2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - Part 3

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think any President with Trump's approval ratings has gained seats in the senate.

The map is simply unfavorable to the Dems--aside from Nevada, the only Republicans up for reelection are in strong R states (and half the Dems up are as well). Any other Senate map would've led to losses for the GOP.

True.

However, historically incumbents from the other party in states the president won in the previous election tend to do well in the mid-terms. There is a chance Democrats win 4/5 red states (MO, MT, IN, WV, while losing ND). That would give them 47, with chances to win 3 or 4 of the remaining "toss ups" (FL, NV, AZ, TN), which would give them either a tie or the majority.

Granted, I don't think it is likely. But it is just weird how everyone has just thrown out history with this election.

[TML]

Remember that 538 states that if the Democrats win the national house PV by more than 10 points, they would be favored to flip the Senate as well (IMO, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Democrats and their caucusing independents end up with anywhere from 45 to 53 seats in the Senate).

IMO, this means that in addition to pouring efforts into individual races, the Democrats must improve their position/messaging on a national level as well.

[CookieDamage]

This thread illustrates what I pointed out earlier in the "overestimating Dems chances" thread--Dems were always going to lose 2-4 net seats in the Senate, and likewise have always held at best a 50/50 shot at gaining the House.

This is just plain stupid. Zero proof for these assertions and they're frankly dumb. At best 50/50? At best?? At best is a 60 seat gain or something like that. At worst is like a 30 seat gain which would still net Dems the house.

And Dems weren't always going to lose 2-4 net seats. Gaining NV and AZ, while retaining FL, MO, IN, WV, and MT, while losing ND and not gaining TN and TX is a net GAIN of seats and entirely realistic.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The wave is still happening. The Kavanaugh energy on the right will die down now that he’s confirmed.

There is no Kavanaugh energy except among right wing media spin artists and clown pundits desperate for the next hot take.

There was no Elena Kegan energy, no Sonia Sotomayor energy, no Alito or Roberts energy.

None of them happened a month before Election Day

Yes...if only Obama had nominated Kagan a month before the midterms of 2010...the Dems would not have suffered massive losses. Same with Clinton...of only Breyer was jammed through in October...the whole Republican Revolution of 1994 wouldnt of happened. Gingrich would of been like "pack it up boys...he just put Breyer on the Court"

The map in 1994 and 2010 was far far less favorable to the Democrats than the GOP map in 2018

[junior chįmp]

The wave is still happening. The Kavanaugh energy on the right will die down now that he’s confirmed.

There is no Kavanaugh energy except among right wing media spin artists and clown pundits desperate for the next hot take.

There was no Elena Kegan energy, no Sonia Sotomayor energy, no Alito or Roberts energy.

None of them happened a month before Election Day

Yes...if only Obama had nominated Kagan a month before the midterms of 2010...the Dems would not have suffered massive losses. Same with Clinton...of only Breyer was jammed through in October...the whole Republican Revolution of 1994 wouldnt of happened. Gingrich would of been like "pack it up boys...he just put Breyer on the Court"

The map in 1994 and 2010 was far far less favorable to the Democrats than the GOP map in 2018

True but the point here is that the SCOTUS has no effect on the midterms. Yes, Heitkamp, McCaskill, etc... can lose but how they voted on Kavanaugh has nothing to do with it.

[Mr. Smith]

2014 was a ripple at this point too. Hagan, Begich, Udall, and even Michelle Nunn were poised to take seats for 2015 at this point. And Dems were favored to actually pick up Governor's Mansions.

Pretty sure 2006 was "rippling" at this point too.

[Virginiá]

2014 was a ripple at this point too. Hagan, Begich, Udall, and even Michelle Nunn were poised to take seats for 2015 at this point. And Dems were favored to actually pick up Governor's Mansions.

Pretty sure 2006 was "rippling" at this point too.

That has generally been how some of the special elections went too. PA-17 broke towards Lamb in the end. I don't have time to look up all of them, but I do remember some of the others moving towards what became the final result in the final couple weeks. That was how Udall and Nunn's challenges worked out too, as you stated.

I think it's just the natural result of people making up their minds. Suffice to say, Republicans doing ok right now could easily become a loss a month from now. We are not yet at the point where the races move towards the actual winner. That is still probably like 2 weeks away or so.

[Florida Man for Crime]

That has generally been how some of the special elections went too. PA-17 broke towards Lamb in the end. I don't have time to look up all of them, but I do remember some of the others moving towards what became the final result in the final couple weeks. That was how Udall and Nunn's challenges worked out too, as you stated.

I think it's just the natural result of people making up their minds. Suffice to say, Republicans doing ok right now could easily become a loss a month from now. We are not yet at the point where the races move towards the actual winner. That is still probably like 2 weeks away or so.

This is true, but the only problem is that early voting is starting soon (within a week or two so in large numbers), and in some cases is occurring right now in smaller numbers.

[Tekken_Guy]

There is no equivalence between Kavanaugh and Kagan or Breyer.

- The latter two were much more popular. Neither were accused of rape and neither showed partisanship during their hearings. Most Republicans could at least tolerate having Kagan or Breyer on the court. The same can’t be said for Dems and Kavanaugh.

- Democrats didn’t try to shut down any dissent over the nomination.

- Also, moderates generally liked, or at least respected, Clinton and Obama, but they despise Trump.

- Almost no moderates supported the Tea Party. A vast majority of moderates like the Resistance and #MeToo.

- The country was far less partisan then than it is now. Partisans didn’t despise the other side of the aisle. There was no distrust in certain news sources over the other side.

- It was also less political than it is now. Celebrities and cultural figures rarely weighed in on political matters in 1994 or 2010. Youth were mostly disengaged from politics. Jay Leno and David Letterman never took sides when discussing what’s going on in D.C. SNL was very lighthearted in its political humor. Awards shows were all about entertainment.

The 2018 Dems are far more engaged in this battle than the 1994 or 2010 GOP were, while the GOP haven’t shown any more energy to play defense than the Dems did those years. More importantly, the Dems are winning the hearts and minds of moderates and independents.

The districts that flipped in the house in 1994 and 2010 were always conservative. They were not moderates pushed into conservatism by Clinton or Obama. It was just the parties aligning as liberal Dems and conservative GOP. The 2018 election definitely represents the dying out of conservatism and the GOP in urban and suburban America.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's clear the GOP, from the AZ has received a bump from Kavanaugh, but it's not clear about the House. We have not seen any poll dump from the House. All we can go by is assumption that Dems can net 18-33 seats and stay competitive in the Senate

[Virginiá]

Maybe I’m misremembering, but I seem to recall Gardner being the slight but clear favorite in CO-Sen ever since September 2014 or so. And I don’t think many Very SeriousTM people expected Michelle Nunn to actually clear 50%. I do vaguely recall Hagen and Begich being favored though, I grant you.

According to RCP, he didn't really open up a clear lead until October. Prior to October, Udall was competitive. I think, depending on the race and the state and the national environment, a candidate can open up a lead early or late in October, but it usually is one of those two, based on what I was looking at tonight. Of course, if there are few undecideds in the race, that might reduce the amount it can move in any particular direction.

[smoltchanov]

I tried a non-scientific experiment about Senate - assigned "majority party" both seats in Senate  in  states, where this party has clear majority, and split seats 1-1 for "purple" states. And couldn't get more then 47-48 seats for Democrats. Senate is slanted in favor of relatively small states, and they are generally tilt Republican (of course i remember Vermont, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware ansd so on, but - still). So, present balance of Senate is, probably,  at least somewhat typical for foreseable future. House - another matter...

[Xing]

If the Democrats take the House, I don't see how it can be called anything other than a wave. That probably means they're winning the House PV by at least 6%, which is more than Republicans won by in 2014, and around what they won by in 2010. If R+2 is a bad result in the Senate, then I guess 2016 was a terrible year for Republicans, since their map was not nearly as tough as the map is for the Democrats this year. This class of Senate races is definitely a ticking time bomb for the Democrats, and the fact that Democrats might even break even or gain a seat is an enormous accomplishment.

[Hammy]

This thread illustrates what I pointed out earlier in the "overestimating Dems chances" thread--Dems were always going to lose 2-4 net seats in the Senate, and likewise have always held at best a 50/50 shot at gaining the House.

This is just plain stupid. Zero proof for these assertions and they're frankly dumb. At best 50/50? At best?? At best is a 60 seat gain or something like that. At worst is like a 30 seat gain which would still net Dems the house.

And Dems weren't always going to lose 2-4 net seats. Gaining NV and AZ, while retaining FL, MO, IN, WV, and MT, while losing ND and not gaining TN and TX is a net GAIN of seats and entirely realistic.

Dems aren't retaining North Dakota, I'll put money on it. It's also highly unlikely at this point that they pick up Arizona, and equally unlikely they retain Missouri. If they can manage to take Nevada (which is looking like an almost certainty at this point) that's a net gain of one seat, and this is essentially their best case scenario. More likely is that they also lose Indiana (net loss of 2) while it's not outside the realm of possibility they lose Montana and Florida as well (though the latter is more likely given Florida tends to run close regardless of the national environment.)

The map makeup simply isn't favorable.

[MT Treasurer]

Republicans really can’t afford to be complacent right now. In a massive D wave (guaranteed if Republicans stay home), Democrats could certainly win all of ND, TN, TX and MS.

[CookieDamage]

This thread illustrates what I pointed out earlier in the "overestimating Dems chances" thread--Dems were always going to lose 2-4 net seats in the Senate, and likewise have always held at best a 50/50 shot at gaining the House.

This is just plain stupid. Zero proof for these assertions and they're frankly dumb. At best 50/50? At best?? At best is a 60 seat gain or something like that. At worst is like a 30 seat gain which would still net Dems the house.

And Dems weren't always going to lose 2-4 net seats. Gaining NV and AZ, while retaining FL, MO, IN, WV, and MT, while losing ND and not gaining TN and TX is a net GAIN of seats and entirely realistic.

Dems aren't retaining North Dakota, I'll put money on it. It's also highly unlikely at this point that they pick up Arizona, and equally unlikely they retain Missouri. If they can manage to take Nevada (which is looking like an almost certainty at this point) that's a net gain of one seat, and this is essentially their best case scenario. More likely is that they also lose Indiana (net loss of 2) while it's not outside the realm of possibility they lose Montana and Florida as well (though the latter is more likely given Florida tends to run close regardless of the national environment.)

The map makeup simply isn't favorable.

All these states are where Dems are polling very favorably. It's time to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.

[Hammy]

This thread illustrates what I pointed out earlier in the "overestimating Dems chances" thread--Dems were always going to lose 2-4 net seats in the Senate, and likewise have always held at best a 50/50 shot at gaining the House.

This is just plain stupid. Zero proof for these assertions and they're frankly dumb. At best 50/50? At best?? At best is a 60 seat gain or something like that. At worst is like a 30 seat gain which would still net Dems the house.

And Dems weren't always going to lose 2-4 net seats. Gaining NV and AZ, while retaining FL, MO, IN, WV, and MT, while losing ND and not gaining TN and TX is a net GAIN of seats and entirely realistic.

Dems aren't retaining North Dakota, I'll put money on it. It's also highly unlikely at this point that they pick up Arizona, and equally unlikely they retain Missouri. If they can manage to take Nevada (which is looking like an almost certainty at this point) that's a net gain of one seat, and this is essentially their best case scenario. More likely is that they also lose Indiana (net loss of 2) while it's not outside the realm of possibility they lose Montana and Florida as well (though the latter is more likely given Florida tends to run close regardless of the national environment.)

The map makeup simply isn't favorable.

All these states are where Dems are polling very favorably. It's time to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.

I'll retract adding Montana to that since I hadn't checked the MT polls, though the chances of him losing are still greater than zero, but the rest are within a point or two (well within the margin of error) with 7-8% undecided--quite far from "very favorably"

[twenty42]

It is thought that Dems need to win the NPV by 7 points to retake House control. GCB currently stands at D+6.6. Don't count any chickens yet...

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Did we really need a topic for this, much less in the General Discussion thread?

[Person Man]

Did we really need a topic for this, much less in the General Discussion thread?

He's trolling. This was all because some polls aged out of Sean Trende's average.

[twenty42]

Did we really need a topic for this, much less in the General Discussion thread?

Atlas libs create threads for the slightest of polling bumps in favor of Dems. Thought I'd join the party.

[Yank2133]

Did we really need a topic for this, much less in the General Discussion thread?

He's trolling. This was all because some polls aged out of Sean Trende's average.

Also Dems have to win it by 6, not 7.

[Yank2133]

Did we really need a topic for this, much less in the General Discussion thread?

He's trolling. This was all because some polls aged out of Sean Trende's average.

Also Dems have to win it by 6, not 7.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one does that.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Pretty sure the average GCB is D +7.8

[GeorgiaModerate]

There's already a generic ballot megathread.