Editor’s note: In advance of the Oct. 19 presidential debate at UNLV, The Sunday and the Brookings Institution, in partnership with UNLV and Brookings Mountain West, are presenting a series of guest columns on state and national election issues. The columns will appear weekly.
Out of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only a small number (between 35 and 55, depending on the forecast) have the potential to change hands this fall. Nevada is home to two of them: the seat in the 3rd Congressional District vacated by Rep. Joe Heck, who is running for Senate; and Rep. Cresent Hardy’s seat in the 4th District. Other Mountain West states have competitive races, as well, including two in Arizona and one each in Colorado and Utah. Five of these six seats are occupied by Republicans, and most of the national attention on them will be focused on the implications of the GOP’s efforts to maintain a majority in the House. If we dig just below the surface, however, here are four more storylines to watch in the coming weeks:
Is ticket-splitting making a comeback?
In 2012, according to analysis by political scientist Gary Jacobson, roughly 10 percent of people voted for presidential and House candidates of different parties — the lowest rate of ticket-splitting since the American National Election Study began collecting such information in 1952. High levels of straight-ticket voting also have helped produce smaller numbers of split-outcome districts, where a majority of the votes go to a House member of one party but the presidential candidate of the other. These trends often are attributed to the broader polarization of the parties: As the parties have become more different from one another, fewer voters find themselves attracted to presidential and congressional candidates of different parties.
Recently, observers have debated whether this trend will continue in 2016, arguing that Donald Trump’s presence at the top of the Republican ticket may lead more voters to support Hillary Clinton while casting ballots for Republican congressional candidates. Polling in several key Senate races suggests this kind of ticket-splitting is possible, as some Republican candidates are polling better than Trump in their states. If we observe this kind of ticket-splitting in a meaningful way at the House level, the Mountain West races are likely to be ground zero for it: In 2012, five of the six competitive districts in the region were won by a presidential candidate of one party and a House candidate of the other.
Will national party targeting make a difference?
Each election, the congressional parties’ campaign arms target competitive races by sending extra resources to them. This year, Democrats are targeting four of the five competitive, Republican-held House seats in the Mountain West as part of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Red to Blue Program. Republicans, meanwhile, have included their candidate for the Democratically held open seat in Arizona’s 1st District in the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns Program. Research by political scientists Jason Roberts, Jacob Smith and Sarah Treul finds that when the party that does not hold the seat targets a race in this way, the seat is more likely to change hands.
Lots of ads will air, but will they make a difference?
Viewers across the Mountain West will find themselves well acquainted with messages from the region’s congressional campaigns, thanks to large planned media buys by the party’s congressional campaign arms and prominent super PACs. According to reporting by The Hill, the DCCC, the NRCC and a super PAC supporting House Democrats (House Majority PAC) have reserved a combined $20 million in airtime in the Las Vegas media market. The same three groups also have set aside nearly $11.4 million to spend in the Denver media market, home to vulnerable incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo. An extensive body of political science research has suggested that while advertising’s effects at the presidential level are small and fade quickly, they can play a larger role when the candidates may be unfamiliar to voters, like in House races.
Can Republican candidates adjust to changing demographics?
One of the most interesting congressional races in the country this cycle comes from Colorado’s 6th District, in suburban Denver. Coffman is attempting to hold on to his seat by distancing himself from Trump, releasing an ad announcing that he doesn’t “care for (Trump) much” and that if Trump is elected, he’ll “stand up to him.” Thanks to redistricting, Coffman now represents a different constituency than when he was first elected in 2008; Latinos make up about 20 percent of his current district, compared with approximately 8 percent of his original one. Coffman won his new seat by just 7,000 votes in 2012, and 2016 will present him with an even greater test of his ability to recast himself for a more diverse constituency. If he’s successful, his campaign may provide some lessons for other GOP incumbents in changing districts beyond 2016.
Molly E. Reynolds is a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
This story has been revised. In an earlier version, Sarah Treul’s name was misspelled.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy