2016 President

Have you noticed all the comparisons on TV and in print between the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964 and the Donald Trump campaign of 2016? It’s true both Goldwater was, and Trump is, the Republican nominee for president. And both could be fairly termed insurgent winners and highly controversial candidates. Yet the similarities are being dramatically overplayed. No doubt any regular reader of the Crystal Ball can cite a dozen ways these two politicians are temperamentally and substantively far removed. For the moment, we’ll focus on just four: 1. Goldwater was the legitimate, somewhat reluctant champion of a conservative movement that eventually took control of the Republican Party. Trump is an idiosyncratic candidate who is abhorred by many of Goldwater’s heirs in the GOP. Any balanced reading of Trump’s political philosophy would lead to the conclusion that his ideology is an ever-changing hodge-podge. The Goldwater movement was all about consistent conservatism. The Trump effort is certainly about illegal immigration, approaches to terrorism, and some other conservative issues, but mainly it is about him — a giant personality that inspires intense loyalty to an individual far more than to a specific cause. 2. Goldwater battled “The Establishment,” just like Trump, but

On March 31, we released our first general election map of the Electoral College. With our self-imposed rule of permitting no cop-out “toss-ups” — a rule we’ll try to hold to as we handicap this year’s Electoral College map — our bottom-line totals were 347 electoral votes for Hillary Clinton and 191 for Donald Trump. We’ve made modest changes since: Pennsylvania has morphed from Likely Democratic to Leans Democratic, while Virginia — after Tim Kaine was added to the Democratic ticket — went the other way from Leans Democratic to Likely Democratic. Arizona and Georgia went from Likely Republican to Leans Republican, and usually reliable Utah from Safe Republican to Likely Republican. But the total has remained 347 D to 191 R. Today we add one further alteration: We are moving Colorado from Leans Democratic to Likely Democratic. This also does not affect the Electoral College total, though it does push a competitive state further toward Clinton. Public and private polling, plus our own survey of key Democrats, Republicans, and independent journalists suggests that the GOP is not very competitive in Colorado this year. That includes the Senate race too, which we are moving from Likely Democratic to Safe Democratic.

How big did Hillary Clinton bounce in the polls after the Democratic National Convention? Based on the available data as of Wednesday afternoon, the Democratic nominee soared higher than Donald Trump did. At the end of the GOP convention, we laid out how we would look at the bounce — we used the median poll percentage for a candidate from surveys with at least one survey date inside the week before a party convention and compared it to the highest median of three-poll (or more) samples in the first week after the convention. Since 1988, the typical median bounce has been about five percentage points for both parties, though that number has been smaller in recent years. Trump’s median poll result rose three points, from 41% in the week before the Republican National Convention to a peak of 44% in each of the first few days after the GOP confab. However, thus far, Clinton’s median survey number has improved from 44% prior to the Democratic National Convention to a high of 48.5%. Her peak could conceivably grow if more polls are released showing her above 50% with survey dates that include Aug. 5, a week after the DNC. Our sample

As the nation’s political class, reporters, and analysts recover from the two-week convention slog — we know, the nation feels so sorry for us — the presidential race enters something of a lull. Labor Day, the traditional kick-off to the general election sprint, is still a month away, and August is a month dominated by vacations and, every presidential year, the Olympics, which will draw many eyeballs away from politics during the dog days. In the meantime, we’ll have to wait and see what the polls say in a couple of weeks, after the effects of the conventions become clearer. Based on the way we’re calculating convention bumps, Trump’s median bounce has remained three points, going from a median poll figure of 41% to 44% as of Friday. That’s below the roughly five-point median bounce that presidential candidates have typically gotten over the past few decades. However, that obscures the progress Trump has made in national polls over the past several weeks. As of three weeks ago, Trump was down about five points in the RealClearPolitics average, but it’s now tied. The HuffPost Pollster average also had him down about five points three weeks ago, and now he’s down two.

Dear readers: This is the second and third part of a three-part series on the 1956, 1960, and 1964 Democratic National Conventions, and John F. Kennedy’s role at each. Click here to read part one. — The Editors Part II: Jack Kennedy’s 1960 Convention Triumph In 2016, some delegates in both parties have hoped the conventions might return to a bygone era, when they were not cut-and-dried, when delegates could revolt and pull surprises and upset frontrunners. There were plenty of Democrats in 1960 who prayed for just such an outcome. John F. Kennedy had won the primaries and run an exceptionally well-organized campaign — but he was a mere 43 years old, he was Roman Catholic in a heavily Protestant nation, and many party elders, including former President Harry Truman and former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, were open in their opposition. Nonetheless, by the summer of 1960, most party insiders believed the Kennedy nomination was a fait accompli. JFK arrived in Los Angeles for the Democratic convention brimming with confidence. He had already chosen his Washington headquarters for the general election and determined his strategy for the fall. His challengers were desperate to stop his nomination. Senate Majority Leader

(PHILADELPHIA) — After Donald Trump picked Mike Pence to be his running mate two weeks ago — that feels like two months ago, right? — we suggested that Trump could end up taking at least a temporary lead because of the convention bounce that presidential candidates typically get after their conventions. It appears that Trump has in fact gotten a bounce, at least in some polls. The most dramatic change so far came in the CNN/ORC poll, which shifted all the way from a seven-point Hillary Clinton lead to a three-point Trump edge. On the other hand, the NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll didn’t change at all (it showed a 46%-45% Clinton lead both before and after the convention), and there were some other contradictory signs. Nonetheless, Trump’s numbers generally improved, as is common after a convention. Based on the median of five polls surveyed in the period after the GOP convention that have been released so far, Trump has experienced a three-point bounce relative to his median the week before Republicans gathered in Cleveland. That’s clearly a small sample, but put it all together and Trump has taken a small, one-point lead in the RealClearPolitics average, while Clinton has an equally

Dear readers: With the Clinton family seeking to cement itself as the Democratic dynasty of the present, this week during the Democratic National Convention we’re taking a look back at the Democratic dynasty of the past — the Kennedys, and, specifically, John F. Kennedy. Center for Politics Director Larry J. Sabato, author of The Kennedy Half-Century, is recounting JFK’s three Democratic conventions — 1956, 1960, and 1964 — this week. In this first installment, he explores Kennedy’s bid for the 1956 running mate slot. — The Editors This year’s Democratic conclave marks the fourth time Hillary Clinton has played a leading role in her party’s national conventions (1992, 1996, 2008, and 2016). While there are no exact equivalents, given that her first two starring roles were as the very powerful spouse of the presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton has still achieved roughly the same level of exposure as Ronald Reagan (1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984) and George H.W. Bush (1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992). Among post-World War II political figures with longevity at the top of national conventions, Mrs. Clinton really only trails Richard Nixon — and her husband, Bill. The durability of the most prominent politicians traces the arc of

(CLEVELAND) — If someone had told us at the start of this election cycle that the Democratic presidential nominee would be Hillary Clinton, and that she would choose Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia as her running mate, we would have said that would be… very, very plausible. Now that Clinton has tabbed Kaine as her pick in advance of the Democratic confab, it is interesting to reflect on the state of the two parties. The Democrats, often viewed historically as more chaotic and splintered, are now the more orderly and top-down of the two, with Democratic voters likelier to support their party “establishment” and prefer candidates with experience to outsiders. The only primary exit poll to ask Democrats if they felt “betrayed by Democratic politicians” was surveyed in New Hampshire, and 83% of voters said no in a state that insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont won handily. The Republicans are the opposite: In fact, in almost every primary exit poll that asked the question, a majority of GOP voters said they felt betrayed by their party leaders, and other polls showed they preferred a candidate from outside the political system. These differing attitudes played out in both party primaries

The convention bounce is a long-established pattern in presidential election cycles. Much has been written about it, so we won’t rehash it too much. The main point is that conventions almost always generate an increase in a nominee’s polling numbers during and after his or her convention, but often times the bounce is short-lived. Still, some of that jump in the polls can be maintained; in this environment, a poll bounce will probably signal increased party unity. This is what is important for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: The former needs to get his support among Republicans up to and beyond 90% in the polls (he’s currently in the 80%-85% range) and the latter needs Sanders supporters, many of whom self-identify as independents, to more firmly back her (most surveys have shown a sizable chunk of Sanders voters still outside Clinton’s camp). It should surprise no one if Trump gains in surveys following the Republican confab. In fact, as we said when reacting to Trump’s choice of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate, it’s quite possible that Trump will surpass Clinton in the poll averages. And Clinton will probably get her own bounce after her nomination is made

(CLEVELAND) — With two nights down at the Republican National Convention and two nights to go, here are five quick observations on Trump TV: An uneven presentation Some conventions resemble a work of art or a play with a polished script. Others are more like half-finished modern art or a first draft of a production that can’t even make off-off-Broadway. The 2016 Republican National Convention strikes us as a strange hybrid. The technical details have been nicely presented, from the advanced lighting to the stage presentation where Donald Trump made a magnificent silhouetted entrance surrounded by fog to introduce his wife on Monday night. It’s the substance of that moment that could have used more work — and permissions. As everyone now knows, Melania Trump’s speech contained phrases and passages taken from Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention oration for her husband. A plagiarism website consulted by Washingtonian magazine found that the odds all these words were concocted without reference to Obama’s talk were at least a trillion to one. There also were some signs that a few good lines from Donald Trump, Jr’s well-received Tuesday speech were taken from a previously-published article, but then the author of the piece said that

Dear Readers: This essay is partially adapted from Crystal Ball Managing Editor Kyle Kondik’s new book, The Bellwether: Why Ohio Picks the President. — The Editors (CLEVELAND) – Just a few hundred feet from the U.S. Capitol Dome lies a carillon, or bell tower, dedicated to a man who had put in many years of service in the halls of Congress but who never achieved his dream of taking up residence in the estate several blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue. Here Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio, “Mr. Republican,” is honored. Ohio, which produced eight different presidents from 1840 to 1920, has not produced another president since, nor even a nominee. The Ohioan who came closest, running unsuccessfully for the GOP nod in 1940, 1948, and 1952, was Taft, whose father was a president (William Howard Taft), son was a senator (Robert Taft, Jr.), and grandson was an Ohio governor (Bob Taft, the modern-day Taft). In a cycle where the wife of a former president is about to be nominated, and the brother and son of presidents unsuccessfully ran for a nomination, we should remember that political dynasties are nothing new. Nor are the rifts in the Republican Party, where a

Our own sources in and around Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana have told us what everyone else has been reporting: He appears to be Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick. Still, to the best of their knowledge, the official call from Trump has not yet been made. We all know Trump is full of surprises, so we add this note of caution just in case. We all remember erroneous reports that John Kerry had selected Dick Gephardt as his running mate in 2004, when Kerry actually chose John Edwards. For our purposes here, we’ll assume it is true, that the GOP nominee for vice president will be Pence. Despite the heavy focus on Pence and the eventual Democratic running mate, it’s good to remember that the vice presidential choice usually makes very little difference in the end. Well, that’s true for politics at least. For governing, the pick couldn’t be more important, since the VP is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office and is in the loop for most major decisions of any administration. But the last time a running mate may have really swung an election was 1960, when John F. Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon B. Johnson helped Democrats

With four months to go in the 2016 general election campaign, national polls suggest that it’s quite possible that the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump clash may well set a new record for partisan differences between the sexes. Since Clinton effectively sewed up the Democratic nomination on June 7, the average gender gap in 22 national polls is 24.4 points and the median gap is 26 points, slightly ahead of the exit poll era record set in 2000, as shown in Table 1 below. This sample only included poll results for questions asking respondents about just Clinton and Trump, thus excluding those that asked the horse race question with Libertarian Gary Johnson and/or presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein included. This choice largely reflects the fact that early polls tend to overstate the performance of third-party or independent candidates, which in turn affects the major party candidates’ totals. Table 1: Potential record-setting gender gap in 2016 Notes: *Mean gender gap in 22 national surveys taken since June 7 based on responses to head-to-head Clinton-versus-Trump questions. Polls from the following are included: ABC News/Washington Post, American Research Group, CBS News, CNBC, CNN/ORC, Fox News, IBD/TIPP, Monmouth University, Morning Consult, NBC News/SurveyMonkey, NBC News/Wall

Dear Readers: As Donald Trump reportedly prepares to announce a running mate next week and Hillary Clinton, dealing with the aftereffects of FBI Director James Comey’s announcement regarding her email scandal, ponders her choice as well, we again welcome Prof. Joel Goldstein to weigh in on the veepstakes. Goldstein is the nation’s leading expert on the vice presidency, and his piece discusses the historic patterns of VP selection and how this year’s picks might resemble or diverge from them. We are planning to weigh in as soon as possible after each selection is made with our own analysis, but in the meantime we have made some adjustments to our lists of Democratic and Republican veepstakes participants. Check that out here after reading this week’s Crystal Ball. — The Editors Recurring patterns appear in vice presidential selection that often help predict future choices. Yet change also occurs, sometimes rendering predictions based on past patterns wrong. Presidential nominees ticket-balance, until they reinforce. They choose Protestant or male running mates, until they don’t. They generally avoid members of the House of Representatives unless their ticket is weak, until one chooses a future speaker. They tend to emphasize the presidential quality of prospective running