The Nutmeg Preview

We launched this blog to build upon previous columns and ideas developed for Connecticut news sites. To honor that tradition, we’re going to do a deep dive into Connecticut’s elections as we have done for battleground states. 

In case there is any confusion, Connecticut is not a battleground state. In actual battleground states, we have presented models that indicate what a victory for each candidate would look like. Trying to do that in Connecticut would be a lie. As we demonstrated in 2012, for a Democrat to lose statewide in Connecticut in a presidential year is very difficult. That’s even more true with Donald Trump as the alternative; he can’t be expected to win or even be competitive in the 4th congressional district, and a Republican who can not win the 4th can not win the state. 

Democrats have won by over 10% in the last four presidential elections and there is no reason to believe that the trend will end. The interesting thing to watch is whether Clinton is able to break margins set by President Obama in 2008, or whether she will be slightly below that. It is important to remember that Connecticut is not special. The state’s movements from election to election tend to follow the national trends.

When Gore and Bush tied, Gore won Connecticut by 17.5% (Aided by a Nutmegger on the national ticket). Kerry slipped a bit to a 10.4% win in Connecticut over Bush as Bush improved nationally, winning by 2.46%. When Obama won nationally by 7.27%, Obama won Connecticut by 22.3%. When Obama won nationally in 2012 by 3.86%, he won Connecticut by 17.3%. 

Although imperfectly, Connecticut has tended to follow the national trend. Therefore, if Clinton leads Trump by about 6 (what the RCP average has for today), she would be reasonably expected to win Connecticut by about 20%. If she wins by more nationally, Connecticut would be likely to expand. 

The Democratic presidential primary provides a sneak peek as to how Clinton might fare within the state. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/5/1545065/-Maps-and-Analysis-of-the-2016-Connecticut-Democratic-Presidential-Primary In places where Clinton lost to Sanders, she will either fall behind or improve less on Obama’s 2012 performance. In places where Clinton beat Sanders, she will exceed Obama’s 2012 margin and might even do better than Obama did 2008, perhaps winning Darien,and New Canaan.

Connecticut’s core cities, Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, may be an exception because there isn’t much room to improve. In addition, the absolute utter sleepiness of the Senate race this year, compared to 2012’s monster mash race with the WWE”s Linda McMahon, is likely to be less urgent in the cities and thus could generate less turnout.(not to mention the lack of Obama on the ballot)  Because we can’t yet know how Trump will perform nationally, we can’t know if there are any towns to watch for him to win that Obama won four years ago. If there are any, they are likely to be in the 2nd Congressional District or the Naugatuck Valley.

This brings us to the section specially for the Connecticut State Capitol crowd. We take issue with the idea that there is no connection between the top of the ticket races and those further down the ballot. Republicans like to point to the fact that they didn’t lose seats in 2012 despite Obama’s win. That was basically true, but hid a bigger truth. After the 2012 elections, Republicans held just three House seats in districts where Obama got over 55% of the vote. By contrast, Democrats only held one seat in a district Obama did not win. One of those three Republican seats was the only seat Democrats picked up in 2014. 

Top of the ticket matters a great deal down ballot, but it depends a lot on the margin. The battle is for 36 seats in places where Obama won by 50% to 55%. Democrats currently hold 13 of these seats. Republicans hold 23 of these seats. Republicans also hold eight seats in places Obama got more than 55% as a result of their excellent performance in the mid-term elections; six were gained in 2014, and the two others are open this year. 

It is not as simple as the party that wins at the top of the ticket necessarily wins at the bottom, but it is true that there is a strong push in that direction. This is particularly true in Connecticut because so many of the Republican House incumbents who are being challenged are one-termers and it is harder to build up the incumbent advantage in that time. If those who voted for the Democratic candidate in 2014 vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016, then the presidential year voter surge alone is likely enough to take down many of these Republicans. 

On the Senate side, the gerrymander is striking enough that it is hard to have much in the way of turnover. Democrats currently hold the seats they should save one and Republicans mostly hold the seats they should. Democrats do not hold a single Romney-won seat (there are only six). In places where Obama got 55% or better, Democrats hold the Senate seat, except one won by a Republican in 2014.The Democrats hold just two seats in places Obama won by less than 55%. Republicans are making a play for an open seat in Groton/Stonington that Obama won with 56%. There is some Republican effort to play in districts Obama won with 60% or better   in 12 but those seats do not seem overly promising for Republicans. It is not clear what seats Democrats are targeting for pickups.

In conclusion, a status quo state Senate seems like the most likely outcome. (The range is R +1 to D+2). In the House, Democrats seem likely to gain, (although the range is R+2 seats to D+10).

We have not talked at all about the Congressional races because there might as well not be Congressional races. Realizing defeat was near certain, Republicans did not raise the money needed to mount competitive races and thus made defeat 

completely certain.

We predict Clinton by 20% in Connecticut and, if we’re wrong and had to say whether it was more or less, we’d say more.  We will be around to heckle if we are wrong.