2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[junior chįmp]

This thread is turning into a 4 way circle jerk between various troll sock accounts

[IceSpear]

Democrats led in generic ballot polls as late as October 2010 and November 2014. It's January. You all need Xanax.

[Arkansas Yankee]

A senate wave?
Okay who is beating Brown? Tester? Baldwin? Casey? Stabenow?

A GOP Senate wave would result from keeping Nevada and Arizona and picking up Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Florida and/0r Pennsylvania.

Do I think it will happen? No.  But then I did not think Trump would win.

[Doimper]

Democrats led in generic ballot polls as late as October 2010 and November 2014. It's January. You all need Xanax.

[MT Treasurer]

A GOP Senate wave would result from keeping Nevada and Arizona and picking up Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Florida and/0r Pennsylvania.

lol@PA being more likely to flip than MT. And of course strong incumbent Dean Heller still wins in your scenario.

[Arkansas Yankee]

ND
Heitkamp - 57.2
Campbell - 39.4

A PPP poll in June had Feingold ahead of Johnson 50% to 37%:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/PPP_WI_June_2016.pdf

A Monmouth poll in late August had Feingold ahead 54% to 41%

Only one published poll in October had Johnson in the lead.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_johnson_vs_feingold-3740.html#polls

You just cannot live by polls.  Never give up at least in a state where your party has a good base.

[Gustaf]

Clearly Democrats are doomed. LimoLiberal's hot take is all we need to pay attention to.

Have you guys considered banning the moron that's cheerfully sh**tting everywhere?

I can't ban him, and I'm probably in a minority if not alone among the mods who think career trolls like him should be banned.

But if he keeps posting commentary meant to incite arguments then I'll consider moving his posts and threads to a single megathread.

For the record, you are not alone.

[Brittain33]

Is it a fair assessment to say that the closing we are seeing is some share of Republican voters feeling better about their party and coming home to supporting it in the generic ballot? I'm looking at Monmouth where the Dem top line isn't different from other top lines, but the Republicans at 45% are much higher than other polls having Republicans in the 30s.

Yes, I'm aware it's one poll.

[LimoLiberal]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/01/that-upcoming-democratic-rout-suddenly-its-looking-far-less-certain/?utm_term=.08fad78eabb1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Calling it now: at the very least, Dems pick up 25 seats. Fundraising and the national environment favor them compared to the GOP.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The national environment, fundraising, and human capital of candidates are what's going to help the Dems win. These doomsday posts about their chances "dying" are knee-jerk reactions to the Monmouth poll.

[Hollywood]

My feeling is that an increase in Trumps approval will correspond to better congressional poll results for Republicans. 

Here's my theory.  Trump has been cast as a Radical Republican. I think people see congressional lawmakers as more centrist and appropriate. If more people approve of Trump that indicates to me that people are not just leaning Republican, but becoming base supporters of Trump.  As a consequence, Republicans will have a larger base to work with during the mid-term elections. 

I think the key number is 47 for Trump's approval ratings.  That would represent a 6 points swing and save the Republicans from any meaningful losses.  Remember that Trump won the election with 46% of the vote and congressional Republicans dominated.  If he starts to exceed 48, the Democrats are in big s##t trouble.  Over 50% and it becomes a disaster. 

You didn't see this number correspond with Obama's approval rating, because Democrats don't show up in big numbers during mid-term elections and Democrats were not viewed so favorably in many congressional districts.  Obama seemed reasonable and centrist to the blue collar voter, but Democrats did not.  We have the opposite situation working today in which people view Republicans more favorably than Trump. 

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

My feeling is that an increase in Trumps approval will correspond to better congressional poll results for Republicans. 

Here's my theory.  Trump has been cast as a Radical Republican. I think people see congressional lawmakers as more centrist and appropriate. If more people approve of Trump that indicates to me that people are not just leaning Republican, but becoming base supporters of Trump.  As a consequence, Republicans will have a larger base to work with during the mid-term elections. 

I think the key number is 47 for Trump's approval ratings.  That would represent a 6 points swing and save the Republicans from any meaningful losses.  Remember that Trump won the election with 46% of the vote and congressional Republicans dominated.  If he starts to exceed 48, the Democrats are in big s##t trouble.  Over 50% and it becomes a disaster. 

You didn't see this number correspond with Obama's approval rating, because Democrats don't show up in big numbers during mid-term elections and Democrats were not viewed so favorably in many congressional districts.  Obama seemed reasonable and centrist to the blue collar voter, but Democrats did not.  We have the opposite situation working today in which people view Republicans more favorably than Trump. 

Polls have showed that Trump's favorable rating is much higher than the Republican party's...

[Dr. Arch]

My feeling is that an increase in Trumps approval will correspond to better congressional poll results for Republicans.  

Here's my theory.  Trump has been cast as a Radical Republican. I think people see congressional lawmakers as more centrist and appropriate. If more people approve of Trump that indicates to me that people are not just leaning Republican, but becoming base supporters of Trump.  As a consequence, Republicans will have a larger base to work with during the mid-term elections.  

I think the key number is 47 for Trump's approval ratings.  That would represent a 6 points swing and save the Republicans from any meaningful losses.  Remember that Trump won the election with 46% of the vote and congressional Republicans dominated.  If he starts to exceed 48, the Democrats are in big s##t trouble.  Over 50% and it becomes a disaster.  

You didn't see this number correspond with Obama's approval rating, because Democrats don't show up in big numbers during mid-term elections and Democrats were not viewed so favorably in many congressional districts. Obama seemed reasonable and centrist to the blue collar voter, but Democrats did not.  We have the opposite situation working today in which people view Republicans more favorably than Trump.  

This is a myth. In truth, turnout is usually in flux and depends on the electorate base of the parties. With Republicans bleeding educated voters, who turn out in good numbers historically, the opposite is easily possible in a midterm with a president like Trump. In fact, most elections we've seen so far since 2016 have seen massive swings against Republicans in what are supposed to be extremely low turnout elections.

We'll see what happens in 2018, but you're getting ahead of yourself here.

[junior chįmp]

Democrats will win big in 2018....ignore the polls.

The last ABC poll taken before the 1994 midterms showed it a 4% lead for the GOP

Again, look at the signal (retirements, fundraising, enthusiasm,etc...) and not the noise (polls, dumbass pundits, LimoLiberal)

Look at the polling from 1994 for example:

[Virginiá]

Democrats will win big in 2018....ignore the polls.

The last ABC poll taken before the 1994 midterms showed it a 4% lead for the GOP

Again, look at the signal (retirements, fundraising, enthusiasm,etc...) and not the noise (polls, dumbass pundits, LimoLiberal)

Look at the polling from 1994 for example:

I'm plenty sure the polls will eventually bounce back, or at least maintain what they are now (7% give or take). Keep in mind that Democrats under-performing polls is not a given. If Democrats won the House PV by 7%, that would be a wave just shy of 2006, and if they got 9%, it would be a bit better. So this idea that 7.3 on the RCP average should have Democrats panicking is downright comical. It shows just how far the bar has been lowered by conservatives trying to fight a narrative that they are on the outs this year.

For the first time since 2008, the fundamentals are all strongly on the side of the Democratic Party. Candidate fundraising, historic recruitment, almost historic number of retirements, a consistent and sometimes quite large enthusiasm gap, chronically low approval ratings of an unpopular Republican president and the shift of high-turnout white college grads to the Democrats all bodes well for the party to perform strongly in November.

That being said, we still have a long way to go until the election, so both Democrats and Republicans are likely to see the polls swing back and forth a bit. It's not worth obsessing over each swing as if that is for sure what it will be in November.

[IceSpear]

Democrats will win big in 2018....ignore the polls.

The last ABC poll taken before the 1994 midterms showed it a 4% lead for the GOP

Again, look at the signal (retirements, fundraising, enthusiasm,etc...) and not the noise (polls, dumbass pundits, LimoLiberal)

Look at the polling from 1994 for example:

Why go all the way back to 1994? Just look at 2014.

[Hollywood]

My feeling is that an increase in Trumps approval will correspond to better congressional poll results for Republicans.  

Here's my theory.  Trump has been cast as a Radical Republican. I think people see congressional lawmakers as more centrist and appropriate. If more people approve of Trump that indicates to me that people are not just leaning Republican, but becoming base supporters of Trump.  As a consequence, Republicans will have a larger base to work with during the mid-term elections.  

I think the key number is 47 for Trump's approval ratings.  That would represent a 6 points swing and save the Republicans from any meaningful losses.  Remember that Trump won the election with 46% of the vote and congressional Republicans dominated.  If he starts to exceed 48, the Democrats are in big s##t trouble.  Over 50% and it becomes a disaster.  

You didn't see this number correspond with Obama's approval rating, because Democrats don't show up in big numbers during mid-term elections and Democrats were not viewed so favorably in many congressional districts. Obama seemed reasonable and centrist to the blue collar voter, but Democrats did not.  We have the opposite situation working today in which people view Republicans more favorably than Trump.  

This is a myth. In truth, turnout is usually in flux and depends on the electorate base of the parties. With Republicans bleeding educated voters, who turn out in good numbers historically, the opposite is easily possible in a midterm with a president like Trump. In fact, most elections we've seen so far since 2016 have seen massive swings against Republicans in what are supposed to be extremely low turnout elections.

We'll see what happens in 2018, but you're getting ahead of yourself here.

Oh I admit it.  I'm totally getting ahead of myself.  There are so many variables at play with Trump and Anti-Trump politics.  I'm just theorizing based on the data that pops out to me.  Now I'm gonna go super nerdy with my theory by pointing to data I think will be important and selectively pick data that support my theory.

Let's analyze Generalissimo's 1994 poll results.  Democrats were tied with Republicans right before the election.  In Mid-August Clinton's approval rating was 39%, but bumped up to 46% before the mid-term elections (aka the Republican Revolution).  Clinton's numbers averaged out to 42.5%.  The Democrats only received 44.8% of the votes.  In 2010, Obama's approval rating was around 44-46% before the election, and Democrats received 44.9% of congressional votes.  In both these elections, the Republican Party received 52% of the vote, which is lower but pretty close to the Presidential disapproval level.  

In 2006, Bush's approval rating was between 37% and 44% before the election.  That averages out to 40.5%.  Republicans received 44% of the vote, while Democrats received 52%, despite a disapproval of 51-58%.  

In the last election, Trump garnered 46% of the popular vote and Republicans won elections by good margins.  This indicates to me that Trump's poll numbers and approval do not correlate Republican voter share at the congressional level.  Now I don't think its fair to compare Presidential elections years with mid-term elections, but I think Trump's approval is likely a baseline for Republicans.  

In sum, I think Presidential Approval polls are nice indication of the incumbent party's base support in a midterm election. In terms of voter share, Democrats and Republicans seem capped at 52-53%, despite high approval rating, but Republicans receive a greater benefit from this cap because of districting.  Generally, I would add 2-2.5% more points to Trump's average approval rating a couple of months before the election.  Let's call it the Trump Rules.  I would also add an additional .75% to it for every additional point Trump falls below 43% to account for political climatology.  If I had to put my chips all-in blind, I would call it 51-53% to 46-47.5% in favor of the Democrats in terms of voter share.

In November, I will look back at this post and conclude that I must have been hammered at 4:55PM on a Thursday.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You know what pisses me off about this whole congressional ballot affair?
When Democrats have a 10+ point lead, political journalists say "it's too early, you don't know what's goin' to happen, Republicans will come home".
But when the lead shrinks to 5-6 points, "Democrats are blowing it, they got the wrong message, Middle America hates Pelosi and LOVES Trump".

Try to have some fycking consistency people, is it that difficult?

[junior chįmp]

Why go all the way back to 1994? Just look at 2014.

2014 should of come as no surprise due to a political phenomenon known as the 6 year itch

1994 was unique because nobody thought the GOP would take over Congress. There was an article not too long ago about the 1994 mid-terms that talked about how Gingrich was like the only person in the Republican Party who thought they would take over the House because he looked at the underlying fundamentals and avoided the polls (most of which showed a close race). He noticed that the House had become a gerontocracy of an old and out of touch generation and that in every Congressional election year, the amount of Boomers in Congress began to increase. For Example:

1975-1% of Congress was made up of Baby Boomers
1977-2%
1979-4%
1981-6%
1983-11%
1985-12%
1987-16%
1989-21%

(The data I have available ends in 1989)

Extrapolating from these trends, Gingrich realized that the generational fundamentals alone would lead Republicans to victory in 1994. Basically, the same thing is going to happen now in reverse and all these old Boomer jagoffs are about to get tossed out.

These are things nobody looks at. So many people on Atlas jerk off endlessly to polls and useless data but if you want to make predictions, you have to come at it from every angle possible. Look at enthusiasm, donations, the collective feeling at the time, the generational dynamics, the party in power, the economy, etc...

Data and polling alone is useless

[KingSweden]

^^^

Gingrich is a much cannier analyst of American politics than he gets credit for

[junior chįmp]

^^^

Gingrich is a much cannier analyst of American politics than he gets credit for

Here's the article or anyone interested.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

^ I don't agree with placing so much emphasis on the "Contract for America" thing (I recall reading that they only laid it out a month or two before the election and most people weren't even aware of it), but I do agree with a number of the things you laid out in your previous post. There is only so much emphasis you can place on generic ballot polls, and they best thought of as one part of a multi-part model. That is one thing I learned from 2016. Polls were the only thing that truly indicated a possible wave, while everything else seemed to point to a closer race, or at least not a wave.

That being said, the polls are still important, but there is still a lot of room to move either way. If you think the average of D+7 right now with a MoE of 3 points is where things currently stand at, then it could go anywhere from D+4 to D+10, which is the difference between a probable GOP majority and a probable Democratic majority.

[junior chįmp]

^ I don't agree with placing so much emphasis on the "Contract for America" thing (I recall reading that they only laid it out a month or two before the election and most people weren't even aware of it), but I do agree with a number of the things you laid out in your previous post. There is only so much emphasis you can place on generic ballot polls, and they best thought of as one part of a multi-part model. That is one thing I learned from 2016. Polls were the only thing that truly indicated a possible wave, while everything else seemed to point to a closer race, or at least not a wave.

That being said, the polls are still important, but there is still a lot of room to move either way. If you think the average of D+7 right now with a MoE of 3 points is where things currently stand at, then it could go anywhere from D+4 to D+10, which is the difference between a probable GOP majority and a probable Democratic majority.

I agree that policy positions don't matter at all. All election victories can be attributed, for the most part, to factors outside of the candidates control. The Great Society never would of happened if Kennedy hadn't had his head blown off or had Kennedy chosen someone inexperienced as his VP (only LBJ could of rammed that legislation through). Good quality candidates are made my the historical moment and policy positions come from one party trying to snap up coalitions to create a dominant enough coalition to legislate. But candidates and policies alone do very little to win elections all on their own. Unfortunately, this is what the centrist wing of the Democratic Party doesn't understand.

[KingSweden]

I’ve acually met giant-killer George Nethercutt a few times. Very nice man, said I had a pretty wife and has a remarkable handshake.