s progressive vision. The speaker has also presented a program in the House independent of both nominees. Perhaps Ryan is rearranging the chairs on the deck of a sinking ship — or maybe he’s preparing the lifeboat. Either way, it’s remarkable that the Republican party’s leader in Congress sometimes acts as if he’s in a different party than the Republican presidential nominee.
Recently, I’ve noticed that Nancy Pelosi has been trying to tie House Republicans to Trump’s worst comments. This makes sense for her, as her objective is to win back the speakership. But Hillary has taken a different stance. In her “alt-right” speech, she tried to appeal to Republicans by denouncing Trump as not part of their party, saying, “This is a moment of reckoning for every Republican dismayed that the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Trump.” Hillary may prefer a Democratic Congress but she certainly isn’t willing to risk losing over it.
There’s some evidence that voters see a difference between Donald Trump and other Republican officeholders. In six key states that have Senate races up as well, the Republican candidate for Senate is doing better than Trump. In fact, in only two of 53 polls was he not running behind the Republican Senate candidate. All of these polls are the same polls for both races; none are older than July. The below chart shows the average by which the Senate candidates’ showing improves over Trump’s.
Not all of these candidates are winning. And some of them may lose in November. But all are doing better than Trump, even the mediocre ones.
There’s an especially notable difference among minorities. One poll that got attention in July showed Trump winning just 1 percent of black voters in Missouri, with Hillary getting 96 percent. That same poll showed the Senate incumbent, Republican Roy Blunt, losing blacks 77 percent to 7. 7 percent — not great, but within the normal range for Republicans and not dissimilar to the Romney/McCain showing. Undecideds may swing to the Democrat, but until they do, a 70-point margin is actually a good sign.
Geoffrey Skelley, of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, tweeted the following poll results on Democratic margins among Hispanics in six states for the presidential race and the Senate races from Latino Decisions.
Maybe Marco Rubio in Florida and John McCain in Arizona had already expected to do well with this demographic. But take the example of North Carolina, where the incumbent is not particularly strong, or Nevada, where the Democrats are fielding a Hispanic candidate: There is still a very large difference between the Senate races and the presidential race. The one race that doesn’t show an improvement is Colorado, where the Republicans put up a very weak candidate for the Senate — and even there, he’s not doing worse. We have more data for Senate races than for other down-ballot races, but I think this evidence shows us that voters do separate between the nominee and other members of the party.
Anecdotally, I’ve met many people who will not be voting for Trump but will vote for Republicans otherwise. Connie, from suburban Cleveland, tells me she’s “one of those college-educated suburban women of whom you have heard,” who will be voting for Hillary but for Republicans for other offices. Her yard has signs for Republican senator Rob Portman and Marco Rubio (despite the fact that he’s not on her ballot), but also for Hillary Clinton. As this article from the Washington Post shows, she’s not alone.
Another factor to consider is the apparent strength of the Libertarian party this year. Why is Gary Johnson doing so well after getting just 1 percent of the vote in 2012? Because the Republicans nominated Donald Trump. It’s the only answer; Americans didn’t suddenly decide to become libertarian. Had the Republicans nominated a normal candidate, Johnson wouldn’t be doing as well and Mitt Romney would not be advocating his participation in the debates. Not only will we be seeing a lot of Hillary/Republican voters, it seems we can also expect to see Johnson/Republican votes.
Rob Portman in Ohio and Florida’s Marco Rubio are perhaps the best examples of the ticket-splitting trend. Neither has gone out of his way to repudiate Donald Trump (although I wish they had). What they seem to have accomplished is getting Trump’s voters (for Rubio, the exact same people who dashed his presidential hopes back in March), while at the same time holding on to the center. Both also have special strengths with certain constituencies, Portman with unions and Rubio with Hispanics.
Interestingly, Trump seems to be doing better in states that have strong Senate incumbents, like Florida, Iowa, and Ohio. It could be just happenstance, but a theory worth exploring is that voters in those states associate the Republican label with the local candidate, not with Trump. Call it a “reverse coattails” effect, if you will. This isn’t transferring 100 percent; as we’ve seen above, Portman and Rubio are doing a lot better than Trump is in their states.
Republicans shouldn’t be complacent about down-ballot races: The party brand is indeed tarnished. But there’s a lot of reason to believe that this year will see more ticket splitting than we’ve seen in a while. All of this, of course, assumes that Trump loses by a large margin. Hillary could still blow it. If she manages to lose, or if she wins only by a narrow margin, this whole discussion is probably moot — and even without ticket splitting, Republican losses can be contained.
— Jay Cobb is the founder, publisher, and editor in chief of the group blog The Buckley Club.
Editor’s Note: This article has been amended since its original publication.