Analyzing the Senate election results and cross referencing with the electoral college results

So, I made a claim in another post I made today that I suspected that there was a link between the electoral college results for Clinton and how this may have affected down ballot democrats in the senate running for office. This theory rests on the idea that because democrats did not turn out for Clinton, they also did not turn out for senate candidates in states in which she lost, and that there should be a link between how the states voted for president and how they voted for the senate. That said, let's look at some stats.

Colorado

Presidential election results: 2.9% Clinton

Presidential election predictions: 2.9% Clinton

Difference: 0.0%

Senate election results: 3.1% Bennett (D)

Senate election predictions: 7.4% Bennett (D)

Difference: 4.3%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 0.2%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support?: Yes

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, it happened as predicted, roughly, although while the presidential prediction was spot on, the results in the senate favored the republicans a little more.

Florida

Presidential election results: 1.3% Trump

Presidential election predictions: 0.2% Trump

Difference: 1.1%

Senate election results: 7.9% Rubio (R)

Senate election predictions: 3.7% Rubio (R)

Difference: 4.2%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 6.6%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support?: Yes

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, more republican.

Indiana

Presidential election results: 19.3% Trump

Presidential election predictions: 10.7% Trump

Difference: 8.6%

Senate election results: 10.1% Young

Senate election predictions: 0.7% Young

Difference: 9.4%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 9.2%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support?: Yes

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, it was way more republican.

Missouri

Presidential election results: 19.1% Trump

Presidential election predictions: 11.0% Trump

Difference: 8.1%

Senate election results: 3.2% Blunt (R)

Senate election predictions: 1.3% Blunt (R)

Difference: 1.9%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 15.9%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support? Yes

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: No. There was a major discrepancy in polling involving Trump, but the Blunt polling was more in line with expectations. There seemed to be a very weak correlation, between the Senate and the presidential results despite them supporting the same party.

North Carolina

Presidential election results: 3.8% Trump

Presidential election predictions: 1.0% Trump

Difference: 2.8%

Senate election results: 5.8% Burr (R)

Senate election predictions: 2.0% Burr (R)

Difference: 3.8%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 2.0%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support?: Yes

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, it was more republican.

Nevada

Presidential election results: 2.4% Clinton

Presidential election predictions: 0.8% Trump

Difference: 3.2%

Senate election results: 2.4% Masto (D)

Senate election predictions: 1.8% Masto (D)

Difference: 0.6%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 0%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: No

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support? N/A

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, more democratic.

New Hampshire

Presidential election results: 0.2% Clinton

Presidential election predictions: 0.6% Clinton

Difference: 0.4%

Senate election results: 0.1% Hassan (D)

Senate election predictions: Ayotte 1.5% (R)

Difference: 1.6%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins 0.1%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: No

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support? N/A

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Clinton did slightly worse than expected but still performed similarly to expected. Hassan did a bit better though than expected.

Pennsylvania

Presidential election results: 1.2% Trump

Presidential election predictions: 1.9% Clinton

Difference: 3.1%

Senate election results: 1.7% Toomey (R)

Senate election predictions: 2.0% McGinty (D)

Difference: 3.7%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 0.6%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support?: No

Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, the results were more republican.

Wisconsin

Presidential election results: 1.0% Trump

Presidential election predictions: 6.5% Clinton

Difference: 7.5%

Senate election results: 3.4% Johnson (R)

Senate election predictions: 2.7% Feingold (D)

Difference: 6.1%

Difference between senate and presidential win margins: 1.4%

Were the two races supposed to support the same party?: Yes

Did they support the same party?: Yes

Is the party the same party they were supposed to support?: No
Does there appear to be a trend between the predictions and the results?: Yes, more republican in general.

What does this all mean?

Well, there are a few takeaways I want people to get from this data dump.

1) In nine out of nine races tossup races in the senate, the party that won the presidency also won the senate.

2) While there may be some discrepancies in the presidential and senate data, it's highly likely that those who came out for Clinton came out for down ticket democrats too. It's also highly likely that those who came out for Trump came out for down ticket republicans.

3) If Clinton did indeed suppress voter turnout on the left, she likely cost the democrats the senate.

4) If we had a stronger democratic candidate, we likely would also have a senate more favorable to the democrats.

Data analysis is complicated and I know people could likely post other data that might counter these points. Voter turnout vs 2008 and 2012 might show a different picture, and people might be able to also describe senate races in which the democrat won the senate but Trump won the presidency. However, for the purposes of this demonstration, I only wanted to look at the close senate seats, you know, the ones actually considered to be up for grabs. And as far as those senate seats go, the republicans won them by a much larger margin than expected, winning 6 of them instead of the 5 I expected, and the results were much more in line with the presidential election than predicted. Take New Hampshire, for instance. Clinton won the electoral college but Ayotte was supposed to win the senate seat there. Hassan came out of nowhere and won it for the democrats. On the flip side, look at Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two states where the democrats were supposed to win. These two states were pivotal for the republicans, and are a huge why they won (that and Michigan). In Wisconsin, Clinton was supposed to win overwhelmingly by 6.5%, but instead lost narrowly by 1%. Likewise, Johnson came out of nowhere and beat Feingold. In Pennsylvania, Clinton was supposed to beat Trump and McGinty was supposed to beat Toomey. Instead, Trump and Toomey won, and the data was shockingly correlated between the two results. If we had a much stronger democrat, one who actually turned more democratic leaning voters out, we could be looking at a 51-49 majority for democrats instead of a 51-49 majority for the republicans. Those two seats alone cost the democratic party the senate, and those two states were integral in giving the presidency to Donald Trump.

That being said, I'm going to say my common refrain over the past week: THANKS A LOT, HILLARY CLINTON, THANKS A LOT CENTRIST DEMS, YOU HANDED THE COUNTRY OVER TO THE GOP ON A SILVER PLATTER. THANKS A FREAKING LOT!

I really hope the democrats learn going forward. I really, really do. For all our sakes...