2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Calthrina950]

CO-03 (JMC):

Tipton (R) 46
Mitsch Bush (D) 41

https://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Colorado-CD-3-Executive-Summary.pdf

Tossup.

More like Lean Republican. Tipton is favored, but he does not possess a secure lead. If things really go well for Democrats, Mitsch Bush could win.

[Calthrina950]

CO-03 (JMC):

Tipton (R) 46
Mitsch Bush (D) 41

https://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Colorado-CD-3-Executive-Summary.pdf

Tossup.

More like Lean Republican. Tipton is favored, but he does not possess a secure lead. If things really go well for Democrats, Mitsch Bush could win.

I'd agree, although I think tossup isn't totally unreasonable given the incumbent's at 46%.

That is true. Early voting numbers in Colorado thus far have Republicans slightly ahead of Democrats, with independents turning in ballots at a higher rate than at this time in 2014. And since this particular poll has independent/unaffiliated voters in CO-03 leaning towards Republicans, it might be enough for Tipton to get by. Polis's strength at the top of the ticket, I think, will help to determine whether or not Democrats are able to pick up this seat.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/ChuckLane1/status/1058894977126817792

Maybe those tied polls aren't too far off the mark?

Just lowering expectations. Don't fall for it.

Except that Bredesen's internals also show the race tied. I guess it's noteworthy that Blackburn's pollsters aren't blowing sunshine up her ass with inflated leads like some other pollsters are (e.g. Cruz's pollsters saying he's up 9)

That isn't good for him at all. The perception on here seems to be that a campaign's internals try to skew the results in as favorable a manner for them as possible, and that would be true here. If Bredesen's people can only manage to show him tied with Blackburn, that must mean he is actually trailing by ~3-4 points. And most recent polls show Blackburn up by mid to high single digits. People on here need to accept that he's done for.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/ChuckLane1/status/1058894977126817792

Maybe those tied polls aren't too far off the mark?

Just lowering expectations. Don't fall for it.

Except that Bredesen's internals also show the race tied. I guess it's noteworthy that Blackburn's pollsters aren't blowing sunshine up her ass with inflated leads like some other pollsters are (e.g. Cruz's pollsters saying he's up 9)

That isn't good for him at all. The perception on here seems to be that a campaign's internals try to skew the results in as favorable a manner for them as possible, and that would be true here. If Bredesen's people can only manage to show him tied with Blackburn, that must mean he is actually trailing by ~3-4 points. And most recent polls show Blackburn up by mid to high single digits. People on here need to accept that he's done for.

My guess is for a 2006 redux in Tennessee.

Agreed. I think it will be many decades before Tennessee even thinks about electing a Democratic Senator again. Maybe in 2058 or 2066?

[Calthrina950]

CBS battleground tracker remained flat at D+3. They said it’s been pretty consistent over the past month. They are projecting a 225-210 D House (+/-13).

Source

So it moved to the right by one seat?

https://twitter.com/ChuckLane1/status/1058894977126817792

Maybe those tied polls aren't too far off the mark?

Just lowering expectations. Don't fall for it.

Except that Bredesen's internals also show the race tied. I guess it's noteworthy that Blackburn's pollsters aren't blowing sunshine up her ass with inflated leads like some other pollsters are (e.g. Cruz's pollsters saying he's up 9)

That isn't good for him at all. The perception on here seems to be that a campaign's internals try to skew the results in as favorable a manner for them as possible, and that would be true here. If Bredesen's people can only manage to show him tied with Blackburn, that must mean he is actually trailing by ~3-4 points. And most recent polls show Blackburn up by mid to high single digits. People on here need to accept that he's done for.

My guess is for a 2006 redux in Tennessee.

Agreed. I think it will be many decades before Tennessee even thinks about electing a Democratic Senator again. Maybe in 2058 or 2066?

It's about as likely as Bredesen getting in or them NEVER voting Democrat again. Even Massachusetts is voting for a Republican. I'd say it would take a sustained existential crisis for it to finally flip provided there is anything left to flip.

That is my point. Tennessee could only just be 25% of the way through what may prove to be a century-long drought without Democratic Senators.

[Calthrina950]

Their poll was the most accurate predicting 2016. (Clinton by 2% vs. actual 2.1%)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot_nov05

Interesting. And it's also interesting to see people on here laughing at Rasmussen. If you look at the report, they actually underestimated Republicans four years ago. And they were one of the few polls (along with IBD and LA Times) to catch Trump's upset victory two years ago. It's possible that they are underestimating again, but this time those who are being underestimated are the Democrats. Even though I believe the Democrats will narrowly flip the House tomorrow, I also know that there is still much uncertainty about what will happen. A wide range of possibilities is out there, from a narrow Republican hold to massive Democratic gains on par with 1994 and 2010.

[Calthrina950]

Why the hell does everyone want to primary DeGette for some reason?

I don't understand this either. DeGette is a Generic Liberal Democrat, and has never done anything controversial, so far as I know. She is certainly not disliked to the level that my Representative, Doug Lamborn, is by many, and she got the highest percentage of any congressional incumbent in Colorado last year. So I am not sure why Duran would throw away a Senate seat for this.

[Calthrina950]

GOP’s Top Recruits jump in for #NM02 (Oil exec and member of wealthy NM family Claire Chase) and #IN05 State treasurer Kelly Mitchell

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/more-republican-women-ever-are-planning-run-office-n1022376

Head of Yale campaign school says, “we’ve never seen anything like this before.” Regarding the number of republican women running for office.

The Stefanik effect?

Well when less than 10% of Republican Congresspeople are women, that's a pretty low bar

This. And even though I give Stefanik credit for her recruitment efforts, they thus far have not borne any fruit. For example, Joan Perry, whom Stefanik endorsed, lost to Greg Murphy in the primary for the late Walter Jones's seat not too long ago. And not only did she lose, she lost by a landslide-more than 20%. And at least two of the currently serving Republican women in the House (Brooks and Roby) are retiring, so it's likely that the size of the Republican female caucus will diminish further. Republican women continue to have difficulty winning their party's primaries, as Perry's loss demonstrates.

[Calthrina950]

CA-50: Former CA-49 Rep. Darrell Issa (R) is forming an exploratory committee-

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1166899957401415680

I dislike carpetbagging politicians. Issa retired because he could not win reelection in his old district, and now he's thinking about shifting to a safer, less competitive seat. And while Issa would be an "improvement" over the corrupt and scandal-plagued Hunter, that's not saying much.

[Calthrina950]

CA-50: Former CA-49 Rep. Darrell Issa (R) is forming an exploratory committee-

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1166899957401415680

I dislike carpetbagging politicians. Issa retired because he could not win reelection in his old district, and now he's thinking about shifting to a safer, less competitive seat. And while Issa would be an "improvement" over the corrupt and scandal-plagued Hunter, that's not saying much.

There's also the popular (in conservative circles) DeMaio who would be an improvement of both these losers. It's a shame that only Najjar is running currently for the Dems, because so many high profile R's would raise the possibility of a DvD lockout - and I'm normally the guy who pushs back on the top two lockout scenarios in non-safe seats.

Also Issa Represented 'some' of the present CA-50 under the 2000 map, so it's a little less heinous, even if his motives are poisonous.

I agree about Najjar, who is not the best Democratic candidate for this seat, even though he managed to lose to Hunter by "only" 8% last year. More Democrats running would shut off the possibility of either Hunter or Issa prevailing. But if that doesn't happen, then I would hope that DeMaio would be able to earn enough support to at least get into the top two, preferably against Hunter.

[Calthrina950]

CA-50: Former CA-49 Rep. Darrell Issa (R) is forming an exploratory committee-

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1166899957401415680

I dislike carpetbagging politicians. Issa retired because he could not win reelection in his old district, and now he's thinking about shifting to a safer, less competitive seat. And while Issa would be an "improvement" over the corrupt and scandal-plagued Hunter, that's not saying much.

There's also the popular (in conservative circles) DeMaio who would be an improvement of both these losers. It's a shame that only Najjar is running currently for the Dems, because so many high profile R's would raise the possibility of a DvD lockout - and I'm normally the guy who pushs back on the top two lockout scenarios in non-safe seats.

Also Issa Represented 'some' of the present CA-50 under the 2000 map, so it's a little less heinous, even if his motives are poisonous.

I agree about Najjar, who is not the best Democratic candidate for this seat, even though he managed to lose to Hunter by "only" 8% last year. More Democrats running would shut off the possibility of either Hunter or Issa prevailing. But if that doesn't happen, then I would hope that DeMaio would be able to earn enough support to at least get into the top two, preferably against Hunter.

The House election in CA-50 was won by Hunter 51.7%-48.3%, or a margin of 3.4%.

Oh, my mistake. I was thinking of the early results in the first weeks after the election. This is even narrower than I had believed. Well, it's goes to show that a more formidable Democratic candidate than Naijar may have beaten Hunter.

[Calthrina950]

https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/gop-poll-tossup-house-race-in-the-houston-suburbs

Fletcher trails by 2 in NRCC internal. To be taken with a massive grain of salt.

It's the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), not the NRCC.
----
I wonder if this poll was released as a way to convince their donors that all the vulnerable Texas seats are not too far gone.

Fletcher's race is Lean Democratic in 2020, as is Allred's. Both of their seats are slipping away fast from Republicans, and Trump is almost certainly going to lose them again. Even Greg Abbott only carried them by single-digit margins, doing much worse than in 2014. Republicans should be focusing on flipping some of the vulnerable seats in the Midwest (such as those of Peterson, Cartwright, Kind, and Loebsack) that are potentially within their reach.

[Calthrina950]

https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/gop-poll-tossup-house-race-in-the-houston-suburbs

Fletcher trails by 2 in NRCC internal. To be taken with a massive grain of salt.

LOL Likely D. I wouldn’t be shocked if Fletcher won by double digits. This seat is gone for the Rs.

Double digits is a stretch, but Fletcher is certainly favored. I would call this Lean Democratic.

[Calthrina950]

Elizabeth Warren endorsed Jessica Cisneros. Hopefully this starts a cascade

She endorsed Marie Newman (running against Lipinski in IL-03) as well:

https://twitter.com/rollcall/status/1171108104609705984

If Newman wins, the Democratic Party will continue its descent into being the party of the woke, "wine-track" liberals, rather than a party with room for ideological diversity and for social moderation.

[Calthrina950]

If Newman wins, the Democratic Party will continue its descent into being the party of the woke, "wine-track" liberals, rather than a party with room for ideological diversity and for social moderation.

Why do the Democrats need moderates but the Republicans seem to do fine without any of them?

Both parties need moderates, in my view. I wasn't happy about the losses of many of the moderate Republicans last year. It's just unfortunate that many Democrats are so obsessed with abortion and gun control that they must drive out anyone who isn't completely on board with both. To say nothing of the acrimony towards those who were previously skeptical of gay rights (like Gabbard).

[Calthrina950]

If Newman wins, the Democratic Party will continue its descent into being the party of the woke, "wine-track" liberals, rather than a party with room for ideological diversity and for social moderation.

Why do the Democrats need moderates but the Republicans seem to do fine without any of them?

Both parties need moderates, in my view. I wasn't happy about the losses of many of the moderate Republicans last year. It's just unfortunate that many Democrats are so obsessed with abortion and gun control that they must drive out anyone who isn't completely on board with both. To say nothing of the acrimony towards those who were previously skeptical of gay rights (like Gabbard).

Imo being against gay rights was way worse than holding the opposing view on abortion or gun rights. I can understand both viewpoints as being reasonable and committed to a better world for everyone on abortion even though I’m pro-choice through the second trimester, and I can understand that in the countryside people often want to have guns to defend themselves even if I personally wouldn’t want to own one. Being against gay rights is just kind of because you view gay people as being wrong or evil somehow - it can pretty much only stem from bigotry against gay people, there’s no other reason to care.

That being said, there are only moderates in the majority party (or out party) during times when there’s a president of the opposing party. Those moderates get voted out pretty much instantly once a president from their own party is elected. There were a lot more true moderate Republicans in the house in 2016 than there were true moderate Democrats, but now the pendulum has swung back and all the swing districts most likely to elect a moderate are represented by Democrats. Democrats need moderates to consistently win majorities in Congress, just like Republicans do.

When referring to "opposition to gay rights", I was primarily referring to the opposition against gay marriage, a viewpoint which was once held by many Democrats, including former Presidents Clinton and Obama. It wasn't until the past decade or so that a true transformation in the public's viewpoints on the issue occurred, and Democratic politicians followed with that change. Now, I certainly don't think we should turn back the clock, and Obergefell is the law of the land. But prior opposition to gay marriage shouldn't be held as a black mark in a Democratic primary.

As for the other issues, I certainly don't think a politician who supports the Hyde Amendment and wants to maintain at least some limits on abortion, during its later trimesters, should be driven out. Nor should those who are personally pro-life, and are not enthusiastic advocates of the pro-choice cause. And gun rights of course, are another issue on which there should not be a purity test.

[Calthrina950]

Elizabeth Warren endorsed Jessica Cisneros. Hopefully this starts a cascade

She endorsed Marie Newman (running against Lipinski in IL-03) as well:

https://twitter.com/rollcall/status/1171108104609705984

If Newman wins, the Democratic Party will continue its descent into being the party of the woke, "wine-track" liberals, rather than a party with room for ideological diversity and for social moderation.

Anti-choicers don’t belong in the party, sorry.

It's unfortunate that you believe that, but I know from prior experience that you are probably one of the most staunchly pro-choice people on this website. It's this kind of mentality that has cost the Democrats dearly throughout so much of the Heartland over the past few decades.

[Calthrina950]

Ossoff to run against Perdue.

Oh dear.

Perdue would beat Ossoff fairly easily, by about 5-10 points or so. And Ossoff would definitely drag down Democratic chances of winning the other seat.

[Calthrina950]

Ossoff to run against Perdue.

Oh dear.

Perdue would beat Ossoff fairly easily, by about 5-10 points or so. And Ossoff would definitely drag down Democratic chances of winning the other seat.

Ossoff wouldn’t lose by 5-10 points in a state like Georgia. Maybe 3-4 points at worst. Why would he drag down Democratic chances of winning the other seat? He might not be the "strongest candidate", but he’s hardly some Democratic Todd Akin.

I was only providing an estimate of how I think that race might transpire. It is not difficult for me to see him losing by ~5-6% or so. We already know from the special election in GA-06 back in 2017 that he is not an impressive candidate, and I suspect Perdue will run at least a point or two, perhaps more, ahead of Trump.

[Calthrina950]

NE-2: GQR (Eastman internal)

Don Bacon 50
Kara Eastman 49

Don Bacon 53
Ann Ashford 46

Don Bacon 55
Gladys Harrison 44

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9yCoFXZjza8TkxLNDVqeUNFUFpoLUV6aVAtcVZBVXFvUGRF/view

Hopefully, if she wins the DCCC doesn't (stupidly) cut her off again.

Still, it doesn't speak too highly to her capabilities that Bacon leads her in the internal.

[Calthrina950]

I think the point TrendsareReal was trying to make is that although the GOP establishment may promote certain women candidates, it's not guaranteed that their base will vote for them in the primary. The core GOP voter values adherence to a pure, conservative ideology above almost anything else - including issues of identity and promoting diversity in their caucus. That is not to say Republican women can't be elected (especially if they are sufficiently conservative). However, there is often a perception that female candidates are more moderate than their male counterparts. Some of this is based on stereotypes and a rejection of "identity politics" generally, but sometimes female GOP candidates deliberately embrace talking points out of the GOP mainstream as a way to attract swing voters (but would play poorly with the more conservative audience in the primary). And that's saying nothing of the fact that a good chunk of these women would have an uphill battle in the general election. Despite embracing positions that would appeal to some swing voters, the Republican brand in many of these places is so toxic that it probably won't make a difference.

It may sound harsh, but it's hard to look at the Republican party's women recruitment efforts as anything other than a cynical plot to alleviate some of the bad press they've gotten for their caucus' lack of diversity. We've already seen in one election in a safe seat, NC-03, where primary voters are more willing to choose a man over a woman with considerable party backing. And additionally, Rep. Elise Stefanik's efforts to increased the number of women legislators in the House have been derided by many of her more conservative colleagues (even going as far to undermine her as in the NC-03 election). That's not to say that the efforts of people like Stefanik aren't commendable, but I think this is one area where the Republicans are really out of touch with the realities of their voter base.

If you ever read the posts at RRH Elections, you would get a good grasp of the mindset of the Republican base, to say nothing of conservative websites like Townhall, Daily Wire, etc. Many of the posters on those sites believe that ideological purity and (presently) loyalty to Trump, as well as loyalty to the Party, are far more important than promoting candidates of different racial backgrounds, or women, who may be well qualified and well prepared. Although I certainly understand the need for a party to recruit candidates in line with its agenda, I also think that holding up ideology over all else is damaging, and ultimately harmful to the Party's goals. At the rate things are going, we could have, 20 or 30 years from now, a Republican caucus in Congress that is still >90% white and >85% white male, while we have a country at large that is much more diverse, and a Democratic caucus even more diverse than it is now. That will only exacerbate polarization between the parties, going forward.