Whose Coattails Would Be Longer in 2016 and Why?

[MineralMan]

During the primary election season, we spend a lot of time discussing the attributes of the candidates for the Democratic nomination. We spend less time talking about something that is equally important: How will we do in the general election races for the House and Senate, along with state legislative races?

No President can accomplish much if he or she has to deal with a Congress that has majority control of the opposition party. We count on our nominee to help build turnout for House and Senate seats. Winning majorities in a least one house of Congress is crucial. Right now, both houses are controlled by Republicans.

So how will the two leading primary candidates do as the nominee on that score? What do you think, and why? As someone whose primary focus in elections is on legislative races, it's one of the issues that is central to my support for a presidential candidate.

Which candidate will do the best job in regaining control of the Senate? Which candidate will help gain seats in the House, since it's very unlikely that we can capture a majority there? Why do you think your presidential primary candidate is the better choice on that issue?

It's a matter of turnout, to a large degree, but there are other factors, including congressional relationships and many other influences. And don't forget the state legislatures. They can turn on a dime in many states, which have very close margins for majorities.

Let's talk about this, shall we?

[Scootaloo]

1. Sanders

If we just take everyone at their word, we can assume the majority of democrats will vote for the nominee, whoever it is. So that raises the question of who brings more people from outside that core to the table?

That is, without a doubt, Bernie sanders. His campaign is bringing in first-time registrations, appealing to "Independents," revitalizing those Democrats who say "the party left me" and is pulling in the Left as well. There's some evidence of crossover appeal with Republican voters as well; 2% is a small number, but we've had elections decided by 0.3% so...

With all these people coming to the polls to vote for a staunchly liberal candidate, there's a higher chance of affecting the down-ticket in a like manner. More people on the "liberal" side voting means more liberal candidates winning.

Clinton simply lacks that appeal with the "outside." There's very little connection with independents or disaffected, the Left isn't a big fan, and there is absolutely no party crossover for her. Her support is almost completely made of people who could be termed "party loyalists," and while that might work as a Primary strategy, it's a good way to lose the general - ask Mondale, who was wildly popular in the Primaries, and collapsed in the GE.

[MineralMan]

7. Interesting, but speculative.

Predicting turnouts is difficult. I have no real expertise in that area. I did watch as candidate Obama turned out a number of demographic groups in large numbers in 2008. Sanders appears to have strong popularity with millennials, but their potential turnout numbers remain unknown. He may also be somewhat less popular with other demographic groups than Clinton, who also has appeal with many millennials. I don't see millennials voting en bloc, really. They aren't necessarily uniform in their support for issues, and that support is still untested to some degree.

As for crossover voting, an argument can be made for Clinton pulling a large group of moderate Republican women into her camp in the GE. That, too, is an untested possibility. The leftmost group of Democratic voters is also a difficult demographic group to predict, since they show up for elections almost as if by whim sometimes. We may learn more about this once the Iowa caucuses and NH primary is over and the number can be analyzed.

Other issues have moved into play, particularly international worries stimulated by an increase in focus on terrorism. International economic issues may also come to the forefront, depending on how the current economic conditions that have been strongly affected by Asian economic problems. How that will affect the November election is still impossible to determine, but it may be a factor in turnout as well.

Issues of social justice, too, have the potential to bring out a pool of voters who don't always turn out. Clinton's support in minority communities of color is strong, but it's unclear how much that will affect actual turnout, and the primary elections won't necessarily give us clues about that, especially in the two earliest states. Both have 90%+ white populations, so it will be difficult to judge how other states will react.

Looking at congressional endorsements from Democrats, Clinton has a distinct edge. There's also a reverse coattails effect in states with Democratic House and Senate members. This will probably be felt most in primary elections, where early endorsements may have more impact than most people realize. Clinton's strong positive relationship with current Democratic incumbents is a strong point, and will help her with people who consistently turn our for primaries.

There's a lot of talk about "enthusiasm" for Sanders, but not a lot about actual numbers of enthusiastic supporters who will show up during the primaries. If it's not enough for Sanders to prevail in many states, then that group may well not show up at the GE. I don't know and it's difficult to predict.

Depending on who the Republican nominee turns out to be, that may also be a factor in turnout. If the nominee is someone who is an ultra conservative, which seems likely, or an abject moron like Trump, I can see a strong turnout as a negative reaction to the nominee.

We may get some clues from primary turnouts, but not really until Super Tuesday, when more diverse states will have more representation.

[Scootaloo]

18. The premise of your OP is to speculate about the GE

So please don't wag your finger at me for doing exactly that.

It's pretty clear now that you had a "correct answer" in mind, and it must absolutely be your candidate. Why even fucking bother?

[MineralMan]

19. I wouldn't waste a bit of energy "wagging my finger" at you.

So, tell me why Bernie Sanders will have longer coattails than Hillary Clinton. That's the question I've asked. That's the topic of this thread. I'm not "wagging" anything at you. You can respond or not respond. It's your choice. Respond or do not respond. I don't really care.

[Scootaloo]

21. I and several other posters have explained this to you on this thread

Sanders can bring higher turnout outside the core democratic constituency. When more people are voting democratic, more democrats get elected.

As I said, you have a pre-determined answer, and will not accept or even pretend ot understand an answer other than the one you wanted.

[MineralMan]

22. He might do that. On the other hand, he might not.

It's speculative to say that will happen. We've had no elections so far with him as a candidate at that level. We're about to, though. Talk to me again after a few primaries.

[Scootaloo]

23. The whole point of your OP is to speculate.

Seriously, do you fathom how silly it is to say "hey, come speculate!" and then deride every response that doesn't support your candidate as "just speculation"?

[MineralMan]

24. I'm discussing, not deriding.

You can join in the discussion, too. Or you can simply insult me. I don't care. Do what you wish.

[Scootaloo]

26. I wasn't insulting you, Mineralman

You feel insulted when I point out you are deriding pro-sanders responses as "just speculative' in a thread where you inited people ot speculate? Talk about tender.

I gave you my answer. You dismissed it because it wasn't the answer you wanted, for the candidate you wanted. Whatever. it's still my answer., If you wanted a discussion, maybe you should have discussed instead of dismissing.

[Gothmog]

2. In Texas, Hillary Clinton would have coat tails

The terms "socialism" and "socialist" do not play well in Texas and Sanders would kill many down ballot candidates in Texas. In 2008, Clinton won the Texas primary and has a significant amount of support among women and Latino voters.

[NCTraveler]

3. Clinton and the reason is easy.

She understand the importance of coalition building. It can be seen throughout their career. Look no further than the Senate and their endorsements.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. We're getting a whole new coat tailored, MineralMan. nt

[MineralMan]

20. How is that responsive to my question?

What you replied is without any meaning, considering the question.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. You go with that, then.

[jeff47]

5. Basic turnout math.

Sanders can turn out voters that Clinton can not turn out.

Clinton can not get disaffected voters to the polls, and is doing poorly among millennials.

Sanders can get (at least some of) those voters to the polls. And it's very unlikely Clinton supporters would refuse to turn out if Sanders is the nominee.

So, Sanders yields better GE turnout. And as you say, turnout is one of the primary means of generating coattails.

[MineralMan]

9. You're making statements that are speculative, really.

You believe they're true, but that has yet to be tested.

What you say may happen, but until we actually have some voting in 2016, there's no real evidence of it.

Also, the "disaffected" voters you mention may not particularly like Democratic incumbents, who are almost all assured of being on the GE ballot. What then? Remember, the subject is coattails in this thread. Turnout is just one element in those coattails.

[Stoolbend]

15. It's a tried and true fact.

Telling the truth attracts people, instead of offering promises to the sky (bait) and then lie about it (switch), people are not interested in status quo (more bait and switch) and would rather have something new, like the TRUTH.

Issues are still key for me. I don't give a flying fuck how extremely popular Clinton is. She's already finished, and will be finished dead last again.

[jeff47]

17. So you had no point when you created this thread?

This entire thread is speculative. If you're going to demand no speculation, what's the point of this thread?

Also, the "disaffected" voters you mention may not particularly like Democratic incumbents, who are almost all assured of being on the GE ballot.

So your argument is the disaffected voters will show up to vote for Sanders, and then vote for Republicans on the rest of the ballot?

Seriously? THAT is the argument you're making while deriding speculation?

Turnout is just one element in those coattails.

Turnout is the primary element in those coattails. Crappy turnout can not produce good coattails.

[firebrand80]

6. I think it's Donald Trump or Ted Cruz

The GOP nominating one of them would do far more to cause independents to vote democratic than either Hillary or Bernie could hope to accomplish.

[strategery blunder]

8. Any of our candidates would have to deal with an incredibly hostile Congress.

Congressional Republicans (and many of their ilk at the state level) have shown that they have no interest in governing whatsoever. Government is something to be destroyed, not made more perfect, in their worldview. And the present makeup of Congress is effectively gerrymandered in until at least 2021, when the Congresscritters elected in the 2020 election take their seats.

A candidate with long coattails would probably manage to flip the Senate, but the House is a lost cause. At best we might reverse the losses of 2014 in the House. But we haven't held a majority capable of getting anything done since the teabagger election of 2010, and the "moderate" Rs are held hostage by teabagger primary challenges. The cost in concessions to get a single R vote on legislation is so ridiculously high now that it simply isn't worth it in the vast majority of cases. I'm pretty much resigned to nothing getting done legislatively until 2020.

That is not to discount the importance of the Presidency--we need the veto pen (and a president whom we can trust will use it when required). To say nothing of SCOTUS appointments.

As far as candidate coattails: Hillary's will be negative, of that I'm certain. She'll bring out the knuckledragger vote in droves, and I don't see much excitement for her at all (I live in Washington State so the primaries will be done by the time they get here). People will vote for her, if only because here we receive ballots by mail. I know some people who accept the "inevitability" meme and the "Bernie won't be able to get anything done" meme, but I shake my head and wonder, in what universe would Hillary be able to work with people who think she killed Vince Foster or (insert 90s conspiracy theory here)?

Most worrying to me is the thought that Hillary will sign legislation that comes out of that forsaken Congress, that she should not sign at all. She'll sign on the dotted line for more corporate subsidies and bank bailouts, because that's who she represents. She would happily sign more "trade" agreements like TPP, which I, along with a wide coalition of labor, consumer rights, and environmental groups, oppose. She'd have to get stuff done, after all, even if the stuff getting done is exactly what the Republicans want.

As for Bernie, I don't believe his coattails will be nearly as negative as Hillary's, but Congress is so far gone that he won't have the coattails to flip it, or even significantly adjust it, either. The Rs will attack him for being a socialist, but they've also been hurling that at Obama for years now and I believe Bernie will be able to answer that attack. He has far less baggage than Hillary (and that is not to say that Hillary should have to carry all that baggage--she shouldn't). People are still getting to know Bernie; most at least respect him even if they disagree with him, which is more than can be said for Hillary. A few think he's a loon that tilts at windmills, and won't be able to get anything done, but those people wouldn't be voting for the Democrat anyway. (And again, with the current Congress, I don't really want anything to get done, because that which does get done is likely to induce vomiting.)

The most important factor in my (moot) primary vote is that, given the Congress we're stuck with, I want someone whom I can trust to veto that which must be vetoed.

Just my thoughts--I usually lurk instead of post, because let's face it, primary season around here is usually not good for the blood pressure charts.

[MineralMan]

11. The Senate can get a Democratic majority in 2016.

That's very important, really. It's a major consideration, I think. As you say, it's extremely unlikely that we'll turn the House around, but we do have an opportunity to flip some seats in that body, too. We could flip some more in 2020, too. More important for the gerrymandering issue is to work hard on control of state legislatures. Minnesota is a good example. Right now, one house is under a Republican majority. We should be able to reverse that in 2016, but it often switched back in mid-term elections. Fortunately, the 2020 election is a Presidential election. An incumbent Democrat could help regain even more state legislative seats and help with the redistricting that will take place in 2021. That's uncertain, of course, and points out how important Democratic turnouts are in EVERY election. That's not something we're very good at, frankly, to our detriment.

[strategery blunder]

13. Eh. We can technically get the Senate back in 2016

but if there's anything I learned from 2008-2010, it's that one party is soooo committed to Yeehawd that realistically you need 65 votes to get anything of substance through that body. 60 isn't enough because there's always one or two conservadems who can be bribed by the Yeehawdists and/or Wall Street to vote the other way. (See how badly Max Baucus was able to water down Obamacare by holding it hostage to his one Senate vote.) So even if we get a technical majority in the Senate in 2016 (which I view as a bit more likely with Bernie's neutral-to-unknown coattails compared to Hillary's known negative coattails), my expectations for governing productivity are still cynically low.

My state, Washington, also has the situation of turncoat Dems caucusing with Rs instead of their own party and flipping majorities after election, so I know that problem quite well.

Despite my cynicism, I do vote. IIRC I've voted in every November election since moving here in 2007 (though I don't remember if I had residency requirements met for the 2007 election yet). Certainly in every even-numbered November election, including 2010. I think I've missed a couple odd-year primaries.

My state has both a primary and a caucus though. I think this is gonna have to be the year that I figure out this whole caucus thing.

[MineralMan]

14. A majority is always better than a minority.

The larger the majority, the better, of course. But if we're the minority party in the Senate, the best we can do is block some bills, just as the Republicans have consistently done.

You're right. We need a larger majority, but I don't think we'll get one in 2016. I'll settle for any majority. In the House, there's no chance of a majority in 2016, but we can pick up some seats we lost. If we could actually turn out Democrats in large numbers in 2018, we could pick up some more, but we don't do that very well, and usually screw the pooch and lose seats.

I wish Democrats would learn that lesson and turn out strongly in mid-term elections. We suck at those, pretty much.

[strategery blunder]

16. Off year elections

tend to have a "Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!" vibe to them. With Kodos being the Democratic candidates, ofc.

DWS, in her capacity as DNC chair, sure doesn't do much to encourage such turnout, however. Why would a DNC chair campaign for Rs in her state that are running against Democrats? Could it be...corruption? Not exactly the behavior from party leadership that motivates off-year turnout.

Thankfully I have yet to see anything within my state that even approaches that. Though my Democratic prosecutor is embroiled in a vindictive prosecution/using county resources to pursue private vendetta scandal.

[brooklynite]

10. All I know is that every candidate I've met (House, Senate and Gov) seems to want Clinton...

...since part of their job is know how to win an election, I'll go with their insight.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, the overwhelming support for Clinton by Congressional Democrats

is important. That will help her win the GE if she is the nominee. I don't think there is equivalent support for Sanders, though. That could harm his changes of election, which is one of the factors that leads me to support Clinton in the primaries.

People have called me a pragmatist or even a "woodchuck," and they're basically correct. I want Democrats in office, even if they're not the Democrats I'd vote for. I vote in Minnesota, and nowhere else. I'm lucky that way. I have a very progressive congressional representative and a couple of great Senators.

In other states, though, getting any Democrat elected is always problematic. We need to elect Democrats who will vote with the Democratic caucus in as many seats as possible, both in the House and Senate. Holding out for progressives in many states simply means that a right-winger ends up in office. That's part of our current problem. Many will disagree with me, I know, but they apparently don't live in any of those red states.

[Dawson Leery]

25. +1,000,000

[bigbrother05]

30. Old IT business principle: no one ever got fired for buying IBM

Some other brand might be cheaper and work better, but if something goes wrong on a project, you can't fall back on "I got the best, and even they couldn't make it work".

Backing HRC early has no particular downside with the money folks. You backed the favorite and the money folks won't hold it against you if she fails. Also, if he wins, Bernie won't hold it against you either, so there's no reason to fear dollars drying up or him attacking you in your home state.

One factor on the coattails could be the RW animosity toward all things Clinton. While Bernie is a Democrat(ic Socialist), his general demeanor and anti-establishment persona is less likely to rile up the RW base to come out just to vote against him. Many moderate Republicans might be so turned off by Trump or Cruz that they'll either stay home or vote for Bernie. If they listen to Bernie, they might even hear some of the down ticket Dems as well.

[highprincipleswork]

27. Bernie, without a doubt.

[comradebillyboy]

28. Which one will help other Democrats get elected? Hillary has

lots of endorsements from Democratic office holders because she and Bill have campaigned for them and fund raised for them. One would expect her to help the down ballot candidates in this election as well. Sanders has never shown much interest in helping Democrats get elected. Will he this time around, I don't know.