One Last Primary Day and the Further Trumpification of the GOP
Hello Hackaroos!
Before we begin, we know there have been some, let’s call them, distribution challenges, and we know many of you unfortunately did not receive the last couple issues. Unfortunately it got caught in the “series of tubes” (to again quote the late Senator Ted Stevens).
So we wanted to re-send yesterday's – even if it has our pre-analysis of the primary in New Hampshire.
Also, be sure to check out our issue from last Friday where we had some fun writing about the great debate over debates. We promise we’re still writing these every Tuesday and Friday so we’ll be sure to share across our social media accounts in case it gets lost in the mail.
So in this issue, we talk about the big races now from yesterday (mainly a Trump vs. Sanity race in the vital Granite State Senatorial contest) and what the Trumpification (or a “candidate quality” issue to quote a certain GOP leader) means for the future of the party depending on how things go in November. Then we give our take on the big polling warning this week from the New York Times.
By the way, keep sending your Mail Bag questions and comments. Even if we don’t do an entire issue of answers, we love hearing from you, especially as we get closer to Election Day.
Okay, enough lead up, let’s begin!
What the Further Trumpification of the GOP Means Post-November
Trump at a campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania last week for both of his endorsed Pennsylvania nominees, Mehmet Oz and Doug Mastriano, who are both trailing in the polls. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
GIBBS: It’s finally the last primary day of the season and the headline state will be New Hampshire, a place that started out as a one of the best real pickup chances for Republicans in a Senate race. But then popular Governor Chris Sununu decided not to run, and the GOP was stuck with candidates who weren’t close to top tier. The favorite is retired General Don Bolduc or as the Governor has labeled him a “conspiracy-theorist extremist” and endorsed state Senate President Chuck Morse instead.
Beyond that though, the bigger point as we draw the lens out post-primaries, is out of the 10 races that are considered truly contested races (toss up, lean Dem or lean GOP by the Cook Political Report), at least eight of those are likely to be a result of a Trump endorsement or at least a “very Trumpy” nominee (AZ, GA, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA and WI). We know that Mitch McConnell way back when said the only thing that can screw this up are Republicans and it might be time to begin asking, did that actually come to fruition? In New Hampshire, while Bolduc hasn’t been endorsed by Trump (yet), he’s certainly said enough to qualify as a Trump candidate. McConnell’s SuperPAC has spent heavily for Morse, likely understanding Bolduc’s weakness as a general election candidate in a state a year ago the GOP believed they’d win. Murphy, let’s start in your home away from home in New Hampshire, what’s your take on the big primary there?
MURPHY: The NH Senate race may well turn into 2022’s top “Penthouse to Outhouse” contest. Incumbent Dem Sen. Maggie Hassan is quite vulnerable, but when in the doubt the GOP has a gift for nominating the one Republican in NH that even Maggie can probably beat. We’ll know tomorrow. As you noted Gibbsie, popular Governor John Sununu would have likely picked up the seat for the R’s (but alas somebody in DC told him about the weekly lunches shared by the GOP Senate caucus and thereby the horrible risk of having to sit next to Ted Cruz) and the Guv bowed out. Team Mitch went to work and bland regular NH Senate President Chuck “Zzzzzz” Morse became the regular’s credible if unexciting candidate, but alas Trumpy fire breather Don Bolduc (a retired one star Army general) is giving Morse a big challenge. Polls are close, showing a Bolduc lead, but the better-funded Morse is all over TV. If Morse wins, it could be a GOP pick up. With Bolduc, it’s another fiasco in the Dr. Oz tradition for the GOP nominating season.
GIBBS: Looking beyond New Hampshire, the only two that I have not put in the Trump column are Florida with Marco Rubio, largely because he has his own persona as a conservative. The other one is Colorado where you have a candidate, Joe O’Dea, who has been very different on both election-denying and abortion. But everything else that's contested is very Trumpy. And what goes along with that are a few other big questions, Murphy: should Republicans have done more to stave this off? You can really go back to January 6th, when people like McConnell said some tough things about Trump, but nobody really cut him off from the role he’s playing now, largely scared of the base’s reaction. And the NRSC decided not to weigh in on picking favorites, despite the now obvious electability issue of today’s nominees. That left things pretty wide open for Trump to set the stage. The result is a very, very Trumpy set of nominees. The next question: what's at stake for Trump? He’s got a huge amount of skin in the game for this election. How well that works out for him remains to be seen. Third, if they don't win these races, is it fair to hold Trump accountable? And will it impact his 2024 prospects? And was McConnell's quote months ago, an effort to lay out the terms of holding him accountable/blaming him if things didn't work out? So, lots to be learned in the next eight weeks, but interestingly enough in a lot of swing states that Trump lost in 2020: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, all these states have Senate races, and they've all nominated, very Trump-like nominees. Obviously only time will tell, but lots at stake here in a time in which they thought it wasn't about whether they were going to control the Senate, but by how much. Murphy, lots of questions… this is your party… any answers?
MURPHY: Mitch has tried to do the right thing, but it has been too little, too late. I understand why… no politician wants to buck Trump’s power in the primary electorate. But if you want to kill the King, then you have to kill the King. No pussyfooting around. Now it is likely (though not certain; Google “1980 Senate races”) that the GOP will blow a clear opportunity to recapture the Senate this year. That disaster belongs to Donald J. Trump. Have no doubt that it was his orange paw that fouled these Senate primaries and now the party will have to once again (ala 2018) learn the lesson that Trumpy candidates are a huge, hard lift in a General Election. Karma I guess, but how often does the GOP have to painfully relearn the obvious lesson of the 2016-2020 political train wreck of the Trump era, phase 1.
Is it Still the Economy, Stupid?
GIBBS: So, as we look at the latest inflation numbers, on the political front, what's interesting is inflation is becoming less of the top driving concern in the election for Republicans, being replaced by issues like crime and immigration. That's largely a result of 90 days of gas price declines, leading Steve Moore, the former Trump economic adviser, to tell the Washington Post, Republicans are going to have to broaden their message. It doesn't mean that inflation isn't still a challenge for Democrats. While gas prices are going down, food prices have continued to grow. But, bottom line, the contours of the election are dynamic, and they've changed a bit, both on the Democratic and the Republican sides. Murphy, do you buy inflation not looming as large with voters?
MURPHY: Nope. Kitchen table economic issues will be the biggest force in the election, followed by political energy driven by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Biden is still in trouble on the economy, which will likely cost the Dems the House, while Roe might (not certain though) – along with the candidate disasters mentioned above – save the narrow Democratic control of the Senate.
What’s in a Poll?
GIBBS: According to the New York Times, we may be seeing that in 2022, a little bit of the 2020 bias in polling. To be clear, this bias isn't some sort of conspiracy theory. It's just that you get a lot of polling, where the sample doesn't necessarily match where the state is or has been. The article (and warning) goes through the fact that a bunch of polling recently has shown places such as Wisconsin as a +4 Democratic state, when it's really looking more like a +2 Republican state.
Source: The New York Times
So, let’s start with some things for everybody to think about and understand about polling. First, every poll is based on assumptions, using electoral history and turnout patterns, to create a model of an electorate you think will show up on Election Day. Remember, it’s an assumption. Yes, there’s science in those assumptions, but also some art and gut feelings. Second, take, as we do, a ton of the public polling with a grain of salt. Here, the old adage of “you get what you pay for” has never been more true than in political polling. There are lots and lots of universities and polling outfits that for $5,000 will do a poll for a TV station. There is not a good candidate on planet Earth who is being charged by a good pollster $5,000 to do a poll. So, first lesson is you get what you pay for and understand that inexpensive media polls have their limit. And, oh, by the way, averaging bad polls, gives you a good average of bad polls. So yes, do we still do an aggregation for averaging? Yes, we do because we have to have something. But you'll also notice the polls that we tend to pull out and show you here are polls that we have greater confidence in, namely the Fabrizio and Anzalone polls AARP is doing because they're done by big-time campaign pollsters, who we think won't want to put their names on bad polling. The last thing to remember on polling is a poll in mid-September is not a prediction of what's going to happen in November. It is a snapshot as to what's happening right now. You could have a poll today that shows something different than the outcome of the election. That’s why we run campaigns. It doesn't necessarily mean that poll was wrong. Murphy, what’s your take on the polling conundrum?
MURPHY: Tell it, Brother Gibbs! I agree with what you are saying above. Media polls are curious animals; the rare occasion where the media creates news (their poll) and then covers it. Nothing in politics world is as mis-understood (and occasionally mis-underestimated) as polling. I’ll start by noting the science behind polling is very solid. But that doesn’t mean polls are great at predicting the future, which is what most casual observers (and non-campaign expert pundits; which covers 90%+ of the people you see opining about polls on cable news) try to use them for. First, polls give you a great measurement of what was happening a week or two ago. Horse-race numbers by definition look through the rear-view mirror in a dynamic world. Second, poll questionnaire design and sampling are key (and as Gibbs notes, expensive to do correctly). Real politicos use polls to test ideas and learn what new information – if injected into the campaign – might move people one way or another. But most civilians – rooting for one side or another – use polling results as a sort of a therapy animal to feel better about their side’s chances to win an upcoming election. That my friends, is a dicey business and certain to provide a lot of emotional up and downs. In campaigns I always tell everybody in the campaign, “we are two points behind” on the theory that acting that way in a campaign is always a good idea, regardless of the actual polling numbers that week. Our political scientist turned ace Dem pollster pal Mark Mellman writes a lot of smart stuff about polling in his column in DC’s The Hill. Here’s a great sample from 2019.
Source: The New York Times
GIBBS: Every one of these contested Senate races is happening in a toss up political state in a lean Republican year. You have to assume that under the best scenario, if you're a Democrat, you're going to get into a lot of races that are pure coin flips as to who is going to win. Frankly, that's as good as you can hope for. That's not going to help you sleep better at night if you're reading our newsletter, but it is reality. Dems are very, very clear that we are not winning Pennsylvania by 7 points. Dems aren’t winning Wisconsin by five points. That's just not how toss up swing states will end up in eight weeks. So, I do take the Times’ warning as real and it's why when you look at a poll today that has JD Vance down one point to Tim Ryan, look at the demographic makeup and realize what assumptions it makes. The sample shows 4.6% more Republicans than Democrats. Trump won there by 8 in 2020. Can Ryan win GOPers? Or will Republicans make up more or less voters come November? A slight tweak could mean Vance leads by one rather than trailing by one. Again, my apologies, I know this likely won’t help you sleep at night, but it is realistic.
MURPHY: I just don’t much trust August/early September polling in federal races (linked by nature to the President’s numbers in the end). So tell me Biden’s numbers on handling the economy on October 15th and I’ll predict the Senate races. Until then, both sides should trust the infallible Murphy Poll; you’re all two points behind.
We’ll see you on Friday!
Murphy and Gibbs