In 1980, Democratic pollster Peter Hart warned Gaylord Nelson, Wisconsin’s champion vote-getter as governor and senator, that he was going to lose. Hart saw a Republican wave coming. Ronald Reagan would defeat President Jimmy Carter and carry other GOP candidates to victory as well.
The opposite of the wave effect in elections is the so-called Eisenhower jacket, a term coined by Democrats predicting that the immensely popular Ike wouldn’t have the coat-tails to help other Republicans down the ballot.
READ MORE: Donald Trump faces GOP unrest as growing number of Republicans turn on presidential nominee
With three months to go in the 2016 race, there is a presumption among most Democrats and more than a few Republicans that Hillary Clinton is headed to a decisive victory. Democrats are talking about a possible wave, while Republicans see a no-coattails election, particularly since Clinton herself remains unpopular.
Of course, the race could change. Trump could get his act together, or there could be a crisis or a Clinton contretemps.
Most wave elections, such as the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and Republican gains in 2010 are in non-presidential years. Exceptions were in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater, and in 1980.
An encouraging note for Republicans: The only time in the modern era that an incumbent party ran successfully for a third presidential term, 1988, the makeup of Congress remained virtually the same.
READ MORE: NRA launch $3m anti-Hillary Clinton ad buy taking aim at gun rights
But even a mini-wave could affect the Senate, where 24 of the 34 seats up for election are held by Republicans. The Democrats need a net gain of at least four seats to take control.
It might take a tsunami to capture 30 seats and win the House. All 435 seats may be in play, but with redistricting and population patterns, Democrats have to win the overall vote by seven percentage points to take it back, David Wasserman of theCook Political Report estimates. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed Democrats with a four-point advantage in the general matchup.
Nevertheless, almost daily another House Republican says he or she can’t vote for Trump. Last week, Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman ran a commercial declaring, “Honestly I don’t care for him much,” and vowed if Trump is elected: “I’ll stand up to him. Plain and simple.”
Some endangered Senate incumbents such as Mark Kirk of Illinois have flatly declared they won’t vote for Trump. Most others, however, are trying to straddle to avoid offending the fervent Trump followers, while not alienating more independent-minded centrists. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte said she’s supporting Trump but isn’t endorsing him. If he comes to her state, she’ll be AWOL.
READ MORE: Donald Trump faces GOP unrest as growing number of Republicans turn on presidential nominee
Few Republicans are suffering as much as Arizona’s John McCain. Privately he has contempt for Trump. But the senator faces a right-wing primary challenge this month when many Trump supporters will turn out. Thus, even when Trump took a shot at him, too, last week, McCain held his fire and reiterated that he always supports the party nominee.
Several recent polls, however, might widen cracks in this delicate façade. Clinton has opened up huge leads in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania amid signs Trump was dragging down incumbent senators.
Republican strategists say a five-point Clinton victory in these states is survivable for down-ballot candidates. Anything more, particularly if her margin hits double digits, might mean curtains.
Democrats today are more optimistic that these wider margins are possible, noting that in this polarized environment, ticket-splitting is less prevalent. And waves, as Gaylord Nelson discovered in 1980, usually break late.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article