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

[The Vorlon]

And oh yes, you subtract GOP losses, be it 2 or 5 or whatever, from these totals.

The Dems win back Louisiana 2nd District - Cao beat "William Jefferson Cold Hard Cash" (as in $90K in the freezer) in 2008, and even then he only won by 3% - This is a almost a Dem lock to take back.

Delaware At Large, the seat of incoming Delaware Senator  tea-partied historic foot note Mike Castle will go back to the Dems, though it might be semi-close. (not as in gotta watch it, but a respectable loss)

Hawaii 1 is actually very close, I think Djou holds on given how good a GOP year it will be.

Kirks old seat in Illinois should be quite close - the polling has been so erratic as to be useless in that one, but Obama carried it by 23%, so it's pretty uphill for the GOP.

The Dems winning 3 seats seems ~~about~~ right.

[The Vorlon]

To put the same idea in a slightly different form, in 2008 the Dems won the House by about 11% in the total vote.

if we take the generic ballot as being +9 to the GOP side (this is an example, pick your own number to use) that is a shift in the general environment of about 20% or so.

if we assume (a huge assumption, but go with the flow here) that every seat shifts by about 20%, any democrat who won by less than 20% is, at least conceptually, vulnerable.

This is the list of seats the Dems won by under 20%

Ohio - 18th district
Iowa - 2d district
Pennsylvinia - 7th district
Kentucky - 3d district
Ohio - 10th district
Kansas - 3d district
Arizona - 1st district
New York - 1st district
Oregon - 5th district
Florida - 24th district

New York - 25th district
Pennsylvinia - 12th district
Conneticutt - 5th district
Illinois - 14th district
Pennsylvinia - 8th district
New Hampshire - 2d district
New York - 19th district
Georgia - 8th district
Iowa - 3d district
Texas - 23d district

Pennsylvinia - 10th district
Colorado - 4th district
Arizona - 8th district
New mexico - 2d district
Virginia - 11th district
Pennsylvinia - 4th district
New mexico - 1st district
North Carolina - 8th district
Mississippi - 1st district
Ohio - 16th district

California - 11th district
Michigan - 9th district
Arizona - 5th district
Maine - 1st district
Florida - 22d district
Wisconsin - 8th district
New York - 24th district
Texas - 17th district
New York - 29th district
New Hampshire - 1st district
Nevada - 3d district

Ohio - 1st district
Virginia - 2d district
New Jersey - 3d district
Florida - 8th district
Alabama - 5th district
Pennsylvinia - 11th district
Pennsylvinia - 3d district
Michigan - 7th district
Idaho - 1st district
Conneticutt - 4th district

Ohio - 15th district
Maryland - 1st district
Alabama - 2d district
Virginia - 5th district

Now obviously this is a very, very, rough and crude tool.

Incumbents retiring is an obvious adjustment.

Also somebody who won by say 25% against a sacrificial lamb might, at least conceptually, be vulnerable against a well funded opponent who ran an actual campaign....

If you're a Dem, I'd rather be in California than Ohio, and the list of adjustments goes on and on...

but at a macro level 50-70 is not an insane value....

[??????????]

Actually it may help the Dems that the election is Tuesday. Their numbers keep getting worse, lol.

[Torie]

Yes, my chart is a mindless PVI thing. But it shows in a nationalized election, with the GOP having a healthy generic lead, just why so many Dem seats must fall, if the PVI thing has any meaning, and it clearly does. One can see that in my prediction chart, where I include the PVI, and one can see the steep fall off in the GOP harvest, as the the Dem PVI hits about +3% or so.

I was surprised frankly, the the Dems hold so many seats that they have no business holding.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144125/Republicans-Appear-Poised-Win-Big-Tuesday.aspx

Based on 45% adult turnout.  

Higher turnout LV poll is GOP 52-DEM 42
RV poll is GOP 48-DEM 44

[Torie]

Wow, just wow.  I had about GOP 10-12% in the back of my mind, when I did my projections, trying to fit local poll stuff within it, and if it did not, ask why, not the 15% spread that Gallup now uses, having made up its mind about the turnout (and 45% is still amazingly high), rather than bifurcate, and leave it at that. If the 15% margin really happens, GOP +60 seats is a floor. The math otherwise just doesn't work, particularly if minority turnout is down in some places.

In 1994, the GOP won with a 7% margin. In 2008, the Dems won by a 10.5%, so if the Dems now lose by 15%, that is a 24.5% swing, sinking all those Dems who won last time by less than 63% or so in 2008, as a starting point. Obviously that won't happen, but it is not as if in safe GOP seats, the GOP will run up massive margins of wasted votes. If that were the case, state races would be in the bag which are not.

[Sam Spade]

Wow, just wow.  I had about GOP 10-12% in the back of my mind, when I did my projections, trying to fit local poll stuff within it, and if it did not, ask why, not the 15% spread that Gallup now uses, having made up its mind about the turnout (and 45% is still amazingly high), rather than bifurcate, and leave it at that. If the 15% margin really happens, GOP +60 seats is a floor. The math otherwise just doesn't work, particularly if minority turnout is down in some places.

In 1994, the GOP won with a 7% margin. In 2008, the Dems won by a 10.5%, so if the Dems now lose by 15%, that is a 24.5% swing, sinking all those Dems who won last time by less than 63% or so in 2008, as a starting point. Obviously that won't happen, but it is not as if in safe GOP seats, the GOP will run up massive margins of wasted votes. If that were the case, state races would be in the bag which are not.

It's a 25.5% swing and your observation makes more sense than you think it does.

Anyway, Gallup has been wrong in the past, so we'll see.  However, I may really give the 70-seat prediction a call now, if anything b/c it might be the most likely answer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Based on the 55% figure, the Butler swing would be 12.7 which is normally the point at which you lose about half your seats if lucky. Not that the 52% would be much better; 10.2. Basically Gallup is predicting a landslide.

[??????????]

Wow, just wow.  I had about GOP 10-12% in the back of my mind, when I did my projections, trying to fit local poll stuff within it, and if it did not, ask why, not the 15% spread that Gallup now uses, having made up its mind about the turnout (and 45% is still amazingly high), rather than bifurcate, and leave it at that. If the 15% margin really happens, GOP +60 seats is a floor. The math otherwise just doesn't work, particularly if minority turnout is down in some places.

In 1994, the GOP won with a 7% margin. In 2008, the Dems won by a 10.5%, so if the Dems now lose by 15%, that is a 24.5% swing, sinking all those Dems who won last time by less than 63% or so in 2008, as a starting point. Obviously that won't happen, but it is not as if in safe GOP seats, the GOP will run up massive margins of wasted votes. If that were the case, state races would be in the bag which are not.

It's a 25.5% swing and your observation makes more sense than you think it does.

Anyway, Gallup has been wrong in the past, so we'll see.  However, I may really give the 70-seat prediction a call now, if anything b/c it might be the most likely answer.

It'll probably be around 100 seats.

[Torie]

Another little oddity come to think of it. The Dems won 256 seats with a 10.5% margin. If the GOP wins with a 15% margin, how many seats should they get, after dealing with the incumbency factor and the surprise the seat would have fallen if only we could imagine the moon, but we are not stoners, headwinds?  Without the headwinds, the GOP should get about 270 seats, no (a 91 seat gain), with some remote symmetry to it all?  

BTW, I am sticking with my 63 seat net gain for the moment.

[??????????]

BTW, I am sticking with my 63 seat net gain for the moment.

I respect your caution but I fear you underestimate how pissed folks are.

[Torie]

Based on the 55% figure, the Butler swing would be 12.7 which is normally the point at which you lose about half your seats if lucky. Not that the 52% would be much better; 10.2. Basically Gallup is predicting a landslide.

Half your seats meaning the Dems lose 128 seats (256/2)?  If so, American politics doesn't work that way, in part because of extreme polarization. A 15% margin means a 57.5% figure by they way, not 55%, by my math.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just remember, generic polling can show you one thing, but as the Australian election showed, it's all about the state/regional/local swings... when you have a lot of close seats, you can get a big swag of seats with a tiny swing, and the reverse can be true too, a significant swing but if the margins are big enough it'll deliver only a few seats.

I'm generally VERY hesitant about 'generic' polling where there are 535 congressional seats up for grabs...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Another little oddity come to think of it. The Dems won 256 seats with a 10.5% margin. If the GOP wins with a 15% margin, how many seats should they get, after dealing with the incumbency factor and the surprise the seat would have fallen if only we could imagine the moon, but we are not stoners, headwinds?  Without the headwinds, the GOP should get about 270 seats, no (a 91 seat gain), with some remote symmetry to it all?  

BTW, I am sticking with my 63 seat net gain for the moment.

When swings get over a certain strength, it's basically impossible to predict accurate numbers. In the 97 election here, no one had a clue how big the landslide would be until the results were declared.

Of course it's quite likely that Gallup are overestimating things, but maybe that doesn't matter so much; that a pollster is showing a double-digit swing days before the election is enough.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Half your seats meaning the Dems lose 128 seats (256/2)?

 

I don't know; it's more an observation than a prediction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With certain very significant exceptions, America is observably less polarised than many other industrialised countries The key difference is gerrymandering and the extraordinary - by the standards of everywhere else in the first world - powers of incumbency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would but I just played with % changes.

[Torie]

BTW, I am sticking with my 63 seat net gain for the moment.

I respect your caution but I fear you underestimate how pissed folks are.

I was deemed a GOP hack on testosterone, when I put up 50-60 a month or more ago, and the GOP would take the House 3 months ago. How things change.   (Yes, most are too polite to say such things to me, but I am a sensitive chap, and just know .)

Yes, I don't really believe the margin for starters. It just does not show up in enough local polls. Unless of course, the Dems are taking yet another hit in the last few days. I guess that is possible.

[??????????]

BTW, I am sticking with my 63 seat net gain for the moment.

I respect your caution but I fear you underestimate how pissed folks are.

I was deemed a GOP hack on testosterone, when I put up 50-60 a month or more ago, and the GOP would take the House 3 months ago. How things change.   (Yes, most are too polite to say such things to me, but I am a sensitive chap, and just know .)

Yes, I don't really believe the margin for starters. It just does not show up in enough local polls. Unless of course, the Dems are taking yet another hit in the last few days. I guess that is possible.

I personally believe that the great majority of Dems who are tied or within the MOE are going to lose, guess we don't have much longer to wait and find out.

[Torie]

Both good points Al. America does have extreme gerrymandering, and well, it isn't a parliamentary system, so every chap in Congress is an independent entrepreneur to a fair extent. And then of course there is all the money ... and on and on it goes. America just isn't a British colony anymore is it?    Sad in some ways, when it comes to these matters - along with our disgusting legal system as compared to yours.

[Sam Spade]

WSJ says GOP 49, DEM 43

Among "high-interest voters", it's GOP 53, DEM 41.

Among RV it's GOP 46, DEM 44.

Full text of poll can be found after the link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39940472/ns/politics-decision_08/

[Torie]

Rather large gap from Gallup, from WSJ (which can hardly be considered a Dem dysinformation basement operation ). Somebody is going to have some explaining to do.

Meanwhile RCP is moving again this evening, now up to 66.5 GOP seats net, with CO-7  going into tossup status (that is that charismatic black guy GOP guy, Mr. Frazier), and AZ-8 into lean GOP status, among other things. So now RCP's projection is that the GOP will elect 2.5 blacks to Congress, all of whom have been generating a lot of buzz, and if elected, will be national figures.

[Sam Spade]

Rather large gap from Gallup, from WSJ (which can hardly be considered a Dem dysinformation basement operation ). Somebody is going to have some explaining to do.

Not so much among the "high interest" numbers, fwiw, which makes sense.

Btw, someone should be noting that, no matter what LV formula being used, Dems can't seem to break 43% or so (yes I know there are 44/45 on a couple of them, but remember to toss) on any of these generic ballot polls.  That may be more important than the margin on these polls.  We shall see.

[Beet]

Why should we expect those who are still undecided at this point to show up at the polls?

[cinyc]

Why should we expect those who are still undecided at this point to show up at the polls?

Because there is a group of terminally undecided voters who tell pollsters they are undecided, but do still show up to vote, being their civic duty and all.  Some of them are ashamed of their vote, for whatever reason, and tell pollsters that they are undecided, instead.  Others are truly undecided until they get into the voting booth.

You're right that most of them probably won't show up to vote, though.

[Psychic Octopus]

BTW, I am sticking with my 63 seat net gain for the moment.

I respect your caution but I fear you underestimate how pissed folks are.

I was deemed a GOP hack on testosterone, when I put up 50-60 a month or more ago, and the GOP would take the House 3 months ago. How things change.   (Yes, most are too polite to say such things to me, but I am a sensitive chap, and just know .)

Yes, I don't really believe the margin for starters. It just does not show up in enough local polls. Unless of course, the Dems are taking yet another hit in the last few days. I guess that is possible.

Hey, cheer up man, I believed you... I just thought that it would be on the lower end of that spectrum, around 51 or 52 or so. It could still very well be like that, but with all of this movement, I think the GOP gets around sixty, as a cautious estimate.

[Sbane]

It seems like the floor for the GOP, in terms of the generic ballot, is about +8. Some are showing less, but I expect the GOP to outperform those polls. Then there is Gallup. I don't expect a 15 point GOP win, but a 10-12 win isn't out of the question. A 10 point margin would mean Republicans win about 60-65 seats and if the margin creeps up towards 12-13 then 70-75 is possible. And considering that there are just so many tossup districts this time around, even greater losses could occur than we think possible. One thing is for sure though, if Republicans win this sort of majority they can't just keep being the party of no. Looks like they might actually have to govern. Sucks for them.