2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Gass3268]

Should I just change 2018 to 2020 in the thread title and have this one rollover for 2020's GCBs? Thread seems small enough to keep it going tbh.

I don't feel strongly either way about it, but it seems likely that we'll get very few GCB polls for a while.

Morning Consult will probably have them.

[Holmes]

Might as well start a new thread for 2020 to start fresh. GeorgiaModerate is correct though that we shouldn't expect much for 2020 for another while.

[Ebsy]

There are over 4 million ballots left to count in California that are heavily Democratic. 2 points is definitely doable.

[GeorgiaModerate]

There are over 4 million ballots left to count in California that are heavily Democratic. 2 points is definitely doable.

Well, going by the NYT results page (which was just updated a few minutes ago) the current popular vote is:

D: 52,873,404 votes (51.4%)
R: 48,130,531 votes (46.8%)

The sum of those two is 101,003,935 (98.2%), so the total vote including other candidates so far is about 102,855,331 (plus or minus a bit due to rounding), so there are about 1,851,396 (1.8%) for others.

If we assume there are 4 million votes outstanding and give the Democrats a very generous share, let's say D 70%, R 30%, others 0, that adds 2.8 million D and 1.2 million R, making the new totals:

D: 55,673,404
R: 49,330,531
O: 1,851,396

Total: 106,855,331.  This would make the percentages:

D: 52.1%
R: 46.2%
O: 1.7%

In this scenario, the margin would increase from D+4.6% to D+5.9%, a gain of 1.3%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Except Wasserman has the NPV already at D+6 right now. What accounts for the difference with NYT?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Except Wasserman has the NPV already at D+6 right now. What accounts for the difference with NYT?

No idea.  The NYT figures were the most current that I could find.  Maybe Wasserman is already factoring in the uncounted California votes?

[Brittain33]

I can't wait to find out what the margin in the 218th district turns out to be and what that says about the impact of the R gerrymander of Congress after PA, VA, and FL were revised by courts.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I redid the popular vote assumption using Wasserman's current numbers instead of NYT's, and allocating it the same way (4 million outstanding votes divided 70% D, 30% R) would increase the D margin from 6.4% to 7.9%.

[jaichind]

My current calculation of vote share are Dem 52.45% GOP 45.92%.  But there are a lot of caveat. Obviously the CA result is nowhere close to being in which will push up the Dem lead by 1% to 1.5% I suspect. BUT out of 535 races the Dems only had 3 races where a Dem candidate was no on the ballot (1 of them is a 2 GOP member CA race) while the GOP had 37 races where it did not have a candidate on the ballot (3 of them are a 3 Dem CA race.) 

A fair way to figure out the "real' GCP is to made subjective assumptions about what would the vote be IF both at least 1 GOP and DEM candidate was on the ballot.  Also we have to add in DC.  It will be completely subjective.  Based on just eyeballing it I think using that approach will get a Dem lead of around 6.0%-6.5% once we do this AND all the CA votes comes in.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Rasmussen publishes a pathetic defense of their GCB results: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2018/how_we_did_and_why_we_did_it.  Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[lfromnj]

Rasmussen publishes a pathetic defense of their GCB results: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2018/how_we_did_and_why_we_did_it.  Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

why doesn't anyone critcize CNN here?
They had a +13 GCB and im expecting a higher GCB than polls due to unopposed districts so CNN had an unfair advantage IMO.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Rasmussen publishes a pathetic defense of their GCB results: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2018/how_we_did_and_why_we_did_it.  Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

why doesn't anyone critcize CNN here?
They had a +13 GCB and im expecting a higher GCB than polls due to unopposed districts so CNN had an unfair advantage IMO.

A number of people here pointed out at the time that the late Rasmussen R+1 and CNN D+13 polls were both unlikely outliers, and you could probably get a good prediction by averaging them -- which looks to be pretty close at this point.  The difference now is that CNN isn't trying to defend their outlier.

[Comrade Funk]

Rasmussen publishes a pathetic defense of their GCB results: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2018/how_we_did_and_why_we_did_it.  Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ras believed the BS about a "silent Trump majority" as well. Also, this load of crap:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely ignoring variables such as the Senate map and gerrymandering.

[IceSpear]

So much for the piping hot takes that Democrats needed to win the PV by double digits to take the House, lol.

God, the #analysis from the pundits is so terrible.

[IceSpear]

Rasmussen publishes a pathetic defense of their GCB results: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2018/how_we_did_and_why_we_did_it.  Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Will they fix their junky Trump approval poll too now?

[OneJ]

So much for the piping hot takes that Democrats needed to win the PV by double digits to take the House, lol.

God, the #analysis from the pundits is so terrible.

Very good point.

[lfromnj]

So much for the piping hot takes that Democrats needed to win the PV by double digits to take the House, lol.

God, the #analysis from the pundits is so terrible.

I honestly thought it would be pretty high solely due to the unopposed districts but if every district was contested by #bothsides it would be around 6 points.

[Comrade Funk]

Rasmussen publishes a pathetic defense of their GCB results: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2018/how_we_did_and_why_we_did_it.  Summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Will they fix their junky Trump approval poll too now?

No. They get extra publicity from Trump/Fox with favorable polls.

[Skill and Chance]

So much for the piping hot takes that Democrats needed to win the PV by double digits to take the House, lol.

A lot of this was just over-correcting for 2016, but this time, it turned out to be more of a sure thing than polling indicated.

[jaichind]

My current count is (which also includes DC at large) is Dem 52.6 GOP 45.7 or a gap of 6.9%.  As more of CA comes it will most likely go to around 8%. But once I adjust (subjectively) for the fact the GOP had 37 seats without a candidate and Dems only 3 the de facto GCB gap will end up around 6.5%

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My current count is (which also includes DC at large) is Dem 52.6 GOP 45.7 or a gap of 6.9%.  As more of CA comes it will most likely go to around 8%. But once I adjust (subjectively) for the fact the GOP had 37 seats without a candidate and Dems only 3 the de facto GCB gap will end up around 6.5%

How many of those 37 seats were really uncontested and how many were California top two Dem blowouts, though?

[Virginiá]

Officially designating this thread as the go-to megathread for 2020 generic ballot polls

God bless you 2018. You served us well

[jaichind]

My current count is (which also includes DC at large) is Dem 52.6 GOP 45.7 or a gap of 6.9%.  As more of CA comes it will most likely go to around 8%. But once I adjust (subjectively) for the fact the GOP had 37 seats without a candidate and Dems only 3 the de facto GCB gap will end up around 6.5%

How many of those 37 seats were really uncontested and how many were California top two Dem blowouts, though?

3 of the 37 are in CA where  the GOP did not make it into the second round.  Of course out of the 3 only 1 did the GOP even run a candidate in the first round.  1 additional one is on WA where the GOP did not make it into the second round.  There the GOP did run a candidate in the first round but did not make it.
But the net affect is that had there been a GOP candidate in these 37 seats the GOP vote would be higher.

[jaichind]

My current count has it at Dem 52.60% GOP 45.70% or Dem lead of 6.90% with a bunch of CA votes to come.  I already built my subjective model to assume all seats have both Dem and GOP candidates as well as count DC at large results and currently that has it at Dem 52.39% GOP 46.35% or a gap of 6.04%.  I think all of CA votes should push up the Dem lead by 0.5% to 1.0% so the GCB lead will be 6.5-7.0

Back in 2016 the House vote was GOP 48.99% Dem 48.12% or a GOP lead of 0.87%  If you apply my same subjective model of all seats have a Dem and GOP candidate it came out to be GOP 49.62% Dem 48.35% or a GOP lead of 1.27%.

[IceSpear]

Is this thread really a necessary sticky at this point? I doubt we're going to be getting very many generic ballot or House polls for the next while, much less ones worth actual discussion.