This story was originally published on nationaljournal.com on August 18, 2016 The conventional wisdom holds that the worse a presidential candidate does, the more likely his or her party’s down-ballot candidates will do. Whether you believe that the winning party’s candidates benefit from coattails or that the losing party suffers from depressed turnout, you have a pretty good chance of being right. But a third factor, especially this year, could come into play: strategic voting. Let’s just say, hypothetically, that Hillary Clinton’s current lead of about 6 points more or less continues through September and October, and voters start assuming she’ll win. If this assumption takes hold early on, what happens then? Given the questions about Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness, voters might consider a hedge against giving her a “blank check.” It’s not hard to see how that might benefit some Republicans in competitive races, with voters reluctantly pulling the lever for Clinton but perhaps voting for a Republican for the Senate or the House as a check on her presidency. While Clinton’s negatives have declined a bit, they are
Subscribe Today
Our subscribers have first access to individual race pages for each House, Senate and Governors race, which will include race ratings (each race is rated on a seven-point scale) and a narrative analysis pertaining to that race.