2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - Part 3

[Gass3268]

Statistical deadhead in the RCP average!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/nv/nevada_senate_heller_vs_rosen-6304.html

Also Sinema is only up less than 1 percent in the average in the Arizona race!

[Bandit3 the Worker]

We need to gather up everything RCP says, wad it into a big ball, and flush it down the toilet.

Even back in 2000, I never believed a word they said.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Statistical deadhead in the RCP average!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/nv/nevada_senate_heller_vs_rosen-6304.html

Also Sinema is only up less than 1 percent in the average in the Arizona race!

Well, it's certainly been a long, strange trip!

[Person Man]

Eh... RCP has 43. 538 has 41. Its about 42. RCP has D+7, 538 has D+8. That means if Trump is at 45, Itll be like D+5 and if he is at 40, itll be D+10.

[bilaps]

Eh... RCP has 43. 538 has 41. Its about 42. RCP has D+7, 538 has D+8. That means if Trump is at 45, Itll be like D+5 and if he is at 40, itll be D+10.

538 has Trump 42,9 among rv or lv which is all that counts to be honest

[Devils30]

If Nevada is really 48-49% Trump approval on election day, Heller can win his race. If it is 44-45% that is more in line with Trump's 2016 vote, Rosen likely pulls it out.

[Xing]

If Nevada is really 48-49% Trump approval on election day, Heller can win his race. If it is 44-45% that is more in line with Trump's 2016 vote, Rosen likely pulls it out.

If Trump’s approval is 48% in NV, it’s 50% nationwide.

[Virginiá]

Statistical deadhead in the RCP average!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/nv/nevada_senate_heller_vs_rosen-6304.html

Also Sinema is only up less than 1 percent in the average in the Arizona race!

Weren't you the one who was gloating about how Trump's approval rating was at 44% on the RCP average and anticipating that it would continue to climb?

If Trump is at 44 it means he is really at 50. He won with like a 40 percent favorable rating and got 46 percent of the vote.

Against an opponent with favorables only a couple points above his, give or take.

There is nothing special about Trump winning with those low favorables, and the only takeaway from that race is that if an unpopular candidate wants to win, they need to make sure they draw an opponent who is at least almost as unpopular as them, if not more. So I'd say your calculations are off.

[UncleSam]

Statistical deadhead in the RCP average!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/nv/nevada_senate_heller_vs_rosen-6304.html

Also Sinema is only up less than 1 percent in the average in the Arizona race!

Weren't you the one who was gloating about how Trump's approval rating was at 44% on the RCP average and anticipating that it would continue to climb?

If Trump is at 44 it means he is really at 50. He won with like a 40 percent favorable rating and got 46 percent of the vote.

Against an opponent with favorables only a couple points above his, give or take.

There is nothing special about Trump winning with those low favorables, and the only takeaway from that race is that if an unpopular candidate wants to win, they need to make sure they draw an opponent who is at least almost as unpopular as them, if not more. So I'd say your calculations are off.

Of course it is special lol, he won with lower favorables than any other president. Part of it was Clinton but part of it was that there is a large contingent of people in this country who disapprove of Trump but vote almost indistinguishably from those who approve of him (think Jeff Flake type Republicans).

He had a 61% disapproval in the state of Wisconsin the night he won Wisconsin. The notion that all those who disapprove of Trump will refuse to vote for him is silly.

[Virginiá]

Of course it is special lol, he won with lower favorables than any other president. Part of it was Clinton but part of it was that there is a large contingent of people in this country who disapprove of Trump but vote almost indistinguishably from those who approve of him (think Jeff Flake type Republicans).

He had a 61% disapproval in the state of Wisconsin the night he won Wisconsin. The notion that all those who disapprove of Trump will refuse to vote for him is silly.

But that wasn't my notion. I don't think it's all that surprising that a candidate who had a 35% favorable rating would get more than 35% of the vote, but that kind of voter is in limited supply. In Wisconsin, like you alluded to, below a certain number, those are just Republicans who don't approve of him but will generally vote Republican in most/all elections. I'd say once you get to around 41% - 43% or so, it does make a big difference. If Trump went against a candidate with, say, a 60% favorable rating, he would probably get crushed in Wisconsin (assuming he's at 35 - 40% favorables again).

Trump would be hard-pressed to perform the same if he went against someone who was popular. As a Republican, he'll have a floor of support that isn't terrible, but it isn't automatically "add 6 to whatever his favorable rating is." That is wayyy too simplistic.

[Zaybay]

Statistical deadhead in the RCP average!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/nv/nevada_senate_heller_vs_rosen-6304.html

Also Sinema is only up less than 1 percent in the average in the Arizona race!

Weren't you the one who was gloating about how Trump's approval rating was at 44% on the RCP average and anticipating that it would continue to climb?

If Trump is at 44 it means he is really at 50. He won with like a 40 percent favorable rating and got 46 percent of the vote.

Against an opponent with favorables only a couple points above his, give or take.

There is nothing special about Trump winning with those low favorables, and the only takeaway from that race is that if an unpopular candidate wants to win, they need to make sure they draw an opponent who is at least almost as unpopular as them, if not more. So I'd say your calculations are off.

Of course it is special lol, he won with lower favorables than any other president. Part of it was Clinton but part of it was that there is a large contingent of people in this country who disapprove of Trump but vote almost indistinguishably from those who approve of him (think Jeff Flake type Republicans).

He had a 61% disapproval in the state of Wisconsin the night he won Wisconsin. The notion that all those who disapprove of Trump will refuse to vote for him is silly.

You are mostly correct, but I really do think that Clinton and turnout were much bigger factors than you give credit.

To use WI, you are correct that the state gave him 61% disapproval when he won it, but look at the vote tallies. He got 3,000 less voters than Romney, which indicates that there was voter dissatisfaction with his candidacy on the R side. But look at the Ds. Clinton lost 800,000 voters compared to Obama. And these didnt flip, since they would increase Trump's tally. What seems to have happened was that many states became turnout games. Trump may have only had 40% approval, but his group showed up, whereas the 60% didnt, creating an electorate that was 50/50 in approval/disapproval.

So, in conclusion, the better notion to get from 2016 is that a smaller but enthusiastic base is more likely to vote and win than a larger but unenthusiastic base.

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/NewsbySmiley/status/1050508491989880833

This is Mason-Dixon, but still. It is not an internal, and this should not even be remotely competitive. Idiot Dems for nominating Shalala. I ask again - how can you possibly be stupid enough to run in a district like this and not even be able to speak Spanish?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Sucks that it's too late for Shalala to step aside.

The poll shows Trump's approval at only -3 here so I have some suspicions...

[ON Progressive]

https://twitter.com/NewsbySmiley/status/1050508491989880833

This is Mason-Dixon, but still. It is not an internal, and this should not even be remotely competitive. Idiot Dems for nominating Shalala. I ask again - how can you possibly be stupid enough to run in a district like this and not even be able to speak Spanish?

43/46 Trump approval in a 59-39 Clinton district? Absolute garbage.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/NewsbySmiley/status/1050508491989880833

This is Mason-Dixon, but still. It is not an internal, and this should not even be remotely competitive. Idiot Dems for nominating Shalala. I ask again - how can you possibly be stupid enough to run in a district like this and not even be able to speak Spanish?

43/46 Trump approval in a 59-39 Clinton district? Absolute garbage.

Yeah, that seems off. Also, Democrats have also done pretty well in a bunch of special and local elections in this region.

[Florida Man for Crime]

43/46 Trump approval in a 59-39 Clinton district? Absolute garbage.

That does suggest that their LV model is off. But hey, it is Mason-Dixon trying to poll a Hispanic district.

[ON Progressive]

43/46 Trump approval in a 59-39 Clinton district? Absolute garbage.

That does suggest that their LV model is off. But hey, it is Mason-Dixon trying to poll a Hispanic district.

I remember when they had Romney absolutely crushing Obama along the I-4 corridor in Florida and then Obama easily won it. Mason-Dixon is a joke of a pollster, plain and simple.

[Devils30]

Shalala is a horrendous candidate but probably survives in the end. Gillum and Nelson only up 4 seems off as well.

[Xing]

Shalala isn't going to lose due to not speaking Spanish, lol. Somehow, I think Latino voters care about a little more than just that.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Shalala is our worst candidate this cycle by far. Stop calling out Perry Gershon and Tracy Mitrano or whoever, she is awful. Anything but Safe D in this seat with this cycle under these circumstances should be considered unacceptable shame on her. Honestly though I still think she wins and I want her to win, but this is ridiculous.

[OneJ]

It's also good to keep in mind that Mason Dixon had Trump leading Clinton by 3 in Mississippi too. It's not necessarily a bad pollster, it just has its hiccups I guess.

[bilaps]

It does have a B+ rating at 538

Doesn't matter really who is up by couple of points right now, the point is it's competitve and it was to be among easiest pickups for Dems. So this district, Curbelo's and Hurd's all going much much better for Republicans than thought off. Draw your conclusion.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It does have a B+ rating at 538

Doesn't matter really who is up by couple of points right now, the point is it's competitve and it was to be among easiest pickups for Dems. So this district, Curbelo's and Hurd's all going much much better for Republicans than thought off. Draw your conclusion.

I haven't seen much evidence lately that Curbelo is in good shape (I have that seat at Tilt-D right now and it seems to be moving in the Democrats' direction lately), but Hurd definitely looks like he's in the driver's seat (which is odd b/c Jones doesn't seem like a particularly weak candidate nor does Hurd seem to be running a particularly noteworthy campaign; given the results of the recent State Senate special, I kinda wonder if there's some sort of local factors at play in the TX-23 area).  In any case, Shalala will probably win by an embarrassing, but not razor-thin margin.  Something like 54-46% sounds about right.  

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Hurd district is Clinton + 3
Curbelo is clinton + 16

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that Curbelo is in a much worse position than Hurd

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hurd district is Clinton + 3
Curbelo is clinton + 16

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that Curbelo is in a much worse position than Hurd

Well, yes, but for much of the cycle there have been tons of #HotTakes about how Curbelo is some sort of unstoppable political wunderkind and it seems pretty clear that voters in his district are increasingly breaking against him at this point (at least imo).