2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[Person Man]

Who is this undecided? Can they run in all 468 Congressional seats up for election?

[Person Man]

Kind of surprised by how low Bush's "very negative"s were back in late 2006.

In 2006 the dam really broke in the summer and fall with the Mark Foley stuff. Dems probably don’t nab the House and miss out on 2-3 Senate seats without it

That was the October surprise? Now something like that would be far less damaging. You know there in s something amiss if a pizzagate like thing happens to be true and changes the fundamentals very little

[Person Man]

If we had a candidate in TX-22 on the same caliber as Lizzie Fletcher, we might’ve had a shot at winning the seat. Oh well, maybe in 2020.

Democrats might only get to 205 seats, which is their average,  below 200 was below their average

That would be 9 seats.

[Person Man]

If we had a candidate in TX-22 on the same caliber as Lizzie Fletcher, we might’ve had a shot at winning the seat. Oh well, maybe in 2020.

Democrats might only get to 205 seats, which is their average,  below 200 was below their average

Begone concern troll.

If they don't get at least the numbers of seats they had in 2003, 48 or 49 in the Senate and like 208 or 210 in the house, I would be expecting Pelosi, Clyburn, Schumer, and Perez to resign. Minimum.

[Person Man]

If you can’t flip the House, it will be because your philosophy or Johnny one note hating Trump is not selling in fly over country.  You then better go back to the drawing boards.

I expect you to flip the House.  If you do not, you will be deemed losers of the election.

In looking at your predictions concerning the Presidential vote in 2020, I am amazed how many of you have Trump winning or doing very well as a loser.  If those predictions are true, if you do not take the House this year, you probably will not do it in 2020.

If it's not this year, next year is lean R and we have to wait until 2022. If not even then, we don't have an opposition. Then again, Carter did fairly well in 1978, too.

If Republicans do very well ala 2002 or even 1998, there should be discussions about whether the Democrats have a way forward. If they do fairly well aka 1978, I expect the Democrats to do the above if they are serious.

[Person Man]

If Republicans do very well ala 2002 or even 1998, there should be discussions about whether the Democrats have a way forward. If they do fairly well aka 1978, I expect the Democrats to do the above if they are serious.

But the Republicans have so little real support that they need to just dry up and blow away, regardless of if the Democrats can retake Congress.

I can see the next 30 years being like 1850 to 1880, where o e party goes extinct because they were completely ineffective as an opposition against an incompetent governing party and a new party forms out of people from the dead party and moderates of the other. That party then dominates for a while. The other party sticks around because they have a solid constituency.

[Person Man]

I was looking at YouTube videos and how they say, there is a path to GOP retaining Congress. Given,  the recent polling of late,  it isn't out the realm of possibilities now.

It's undoubtedly within the realm of possibility.  Although a Democratic takeover of the House seems more likely than not at this point, anyone who thinks it's a certainty is deluding themselves.  The Republican gerrymandering advantage is hard to overcome.  There's a distinct possibility that the Democrats will win the House popular vote while failing to win a majority of seats.

I have a bad feeling that could be the most likely and le as desired outcome. It brings the legitimacy of our Government even into more question.

[Person Man]

I know some of you dream of 2006. But what if 2010 was a realigning year with regard to how folks vote in Congressionial elections.  Have you  put that possibility into your analysis?

Republicans already had a realignment in the 1980s, which finally took effect downballot in 1994 and Congress has had a Republican lean to it ever since. 2006 and 2008 were exceptions to this - Dem waves, which toppled Republican majorities. 2010 was simply a backlash to Obama that returned Republicans to control that they were bound to get eventually anyway. If you look at the popular vote totals of elections since the 90s and the general state of the states right now, not a whole lot has changed at the macro level even if the electorate has been shifting underneath.
 
In fact, if anything, Democrats have actually made more progress in terms of expanding their "baseline" Congressional power. Clinton's 2% win won almost as many Congressional districts as Obama 2012, despite having almost half the PV margin. If she got Obama's 3.7%, she likely would have won at least a bare majority of districts.

My realignment is based on an  RCP article I read. I will try to find.   Clearly since 2010 Arkansas has experienced a total realignment.  So I feel it very acutely.  It is an awesome positive change in my opinion.

The only sure sign of a realignment unless the dems blow it this year. Then it won't be a realignment based on charismatic leaders and new coalitions of voters but by the sheer failure of the opposition. 2010 was a wave, but it didn't even topple the Senate. 2012 was a D year and though 2014 was an R year, it was followed with an accidental Republican win that was the worst PV performance for a EV winner since 1888. Usually realignments happen when there is a landslide victory. Trump 16 is nothing like FDR 32, Reagan 80 or even McKinley 96.

[Person Man]

I know some of you dream of 2006. But what if 2010 was a realigning year with regard to how folks vote in Congressionial elections.  Have you  put that possibility into your analysis?

Republicans already had a realignment in the 1980s, which finally took effect downballot in 1994 and Congress has had a Republican lean to it ever since. 2006 and 2008 were exceptions to this - Dem waves, which toppled Republican majorities. 2010 was simply a backlash to Obama that returned Republicans to control that they were bound to get eventually anyway. If you look at the popular vote totals of elections since the 90s and the general state of the states right now, not a whole lot has changed at the macro level even if the electorate has been shifting underneath.
 
In fact, if anything, Democrats have actually made more progress in terms of expanding their "baseline" Congressional power. Clinton's 2% win won almost as many Congressional districts as Obama 2012, despite having almost half the PV margin. If she got Obama's 3.7%, she likely would have won at least a bare majority of districts.

My realignment is based on an RCP article I read.

RIP

[Person Man]

IN-03: A Banks internal has him up 20 points, 55-34, over Courtney Tritch in a seat nobody views as particularly competitive. Good number, though under his expected baseline in such a Republican seat.

The bigger news is that Donnelly only trails here by 8, 50-42, in a district he lost by 12 against
Mourdock.

Bear in mind this is a House race internal.


https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/gop-poll-donnelly-in-position-to-win-in-indiana

If Democrats are up in the high single digits, Donnelly will probably be fine.

[Person Man]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

That's what Elliot Morris predicts too.

When was the last time that happened? If both houses don't flip in that situation, there's going to be a revolution.

[Person Man]

it is gonna crash

BREAKING!!! The crash begins!

Reuters poll shows impending Democratic collapse.

Democrats have lost their momentum in the fabulously accurate and reliable Reuters poll (June 7-11).

Dem 43.3% (-.3%)
Rep 34.3%(+0%)

#TheDeclineAndFallOfTheBlueWave #RedWaveIsComing cc: LimoLiberal, Sean Trende

What Reuters giveth, Reuters taketh away.

Will we poop our pants?

[Person Man]

I just think it's a shame that it took DONALD TRUMP becoming PRESIDENT to get people motivated enough to vote. Let that sink in for moment: DONALD TRUMP as PRESIDENT.

Reagan should have been enough. The right-wing revolution of 1994 should have been enough. The Bushes should have been enough. The Tea Party should have been enough. But no. It took DONALD TRUMP.

You were not motivated in 2008 when songs of worship were written in behalf of Obama and when he claimed he would heal the seas? I do not believe it.

I thought Democrats were motivated in 2006, too.  So don’t belly ache and whine. You’ve gotten your share of victories.
Mavbe if you had not sacrificed your party to the Clintons.  To have Hillary you were willing to give up,the Presidency and the courts.

It will be interesting to see how Democrats do without Clinton. They will either find a way to suceed with what they had before them or find an analog to the Clintons but not quite the same.

[Person Man]

No worries - once Gianforte piledrives a journalist, the Republicans will rally behind him

Do we get to pick the journalist?

We should start a gofundme with the goal of flying Chris Cilizza out to Montana.

The Gianforte Grapple can only be countered by a Full Nelson.

[Person Man]

Note that this is Arizona only, NOT a national GCB poll:

Emerson, June 21-22, 650 registered voters

D 44
R 40

If the Democrats are up 4 in Arizona, they’re at least up 8 nationwide, or Arizona is trending D faster than we thought.

I believe we are not to discuss single states on this thread.

With respect to Arizona:Republicans have a terrible mess with McCain, Flake (what a truthfully descriptive name) and Arpaio.  That really is not true nationally.  There are some problems.  But not to the extent of Arizona.

That's how these things tend to start.