2018 Congressional Recruitment/Fundraising/Ratings Megathread v2

[smoltchanov]

Big recruting news. Dems finally get a big name to run against Katko I. NY-24 as Juanita Perez Williams is entering the race after declining earlier http://cnycentral.com/news/local/juanita-perez-williams-expected-to-run-for-congress

I don't consider a candidate, who handily lost a mayor election in Democratic-leaning city, to be a "big name"....

[smoltchanov]

Big recruting news. Dems finally get a big name to run against Katko I. NY-24 as Juanita Perez Williams is entering the race after declining earlier http://cnycentral.com/news/local/juanita-perez-williams-expected-to-run-for-congress

I don't consider a candidate, who handily lost a mayor election in Democratic-leaning city, to be a "big name"....

We need someone credible to ride the blue wave, and the candidate she lost to was related to (and had the same name as) the biggest Republican name in the district of the last 30 years.

I know that. And still can't consider her to be  A-list candidate...

[smoltchanov]

Is anyone else feeling bothered by the fact that an anti-Pelosi Democrat won the IL-12 Democratic nomination, which is a District that voted for Obama twice, and elected a Pelosi supporter in 2012.

Democrats should not be lowering standards like this is in these types of Districts.

No. Brendan Kelly is a stunning recruit.

I like Pelosi, I think she was incredibly effective at getting legislation through during her time as Speaker, and I would prefer she become Speaker again if we retake the House, but it's not that big a deal to me if a candidate thinks it is time for someone else to take over. She has been leader since 2003, and it doesn't strike me as absurd that some Democrats may think that is long enough. The fact that Kelly is a strong candidate and could hold this seat for some time makes it an even less important issue to me.

For me, its not that I specifically want Pelosi to be speaker, it is that I think whether or not she gets replaced should be decided in an organized intraparty debate, and not by a bunch of candidates who made contrary pledges beforehand.

They do have a right to express their positions, don't they? About Pelosi's speakership too. A lot of Democratic congressmen (especially - from South) were against McGovern for President in 1972, for example, and no one considered it even worthy a comment: they were within their rights, and it was even rather natural. That's the reason i don't want to have anything in common with ANY party: i don't give a pledge (even less - an oath) of loyalty to anyone, but myself and my relatives.

[smoltchanov]

By the way, I am not necessarily opposed to Pelosi being replaced. But if she is, it should be done after a proper debate by the whole Democratic House membership, and not pre-determined by a few renegade members who already made their decision before the vote.

Come on. We all know candidates like this guy and Connor lamb will, if the chips are down would support Pelosi rather than hand chamber control back to the Republicans. It's just a good campaign tactic considering that Pelosi is, rightly or wrongly, a lightning rod for anyone who isn't liberal.

+100. There are considerably less party defections now, then in the past. In 1972, i already mentioned, i would easily expect 50-70 Democratic congressmen voting against Pelosi (in some Southern states they would be a majority of Democratic delegation) for speaker, now - may be 5....

[smoltchanov]

CNN moves a dozen seats toward the Democrats

Solid R -> Likely R: AZ-06, CA-04, FL-16, MI-01, OH-07
Likely R -> Lean R: AR-02, IL-14, NJ-03, NM-02, OH-01, WA-05, WI-06

They now have:

Solid R: 162
Likely R: 25
Lean R: 25
Tossup: 21 (currently 2 D, 19 R)
Lean D: 11 (including 7 currently R)
Likely D: 11 (including 2 currently R)
Solid D: 180

Full lists of the non-solid ratings are in the article.

Well, good for Democrats, but still not very good. If we suppose that "likely" seats will stay where they are with 0,95 probability, and "lean" seats with 0.75 probability (usually - real results are not that different), assign all "safe" seats to the parties, which have them now, and split toss-up seats 50-50, that gives following result: R:218,3, D: 216,7. Absolutely minimal difference, but - still... (despite a very good Democratic year)

[smoltchanov]

So - Democrats must win all 7 tossup races for a majority? Not an easy task...

[smoltchanov]

How are NV, AZ and ND Toss-ups? Democrats are clearly favored in all three states, and it’s not particularly close either.

Even if that's true - Democrats must hold ALL of MT, WV, IN and MO. Slightly easier task, but - only slightly..

[smoltchanov]

Ya barring #metoo style scandals Stewart is done. I agree it is unlikely to be by 20, however - Stewart should be able to get the base out and with his bizarre support in PWC he should hit 41-42%. Kaine by 12-15 is probably the final result.

+1.

[smoltchanov]

6 Democratic seats among 9, and 3 Republican. Under normal circumstances i would expect something like R+1 or 2.

[smoltchanov]

^ So, Democrats will not lose even single Senate seat? Count me skeptical...

[smoltchanov]

^ So, Democrats will not lose even single Senate seat? Count me skeptical...

Not that infeasible a scenario statistically speaking. IIRC, incumbent senators of the out of power party running for reelection during midterms have like a 95% reelection rate. Democrats losing only one senate seat this year would fit that average performance, so if the Republicans perform below average this year at the ballot box, they won't flip a single senate seat. Based on the fundamentals and special election results, this is certainly shaping up to be a very below average year for Republicans.

Still, with about 10 Democratic Senators running in Trump (2016) states, again - count me skeptical...

[smoltchanov]

^ So, Democrats will not lose even single Senate seat? Count me skeptical...

Not that infeasible a scenario statistically speaking. IIRC, incumbent senators of the out of power party running for reelection during midterms have like a 95% reelection rate. Democrats losing only one senate seat this year would fit that average performance, so if the Republicans perform below average this year at the ballot box, they won't flip a single senate seat. Based on the fundamentals and special election results, this is certainly shaping up to be a very below average year for Republicans.

Still, with about 10 Democratic Senators running in Trump (2016) states, again - count me skeptical...

That statistic is repeated over and over. Its one of the most easy to understand principles behind these races, and the most deceiving.
Here are the 10 states in question from west coast to east
MT-Jon Tester
ND-Heidi Heitkamp
MO-Claire McCaskill
WI-Tammy Baldwin
IN-Joe Donnelly
MI-Debbie Stabnow
OH-Sherrod Brown
WV-Joe Manchin
PA-Bob Casey Jr.
FL-Bill Nelson
First of all, three states on that list are the rustbelt states that went to Trump by less than 1% each and ones that Obama won by a healthy margin, so take off PA,WI,and MI.

Next, since we the campaigns are starting up, we can use polling to deduct the safe senators, which include OH,MT, and arguably WV

We also have to take candidate quality into play, which helps to discount MT,OH, and WV more and also discounts MO, though it will still be a close race.

This leaves us with the actual competitive races for 2018 on the Democratic side
FL
ND
IN
(and possibly MO)
These are the only races at this point in the cycle that could flip to Republicans come the midterms. And even then, the Democrats have an advantage in all of them.
-Rick Scott and Bill Nelson have traded leads, but Rick is doing this by burning through money, Bill is barely spending.
-Cramer is a pretty bad canidate, constantly putting his foot in his mouth, whos only positive is that he has won statewide. He is even leading currently in polling. But the tarriffs are hitting this place hard, and Heidi has defied the odds before.
-Braun is an unknown. No one has any idea on how this race will go. He could be a tough opponent or a weak pushover. The only info we have is from Gravis, a below average polling group, which put the race at +1 for Braun. Seriously though, we need polling for this seat, not Texas polling.
-Claire McCaskill must be a witch or something, because everything is falling into place for her. The former Gov. is discraced but could run as an independent and throw the race. Josh Hawley, once considered an A+ recruit, is turning out to be too easy to attack and a poor fighter. Claire has been leading in most polls, something she failed to do in 2012. Everything is just working out for her.

And something most people forget when they talk about how "its impossible to hold these seats" is that these people have won these seats before, in 2012, at best a neutral, or tilt D, year. Now, these incumbents are going to have to play defense during a blue midterm year. It's not impossible to hold all of these seats, but it will be challenging.

Guys, it's an emply  talk and wish for now. I am not convinced, that  Democrats have  more, then 1 "guranteed pickup" right now - first. I think that ND, IN, MO and WV will be very difficult  until the end - second. And so on. Let's talk about that in mid-October. It may happen, but i am absolutely no sure it will happen (right now i am inclined, that  it will not). We shall see.

[smoltchanov]

Should we get excited that Archie Parnell outraised his opponent?

Probably no, but i doubt that you would prefer that opponent..

[smoltchanov]

^ DKE and RRH are simply too partisan for their ratings to be believed... Both are prepared by "sane" group of "activists" of corresponding parties (but still - activists), so - not really surprising. I, usually, take their predictions, and then calculate a probable real result as something equidistant from both...

[smoltchanov]

^ DKE and RRH are simply too partisan for their ratings to be believed... Both are prepared by "sane" group of "activists" of corresponding parties (but still - activists), so - not really surprising. I, usually, take their predictions, and then calculate a probable real result as something equidistant from both...

Have you seen DKE's ratings so far? I'm not sure if they have changed much since I last looked, but if anything, they were being too conservative, and I saw blowback for it both on and off Atlas. I don't know anything about RRH, but I don't think it's fair in this case to wave DKE off just because of the partisan nature of DK overall.

Of course - i saw them. And yes - this time they are unusually cautious (for now). But i remember their ratings in 2010 and 2014, which were far more optimistic, then real results turned to be. May be - they finally learned something, but so far i prefer to be skeptical. So - i usually go with  more "neutral" predictors

[smoltchanov]

^ DKE and RRH are simply too partisan for their ratings to be believed... Both are prepared by "sane" group of "activists" of corresponding parties (but still - activists), so - not really surprising. I, usually, take their predictions, and then calculate a probable real result as something equidistant from both...

Have you seen DKE's ratings so far? I'm not sure if they have changed much since I last looked, but if anything, they were being too conservative, and I saw blowback for it both on and off Atlas. I don't know anything about RRH, but I don't think it's fair in this case to wave DKE off just because of the partisan nature of DK overall.

Yeah DKE is arguably the most Republican-biased ratings site as far as ratings go

That's natural. They are Republicans after all. But i like their election previews a lot, because they are much more detailed, then those on DKE and other sites..

[smoltchanov]

RRH’s previews are arguably the best of any political website out there, which is the only reason I lurk there. The comments sections on the daily roundups have become unreadable cesspools that cause your IQ to drop 10 points every time you make the mistake of reading the comments.

I know. I was a poster there for some time (until being banned for being "insufficiently Republican" in my posts, though i never pretended to be anything, but slightly-left-of-center-Indie (in present conditions - Democratically-leaning))... To be honest - the same situation exist on DKE, where i was banned for refusal to admire Obama, and my saying, that Reagan, in his 8 Presidential years, probably learned more then him))). Almost all partisan sites are, essentially the same - clubs for people thinking the same way...

[smoltchanov]

New CNN Rating Changes:

FL-13: Likely Dem -> Solid Dem
IA-03: Lean Rep -> Toss Up
ME-02: Lean Rep -> Toss Up
OH-12: Lean Rep -> Toss Up
PA-16: Solid Rep -> Likely Rep
PA-17: Toss Up -> Lean Dem
SC-01: Solid Rep -> Likely Rep
TX-07: Lean Rep -> Toss Up
VA-02: Lean Rep -> Toss Up
VA-07: Lean Rep -> Toss Up
WV-03: Likely Rep -> Toss Up
WI-03: Likely Dem -> Solid Dem

Source

OJEDA OJEDA OJEDA!! The people will be heard #3007strong

When Ojeda wins, will he join the Blue Dog Caucus?
 This is just a general question for Atlas.

 Im hoping no, but something in me says yes.

hoping - yes))))

[smoltchanov]

I have been looking at various data and information sources, and it seems that the people of SC-05 do not care about the domestic abuse issue with Archie Parnell. He will probably lose, but it will not be because of this.

No one ever seems to bring it up on replies to his tweets on twitter.

Because the truth is nobody cares or even probably knows in real life. Nobody cared about Bill Clinton's indiscretions or Ronald Reagan banging 15 year old girls or Marion Barry smoking crack.

+100. Rare case, where we agree. Besides "mad activists" no one really cares about such things. It's life, and such things happen in it. No one really cares about who hit somebody in brawl (even - home brawl), or how one looked (or, God forbid, huggedor kissed) on somebody. And so on.... That happened, happens and will always happen... Even with the best people. Even more so - with others.

[smoltchanov]

Likely one less Democratic candidate:

‘I hate this county.’ Democratic House candidate convicted of DUI unloads on cops

https://politics.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/hate-this-county-democratic-house-candidate-convicted-dui-unloads-cops/T9B8qfyAjX7NnI725UV2VP/

For the posters on another thread, I don't think it's a surprise that the Democratic candidate in question here is Steven Foster.  And to think, this man has a medical degree.

Idiots with degrees are NOT a big rarities..

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1028792858197803013

Wow, excellent! Usually R registration is more pronounced in FL, even with the youth, but being in the lead, and having a likely lead among the others is great.

Nevertheless, most of the people prefer "Other". What can be interpreted as "f**k you, BOTH parties"))))))

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1028792858197803013

Wow, excellent! Usually R registration is more pronounced in FL, even with the youth, but being in the lead, and having a likely lead among the others is great.

Nevertheless, most of the people prefer "Other". What can be interpreted as "f**k you, BOTH parties"))))))

"Other" in Florida is actually associated more with minority races other than African Americans.

I made no statements about racial characteristics of these voters. Only that "Others" seems to attract more people then both established parties..

[smoltchanov]

Why are people still taking Cook's ratings seriously?

Why not?

[smoltchanov]

Why are people still taking Cook's ratings seriously?

Why not?

Well, as said above, Cook's House ratings are actually quite good this cycle. For instance, they were ahead of the curve in regards to TX-23, which they called a Lean R race all along. Other forecasters rushed to call it a tossup before moving it back to Lean R once they realized Hurd is a very strong incumbent.

Their Gov/Senate ratings really do suck though.

TX-23 is Likely D lol.

Listen, pal, I may be a hack but I'm a rational hack.

Hurd only barely won in 2014 and 2016, which were much better years for Republicans. With 2018 set to be a Democratic Wave, Hurd is DOA.

Absolutely not. First of all - i will believe a wave when i will see it, but - not earlier then mid-October. I remember a lot of elections, where Democrats squandered all their "advantage" in September-first half of October. And then - cursed voters, and everybody, but itself (of course - they can't be critical of itself, because they are always right). And Hurd is better then medium candidate for Republicans (and slightly saner, then most Texas Republicans too), so it's rather tossup race.

[smoltchanov]

Why are people still taking Cook's ratings seriously?

Why not?

Well, as said above, Cook's House ratings are actually quite good this cycle. For instance, they were ahead of the curve in regards to TX-23, which they called a Lean R race all along. Other forecasters rushed to call it a tossup before moving it back to Lean R once they realized Hurd is a very strong incumbent.

Their Gov/Senate ratings really do suck though.

TX-23 is Likely D lol.

Listen, pal, I may be a hack but I'm a rational hack.

Hurd only barely won in 2014 and 2016, which were much better years for Republicans. With 2018 set to be a Democratic Wave, Hurd is DOA.

Absolutely not. First of all - i will believe a wave when i will see it, but - not earlier then mid-October. I remember a lot of elections, where Democrats squandered all their "advantage" in September-first half of October. And then - cursed voters, and everybody, but itself (of course - they can't be critical of itself, because they are always right). And Hurd is better then medium candidate for Republicans (and slightly saner, then most Texas Republicans too), so it's rather tossup race.

Really man? The wave does exist and all information says it exists. Not even R avatars go against this.

Anyway, the race is a tossup due to the fact that Hispanic turnout plummets in midterms, giving Hurd a boost when he would lose by a large margin in a presidential. Of course, we could all be wrong and laugh on when we thought Hurd was a strong incumbent, but some public polling would be needed.

As i said - i will believe it no earlier, then October 15th. No your statements to the contrary will convince me NOW