Latest Generic Polls: Ras +12%R; WSJ 6%R; Gallup 15%R; CNN 10R; Fox13R; Bloom 3R

[J. J.]

Vorlon, you are calling for a sixty seat Republican gain in the House?

"calling for" would imply advocacy for that outcome, and I don't actually trust the GOP enough to want them to have than many seats. 

There are about 35 Dem seats that are basically "gone", baring some major shift the race is over.  There are another 35 or so where it is very very close, more or less toss-ups  I expect the GOP to win about 3/4s of them or so.  The Dems will likely win back LA2, HI1, and Delaware AL, ~~maybe~~ Illinois 10, so yes 60 seats +/- is the middle of the range.

There are dozens of seats, mainly in the Midwest, that are all very close, so it's really hard to get an exact read right now.  A shift or even 2 or 3 points Nationally changes a couple dozen seats in the house.  It's actually quite exciting.  Depending on the turnout model, GOP gains could be anywhere from 28 to about 105 seats at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

Well, I agree with a 30-35 range of "gone" seats, but I'm a less certain about another 25-30 on top of that.  105 is possible if Obama nominates bin Laden for the Supreme Court.  That 60 seems excessive.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I wouldn't say 35 seats are dead at this point. Maybe leaning towards the GOP, but the incumbents involved could certainly close the gap in some cases.

[J. J.]

I wouldn't say 35 seats are dead at this point. Maybe leaning towards the GOP, but the incumbents involved could certainly close the gap in some cases.

Give me a list of flipped seats in 2006 and 2008, and I'll show you 30-35 seats.

[The Vorlon]

Vorlon, you are calling for a sixty seat Republican gain in the House?

"calling for" would imply advocacy for that outcome, and I don't actually trust the GOP enough to want them to have than many seats. 

There are about 35 Dem seats that are basically "gone", baring some major shift the race is over.  There are another 35 or so where it is very very close, more or less toss-ups  I expect the GOP to win about 3/4s of them or so.  The Dems will likely win back LA2, HI1, and Delaware AL, ~~maybe~~ Illinois 10, so yes 60 seats +/- is the middle of the range.

There are dozens of seats, mainly in the Midwest, that are all very close, so it's really hard to get an exact read right now.  A shift or even 2 or 3 points Nationally changes a couple dozen seats in the house.  It's actually quite exciting.  Depending on the turnout model, GOP gains could be anywhere from 28 to about 105 seats at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

Well, I agree with a 30-35 range of "gone" seats, but I'm a less certain about another 25-30 on top of that.  105 is possible if Obama nominates bin Laden for the Supreme Court.  That 60 seems excessive.

As I said, 105 is a really "extreme" scenario - maximum GOP turnout, very depressed Dem turnout, a "big" event worth a couple extra points, so "shock and awe" event.

In terms of counting 35 or so...

these I am pretty sure of, and then there are another 40 or so that are very much in play... in a wave year the wave party will get most of the marginals...

I am sure there are a bunch in the mid-west nobody is watching that will go GOP as well.

1 - TN6
2 - LA3
3 - AR2
4 - NY29
5 - MD1
6 - OH15
7 - NM2
8 - OH1
9 - KS3
10 - IN8
11 - CO4
12 - NH1
13 - NH2
14 - ND99
15 - TN8
16 - FL24
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
19 - VA5
20 - VA2
21 - FL8
22 - MI1
23 - NY24
24 - PA11
25 - WV1
26 - MI7
27 - WA3
28 - PA7
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1
35 - SC5
36 - PA3

[Sam Spade]

As I said, 105 is a really "extreme" scenario - maximum GOP turnout, very depressed Dem turnout, a "big" event worth a couple extra points, so "shock and awe" event.

In terms of counting 35 or so...

these I am pretty sure of, and then there are another 40 or so that are very much in play... in a wave year the wave party will get most of the marginals...

I am sure there are a bunch in the mid-west nobody is watching that will go GOP as well.

Agree with last sentence (well, I'm watching them and DCCC is advertising, but that's not "watching") - unsure of other sentence.

As to your list...

1 - TN6 Yes.
2 - LA3 Yes, though Louisiana is strange.
3 - AR2 Yes.
4 - NY29 Yes.
5 - MD1 Not 100%, but in seats that are Republican (as opposed to voting Republican), the undecideds tend to move to the Republican side during good years at the end.
6 - OH15 Yes.  Dems haven't even tried to advertise here.
7 - NM2 Not 100%, and less so than MD1.  This area is strange.
8 - OH1 Close to Yes.  Black turnout is what did Chabot in anyway - and Ohio looks bad to me for Dems.
9 - KS3 Dems have thrown money here, but I think it's a waste of time.  So yes.
10 - IN8 Probably - given what else we've seen in the Midwest.
11 - CO4 Yes.
12 - NH1 Shea-Porter is stronger than we give her credit for and Guinta is weak.  Definitely can't agree here.
13 - NH2 I think so.  Not 100%, but close.
14 - ND99 You mean ND-AL.  Probably, but less so than NH-2.
15 - TN8 Yes because Fincher is the correct candidate for the CD. Watch.
16 - FL24 Yes.
17 - MS1 Not 100%, but close.  Childers will have to run strongly with McCain-voting rural whites in MS - possible, but not likely.
18 - NV3 I don't think this one's over at all.
19 - VA5 Yes.
20 - VA2
21 - FL8 I personally think Grayson's killing himself, but I've been wrong before.  So probably yes.
22 - MI1 Yes - even though there's the weird third-party guy and Dems are throwing some money here.  MI7 is where Dems think they have the better shot.
23 - NY24 No - not dead at all.
24 - PA11 Yes.
25 - WV1 I don't know - West Virginia is weird.  This is a CD I have trouble with.
26 - MI7 I'd put this seat in the same league as MD1 actually.
27 - WA3 Yes.
28 - PA7 Yes.
29 - IL14 I think IL11 is gone.  This one isn't.
30 - TX17 Yes.
31 - AR1 No, though Dems are not favored - not gone.
32 - AL2 Demographics say yes here, but who knows.  Much like Childers, he has to get great numbers from McCain-voting whites in black areas, but his opponent is much weaker.  So not gone.
33 - IN9 Haven't gotten anything from here for a while.  In theory, it should be gone though.
34 - ID1 Dems are favored here unless we get the not unlikely late collapse.  Get the memo.
35 - SC5 Probably yes.
36 - PA3 I had a feeling English was dead here in 2008 and I have the same sense about dahlkemper now.

So what does that come to?

[Mr.Phips]

As I said, 105 is a really "extreme" scenario - maximum GOP turnout, very depressed Dem turnout, a "big" event worth a couple extra points, so "shock and awe" event.

In terms of counting 35 or so...

these I am pretty sure of, and then there are another 40 or so that are very much in play... in a wave year the wave party will get most of the marginals...

I am sure there are a bunch in the mid-west nobody is watching that will go GOP as well.

Agree with last sentence (well, I'm watching them and DCCC is advertising, but that's not "watching") - unsure of other sentence.

As to your list...

1 - TN6 Yes.
2 - LA3 Yes, though Louisiana is strange.
3 - AR2 Yes.
4 - NY29 Yes.
5 - MD1 Not 100%, but in seats that are Republican (as opposed to voting Republican), the undecideds tend to move to the Republican side during good years at the end.
6 - OH15 Yes.  Dems haven't even tried to advertise here.
7 - NM2 Not 100%, and less so than MD1.  This area is strange.
8 - OH1 Close to Yes.  Black turnout is what did Chabot in anyway - and Ohio looks bad to me for Dems.
9 - KS3 Dems have thrown money here, but I think it's a waste of time.  So yes.
10 - IN8 Probably - given what else we've seen in the Midwest.
11 - CO4 Yes.
12 - NH1 Shea-Porter is stronger than we give her credit for and Guinta is weak.  Definitely can't agree here.
13 - NH2 I think so.  Not 100%, but close.
14 - ND99 You mean ND-AL.  Probably, but less so than NH-2.
15 - TN8 Yes because Fincher is the correct candidate for the CD. Watch.
16 - FL24 Yes.
17 - MS1 Not 100%, but close.  Childers will have to run strongly with McCain-voting rural whites in MS - possible, but not likely.
18 - NV3 I don't think this one's over at all.
19 - VA5 Yes.
20 - VA2
21 - FL8 I personally think Grayson's killing himself, but I've been wrong before.  So probably yes.
22 - MI1 Yes - even though there's the weird third-party guy and Dems are throwing some money here.  MI7 is where Dems think they have the better shot.
23 - NY24 No - not dead at all.
24 - PA11 Yes.
25 - WV1 I don't know - West Virginia is weird.  This is a CD I have trouble with.
26 - MI7 I'd put this seat in the same league as MD1 actually.
27 - WA3 Yes.
28 - PA7 Yes.
29 - IL14 I think IL11 is gone.  This one isn't.
30 - TX17 Yes.
31 - AR1 No, though Dems are not favored - not gone.
32 - AL2 Demographics say yes here, but who knows.  Much like Childers, he has to get great numbers from McCain-voting whites in black areas, but his opponent is much weaker.  So not gone.
33 - IN9 Haven't gotten anything from here for a while.  In theory, it should be gone though.
34 - ID1 Dems are favored here unless we get the not unlikely late collapse.  Get the memo.
35 - SC5 Probably yes.
36 - PA3 I had a feeling English was dead here in 2008 and I have the same sense about dahlkemper now.

So what does that come to?

Almost precisely my list of losses.  The only change is that I have AL-02, NM-02, ID-01, IN-09, WV-01, NY-24, and NV-03 as holds and added NY-19, AZ-01, FL-02, IL-11, OH-16, WI-07, WI-08, and GA-08 as additional losses.  

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

The ones on your list I disagree are dead:

5 - MD1
7 - NM2
12 - NH1
14 - ND-AL
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
23 - NY24
25 - WV1
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1

[Mr.Phips]

The ones on your list I disagree are dead:

5 - MD1
7 - NM2
12 - NH1
14 - ND-AL
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
23 - NY24
25 - WV1
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1

Thoe only one of these that I agree is "gone" is TX-17.   The only consolation is that Edwards would almost certainly be eliminated in redistricting in 2012. 

[Sam Spade]

The ones on your list I disagree are dead:

5 - MD1
7 - NM2
12 - NH1
14 - ND-AL
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
23 - NY24
25 - WV1
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1

Thoe only one of these that I agree is "gone" is TX-17.   The only consolation is that Edwards would almost certainly be eliminated in redistricting in 2012. 

When your opponent releases an internal saying you're down 19, and your best comment is, our polls say otherwise, you're down double digits, at least...

[Mr.Phips]

The ones on your list I disagree are dead:

5 - MD1
7 - NM2
12 - NH1
14 - ND-AL
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
23 - NY24
25 - WV1
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1

Thoe only one of these that I agree is "gone" is TX-17.   The only consolation is that Edwards would almost certainly be eliminated in redistricting in 2012. 

When your opponent releases an internal saying you're down 19, and your best comment is, our polls say otherwise, you're down double digits, at least...

I dont see how Edwards was going survive long term in a district that Republican anyway.  Had Republicans put up a half decent candidate in 2008, he probably would have lost then. 

[Torie]

I assume Vorlon's use of the word "gone" means "behind."  Is that a correct assumption? I agree with him that a massive number of seats seem to be in play. This is a national issues oriented election, and so the individual personalities, and prior electoral track records mean a lot less, than in most elections. And nobody is interested in what goodies you can bring to the district, because voters sense the the "goodies era" is just so over.

There will be a lot of quite tight elections to track in House seats come this November if the current client still obtains then.

And we are flying somewhat blind with all these poll snippets, some used for disinformation purposes. So we rely on Charlie Cook and the like who have more access to quality internal polls. So we play the inference game, with money watches, and so forth. The one who calls the number of seats won by the GOP in this game will have won the guess game primarily due to one factor it seems - luck.

[Dgov]

Gallup released it's Generic ballot data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143330/Midterms-Dems-Gain-Young-Voters-Slip-Hispanics.aspx#1

Basically, Democrats are ahead 19 points with the Youth vote, roughly even with middle-aged voters, and are 12 points behind with the elderly.  This represents roughly a 6-point swing from August in all groups but the elderly, and the highest margin millennials have given the Democrats since the HC bill passed.

Also, Democrats are ahead 81 points with the Black vote, 13 points with the Hispanic vote, and behind 14 points with the White vote.  Hispanics here have shown the biggest swing, with Democrats going from plus 32 in June and July to plus 13 now.  Throw in the turnout gap and you would probably see this number drop into the low single digits.  This represents the best GOP congressional showing with them, ever.

Finally, Democrats are ahead a whopping 18 points in the East, but lose the West, Midwest and South by 3,4, and 9 respectively.

This all correlates to a 46-46 even electorate with registered voters, and probably a 51-46 Popular vote if you factor in turnout.

[Dgov]

Republicans are now even on the Illinois Generic ballot, and are up 50-37 outside of Chicago according to PPP.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IL_101.pdf

This actually says alot about Kirk, as he's actually 4 points below the statewide generic R level (which is terrible considering his opponent).  Also, since the not-Chicago IL congressional seats are relatively even in their CPVI, it's fair to say that the GOP is leading the generic ballot is almost every non-Cook county-based Congressional District (the 3rd and 9th are still safely Democratic).  That doesn't mean they'll win the 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 17th necessarily, but it does not look good for the Democrats in the Midwest.

[Eraserhead]

Republican lead is down to +3% on Rasmussen's generic ballot. This is the smallest gap he's shown in a year.

Republicans 45%
Democrats 42%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Republican lead is down to +3% on Rasmussen's generic ballot. This is the smallest gap he's shown in a year.

Republicans 45%
Democrats 42%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Which means it's actually starting to make sense when reconciled against the polls of individual districts.

[minionofmidas]

Idaho-1 is gone.

For Labrador.

[Skill and Chance]

Things seem to be regressing back towards a tie between the two parties.  It is vaguely reminescent of the UK elections last spring.

[Brittain33]

Things seem to be regressing back towards a tie between the two parties.  It is vaguely reminescent of the UK elections last spring.

This was always the problem with disregarding the gap between RV and LV polls in August because only the LV polls were significant. That's true to a point, but it meant there was the potential for change as the pool of LV grew larger given that Republican enthusiasm maxed out about 16 months ago and has stayed there.

[Brittain33]

Things seem to be regressing back towards a tie between the two parties.

Which still means massive losses for the Dems from 2006/2008 numbers, of course.

[Lief 🗽]

Republican lead is down to +3% on Rasmussen's generic ballot. This is the smallest gap he's shown in a year.

Republicans 45%
Democrats 42%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Hahah, wow. I usually don't read the Rasmussen press releases, but what a gigantic hack that guy is. And then he plugs his book about how great the Tea Party is at the end.

[CARLHAYDEN]

PSRA ‘jumps the shark’

In a recent poll for Newsweek, Princeton Survey Research Associates really outdoes itself.

Long know as one of the most left-leaning pollsters, in its 10/1/10 release, PSRA would have us believe that 96% of Democrat Registered Voters indicate that they are supporting or leaning to supporting the Democrat candidate for Congress, with only 2% supporting or leaning to support the Republican candidate!

In 2008 (according to Edison exit polls), 92% of Democrat voters supported the Democrat and 7% the Republican candidate.  That’s pretty much the same as 2006, when 93% supported the Democrat candidate (again, according to Edison).  In 2004, it was 90%.

Both for adults and registered voters, PSRA gives the Democrats an eight point lead, whereas Pollster’s aggregation of polls gives then a five point lead among adults, and a one point lead among ‘registered and likely voters.’

These ‘quirks’ in PSRA’s methodology probably explain, (at least in part) why it gives a generic Democrat advantage of 5 points while Opinion Dynamics and Rasmussen indicate a 6 point Republican advantage.

When checking RealClearPolitics generic ballot page, the last time any of the polls they use came up with a Democrat advantage of more than 2 points, was back in July!

[Eraserhead]

Republican lead is down to +3% on Rasmussen's generic ballot. This is the smallest gap he's shown in a year.

Republicans 45%
Democrats 42%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Hahah, wow. I usually don't read the Rasmussen press releases, but what a gigantic hack that guy is. And then he plugs his book about how great the Tea Party is at the end.

Yeah, I did find that bit disturbing.

[Brittain33]

Do the moderators update the title of the thread, or is it up to the original poster? We have three Ras numbers in there and I think Gallup has changed...

[J. J.]

Absolute tightening with Obama's approval numbers also improving.  Tight one this fall.

[Rowan]

Gallup

Registered Voters: 46-43 GOP
"High" Turnout: 53-40 GOP
"Low" Turnout: 56-38 GOP

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143363/GOP-Positioned-Among-Likely-Midterm-Voters.aspx