2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/985910755764637699

Now that is an encouraging poll. Could easily see Dems gaining three out of four of NJ-2, NJ-3, NJ-7, and NJ-11 with that result.

[KingSweden]

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/985910755764637699

Now that is an encouraging poll. Could easily see Dems gaining three out of four of NJ-2, NJ-3, NJ-7, and NJ-11 with that result.

2, 7 and 11 will flip, I think. 3 only goes down in a superwave

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/985910755764637699

This is why I just can't buy the idea that dems will blow the midterms. There are so many states like NJ, Penn, NY, Cali, MI were they have a bunch of seats in serious play

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/985910755764637699

Now that is an encouraging poll. Could easily see Dems gaining three out of four of NJ-2, NJ-3, NJ-7, and NJ-11 with that result.

2, 7 and 11 will flip, I think. 3 only goes down in a superwave

I don't know, Obama won the 3rd in both 2012 and 2008. I view it as less likely to go than the other three, but I do think it will be close.

The 4th, on the other hand, looks safe for the Republicans.

[Doimper]

With these numbers, the 4th is definitely in play if we can muster a good candidate.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

With these numbers, the 4th is definitely in play if we can muster a good candidate.

NJ-04 is too republican and Chris Smith is a very popular moderate incumbent

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

District 2 is definitely ours, there's no question. 7 and 11 are likely flips as well. 4 will be close.

[KingSweden]

3 will be much closer than 4

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

3 will be much closer than 4

You're right, I don't know why the hell I said 4. I meant to say 3.

[Progressive Pessimist]

NJ-04 is probably the only district that isn't competitive this year. MacArthur is overrated. The GOP could probably have an easier time holding on to this district than any of the other ones that are competitive but they should not get cocky.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

[BudgieForce]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

How did you get that?

[LimoLiberal]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

How did you get that?

He's wrong.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

Those Romney/Clinton voters are coming home due to the tax bill, so good luck with that.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

Those Romney/Clinton voters are coming home due to the tax bill, so good luck with that.

Lol the support for the tax bill is waning.

[Hindsight was 2020]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

Those Romney/Clinton voters are coming home due to the tax bill, so good luck with that.

So you're going to finish what King Lear started?

[BudgieForce]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

Those Romney/Clinton voters are coming home due to the tax bill, so good luck with that.

Not in New Jersey they're not. You know how many upper middle class NJ republicans got screwed because they hit the new deduction cap?

[OneJ]

That Monmouth poll only represents a 2.88% shift from 2016 in the GOP held districts.

Then again, dems take the house if they just do 2.88% better than Hillary in every district.

Those Romney/Clinton voters are coming home due to the tax bill, so good luck with that.

So you're going to finish what King Lear started?

Push that ignore button before it’s too late. He’s already posted the same stuff over and over and is indeed pretty similar to Lear’s.

Anyways, I am pretty confident that Dems do pick up at least 30 seats.

[Virginiá]

It's so maddening how we get hit with low-mid single digit D+ GCB polls, only to see other state-level polls or special election results that indicate a much worse environment for Republicans. Like, you get WaPo with D+4 a month after a Democrat picked off an R+11 district in Pennsylvania. Those two are not compatible with each other.

It's also annoying because the poll trend is weaker than it was in 2006, which seemed to show a lot more double digit polls, but at the same time, it's not 2006 anymore. Not only have the coalitions shifted, but probably even polling itself has gone through some decent changes, on top of the political environment being so different. So I don't really think Democrats need to have a huge polling lead to feel safe about the election.

But in the end I'd love the peace of mind that 2006-level polls would provide, so, meh. The polls keeping jumping around, but it still seems like at least a D+8 - D+10 environment.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I know! One bad poll and the media goes into "DEMS ARE DOOMED!!!" narrative, despite all the factors still favoring a Dem takeover in November.

[BudgieForce]

It's so maddening how we get hit with low-mid single digit D+ GCB polls, only to see other state-level polls or special election results that indicate a much worse environment for Republicans. Like, you get WaPo with D+4 a month after a Democrat picked off an R+11 district in Pennsylvania. Those two are not compatible with each other.

It's also annoying because the poll trend is weaker than it was in 2006, which seemed to show a lot more double digit polls, but at the same time, it's not 2006 anymore. Not only have the coalitions shifted, but probably even polling itself has gone through some decent changes, on top of the political environment being so different. So I don't really think Democrats need to have a huge polling lead to feel safe about the election.

But in the end I'd love the peace of mind that 2006-level polls would provide, so, meh. The polls keeping jumping around, but it still seems like at least a D+8 - D+10 environment.

On the other hand, alot of polls in 2006 vastly overestimated democrat performance. I'd rather polls be underestimating Dem support rather than overestimating it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2006_generic_congressional_vote-2174.html

Lets remember dems won the generic ballot by 8 points.
Seriously, look at some of these A+ pollsters final polls:

CNN - +20%
FOX - +13%
NBC - +15%
CBS - +18%

[UncleSam]

It's so maddening how we get hit with low-mid single digit D+ GCB polls, only to see other state-level polls or special election results that indicate a much worse environment for Republicans. Like, you get WaPo with D+4 a month after a Democrat picked off an R+11 district in Pennsylvania. Those two are not compatible with each other.

It's also annoying because the poll trend is weaker than it was in 2006, which seemed to show a lot more double digit polls, but at the same time, it's not 2006 anymore. Not only have the coalitions shifted, but probably even polling itself has gone through some decent changes, on top of the political environment being so different. So I don't really think Democrats need to have a huge polling lead to feel safe about the election.

But in the end I'd love the peace of mind that 2006-level polls would provide, so, meh. The polls keeping jumping around, but it still seems like at least a D+8 - D+10 environment.

They are compatible with each other. Dems are more enthused and so will overperform in low-turnout specials in comparison to polls measuring a (relatively) higher turnout midterm or just polling everyone. Additionally, Democrats overperform in special elections always due to the fact that they have such an advantage among activists and volunteers. I’m not remotely surprised Dems overperform by 15 on average in specials if the GCB is D+7-8, but that would only correspond to a midterm advantage of roughly, well, D+7-8 lol.

[Virginiá]

They are compatible with each other. Dems are more enthused and so will overperform in low-turnout specials in comparison to polls measuring a (relatively) higher turnout midterm or just polling everyone. Additionally, Democrats overperform in special elections always due to the fact that they have such an advantage among activists and volunteers. I’m not remotely surprised Dems overperform by 15 on average in specials if the GCB is D+7-8, but that would only correspond to a midterm advantage of roughly, well, D+7-8 lol.

Is 2017-2018's special elections performance comparable to any period under Obama? Or even under Bush? I don't have a spreadsheet of all the specials averaged out (I believe DK is doing something like that though), and this kind of consistent over-performance is not matched at any time in the past 25 years, iirc. It's not normal either.

Edit: Yup - Here is DK's chart:



I don't think it's fair to say Democrats always do better in special elections.

Democrats are over-performing in a way that is unique to the past ~20 years. I'm not exactly sure if you're saying Democrats always do this well in special elections, or something else. It's not like Republicans haven't done well themselves either. It seems like the party that controls the White House does poorly in special elections unless maybe if the president is very, very popular. Likewise, when said president is really unpopular, it fires up the other party and depresses their own base, leading to disproportionate performances.

FTR, I specifically mentioned a D+4 poll because I thought it was strange given the other markers. It does seem more like a D+8 environment at least to me. I also brought up 2006 because the 2006-2008 period saw a lot more double digit polls, so I was curious if hat had

[Landslide Lyndon]

PA-18 wasn't a low turnout election.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos/Reuters, April 12-16, 1268 RV

D 44 (-1)
R 35 (+1)