2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[Ebsy]

I'm still not sure why when the generic ballot was D+4 that people took that as evidence of a "red wave". Certainly Republicans would not be picking up House seats in that kind of electorate.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

[Politician]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

That's what Elliot Morris predicts too.

[Person Man]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

That's what Elliot Morris predicts too.

When was the last time that happened? If both houses don't flip in that situation, there's going to be a revolution.

[Virginiá]

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

FWIW, people like Cohn and Silver have written about quantifying incumbency advantages and their effect in waves, and last I read, incumbency tends to count for less in waves, and over the past generation has been counting less and less. So it isn't more than a few points if Democrats really do see a wave.

If so, you could probably be safe subtracting 4 or 5 points when an incumbent is involved, maybe controlling somewhat for candidate quality as well. If the open seat swing is D+13, maybe it'll be more like D+8 with an incumbent.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

I thought it was closer to D+17 on the federal races and D+15 at the state level. Thiking of the GCB as the floor and specials performance aggregate as the ceiling is probably a good way to think about it, though.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

In particular, there's no incumbency advantage in a special, so the specials average is likely favorable to the out party.  Perhaps the best idea is to think of the specials average as a ceiling on the range of likely outcomes.  On the flip side, the GCB average is more likely a floor on that range in a year of unbalanced enthusiasm, since the polls are likely to miss first-time and previously unlikely voters who are motivated to turn out.

The current GCB average is about D+8 per 538, and the specials average is around D+13, so I'd be comfortable predicting a final result of D+9 or D+10.

That's what Elliot Morris predicts too.

When was the last time that happened? If both houses don't flip in that situation, there's going to be a revolution.

In 1986, the out party (Democrats) won the House popular vote by 9.9%, but only gained 5 seats; however, that was on top of an already large majority (they went from 253 to 258 seats).

Probably the last comparable situation with a minority out party was 1946, when the Republicans won by 8.5% and gained 55 seats, from 191 to 246.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, if Democrats win by 9-10 points then they will definitely pick up 40+ seats and have more than even odds of flipping the senate.

[mencken]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

And how do you know if the environment changes?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

Combine the two IMO

Yeah, special elections seem like reasonable indicators when you have a lot of them, and combined with the GCB + other more indirect factors like fundraising, recruitment, party that controls the WH, they are useful for indicating potential.

-

To mencken's post - Republicans were leaning heavily on the GCB to back their anti-Dem wave claims, so it stands to reason that once the GCB swings against them again, their narrative falls apart.

For us Democrats who have argued a wave is coming based on numerous factors, such as special elections, the GCB, and the stuff I mentioned above, this is just one more reason for us to stand by our predictions.

My issue with using the specials average is they are highly inaccurate if the environment changes significantly near the end. If the environment is consistent, though, they are usually a slightly better (but still flawed) indicator of the midterm results than the GCB.

And how do you know if the environment changes?

If the GCB goes from say, an average of D+8 in June to R+2 in Oct, it's obvious that the environment has changed.

[Virginiá]

I mean, if it went from D+8 to R+2 in the fall, I'd be more inclined to think that, without a very clear cause of the shift, the electorate was never D+8 to begin with.

It's impossible to predict Comey letters or financial crashes so far ahead of time, but based on past elections, I think there is an argument in that often elections are baked in ahead of time, similar to how the fundamentals predicted close races in 2012 and 2016, and close races was what we got, regardless of what the polling might have shown when Trump got hit with a new scandal. PPP said something about this as well - that their internal polls for campaigns seemed to show an electorate that had largely settled, and the polling average jumping around wasn't really an accurate representation of it.

[IceSpear]

Crickets from all the concern trolls and conservative pundits now, lol.

The new evidence does suggest movement toward the Dems. However, I thought GCB didn't matter, since all we have to do is average special elections and that's better than taking surveys?

When did I say it mattered?

[Arkansas Yankee]

Prior Bill Clinton most Presidents were discreet enough to not bother the American people with his presence. They did not try to get on TV every day.   Clinton was the first to really work on having an everyday presence.  It enraged me and many folks like me.   I really believe that was part of the 1994 wave.

Now I realize that 24/7 news coverage started during the Carter years.  But Carter, Reagan, and 43 did not seek out an everyday presence on TV. 45 returned to normalcy.   And Obama was not bad either

But now Trump works for coverage everyday.  And he has his stupid tweets. He is attempting to dominate the social media everyday.  He is in the process of actually driving his opposition and the resistance to the polls.  I know he believes he is motivating his supporters.  He may be.  But he is driving an even greater number of his detractors to the polls.

In my opinion that is why there will be an Atlas red wave.  My GOP friends tell me I am overreacting.  But they will get the message on 11/6.

Trump also has no ability to deal with his opposition in a conciliatory manner.  He just enrages his opponents.

Now I will also say the 24/7 rage expressed by the resistance on MSNBC, CNN, and other social media could have a counter effect.

I also believe there is nothing to Russia collusion claims, especially in light of all Trump’s anti Russian actions.  The resistance needs to be carefull not to cause a boomerang.

For the midterms: advantage resistance. For 2020 we will have to wait to see the reaction.

[KingSweden]

Prior Bill Clinton most Presidents were discreet enough to not bother the American people with his presence. They did not try to get on TV every day.   Clinton was the first to really work on having an everyday presence.  It enraged me and many folks like me.   I really believe that was part of the 1994 wave.

Now I realize that 24/7 news coverage started during the Carter years.  But Carter, Reagan, and 43 did not seek out an everyday presence on TV. 45 returned to normalcy.   And Obama was not bad either

But now Trump works for coverage everyday.  And he has his stupid tweets. He is attempting to dominate the social media everyday.  He is in the process of actually driving his opposition and the resistance to the polls.  I know he believes he is motivating his supporters.  He may be.  But he is driving an even greater number of his detractors to the polls.

In my opinion that is why there will be an Atlas red wave.  My GOP friends tell me I am overreacting.  But they will get the message on 11/6.

Trump also has no ability to deal with his opposition in a conciliatory manner.  He just enrages his opponents.

Now I will also say the 24/7 rage expressed by the resistance on MSNBC, CNN, and other social media could have a counter effect.

I also believe there is nothing to Russia collusion claims, especially in light of all Trump’s anti Russian actions.  The resistance needs to be carefull not to cause a boomerang.

For the midterms: advantage resistance. For 2020 we will have to wait to see the reaction.

I agree with the first half of this post. Trump’s narcissism is his own Achilles heel. A President who would just shut up and not be a d!ck every five seconds would be at 60% approvals in this economic environment, IMO.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Prior Bill Clinton most Presidents were discreet enough to not bother the American people with his presence. They did not try to get on TV every day.   Clinton was the first to really work on having an everyday presence.  It enraged me and many folks like me.   I really believe that was part of the 1994 wave.

Now I realize that 24/7 news coverage started during the Carter years.  But Carter, Reagan, and 43 did not seek out an everyday presence on TV. 45 returned to normalcy.   And Obama was not bad either

But now Trump works for coverage everyday.  And he has his stupid tweets. He is attempting to dominate the social media everyday.  He is in the process of actually driving his opposition and the resistance to the polls.  I know he believes he is motivating his supporters.  He may be.  But he is driving an even greater number of his detractors to the polls.

In my opinion that is why there will be an Atlas red wave.  My GOP friends tell me I am overreacting.  But they will get the message on 11/6.

Trump also has no ability to deal with his opposition in a conciliatory manner.  He just enrages his opponents.

Now I will also say the 24/7 rage expressed by the resistance on MSNBC, CNN, and other social media could have a counter effect.

I also believe there is nothing to Russia collusion claims, especially in light of all Trump’s anti Russian actions.  The resistance needs to be carefull not to cause a boomerang.

For the midterms: advantage resistance. For 2020 we will have to wait to see the reaction.

I agree with the first half of this post. Trump’s narcissism is his own Achilles heel. A President who would just shut up and not be a d!ck every five seconds would be at 60% approvals in this economic environment, IMO.

True.  But if Trump weren't the way he is, he wouldn't have been elected.

[KingSweden]

Prior Bill Clinton most Presidents were discreet enough to not bother the American people with his presence. They did not try to get on TV every day.   Clinton was the first to really work on having an everyday presence.  It enraged me and many folks like me.   I really believe that was part of the 1994 wave.

Now I realize that 24/7 news coverage started during the Carter years.  But Carter, Reagan, and 43 did not seek out an everyday presence on TV. 45 returned to normalcy.   And Obama was not bad either

But now Trump works for coverage everyday.  And he has his stupid tweets. He is attempting to dominate the social media everyday.  He is in the process of actually driving his opposition and the resistance to the polls.  I know he believes he is motivating his supporters.  He may be.  But he is driving an even greater number of his detractors to the polls.

In my opinion that is why there will be an Atlas red wave.  My GOP friends tell me I am overreacting.  But they will get the message on 11/6.

Trump also has no ability to deal with his opposition in a conciliatory manner.  He just enrages his opponents.

Now I will also say the 24/7 rage expressed by the resistance on MSNBC, CNN, and other social media could have a counter effect.

I also believe there is nothing to Russia collusion claims, especially in light of all Trump’s anti Russian actions.  The resistance needs to be carefull not to cause a boomerang.

For the midterms: advantage resistance. For 2020 we will have to wait to see the reaction.

I agree with the first half of this post. Trump’s narcissism is his own Achilles heel. A President who would just shut up and not be a d!ck every five seconds would be at 60% approvals in this economic environment, IMO.

True.  But if Trump weren't the way he is, he wouldn't have been elected.

That... yeah that’s depressingly true too.

[Arkansas Yankee]

Prior Bill Clinton most Presidents were discreet enough to not bother the American people with his presence. They did not try to get on TV every day.   Clinton was the first to really work on having an everyday presence.  It enraged me and many folks like me.   I really believe that was part of the 1994 wave.

Now I realize that 24/7 news coverage started during the Carter years.  But Carter, Reagan, and 43 did not seek out an everyday presence on TV. 45 returned to normalcy.   And Obama was not bad either

But now Trump works for coverage everyday.  And he has his stupid tweets. He is attempting to dominate the social media everyday.  He is in the process of actually driving his opposition and the resistance to the polls.  I know he believes he is motivating his supporters.  He may be.  But he is driving an even greater number of his detractors to the polls.

In my opinion that is why there will be an Atlas red wave.  My GOP friends tell me I am overreacting.  But they will get the message on 11/6.

Trump also has no ability to deal with his opposition in a conciliatory manner.  He just enrages his opponents.

Now I will also say the 24/7 rage expressed by the resistance on MSNBC, CNN, and other social media could have a counter effect.

I also believe there is nothing to Russia collusion claims, especially in light of all Trump’s anti Russian actions.  The resistance needs to be carefull not to cause a boomerang.

For the midterms: advantage resistance. For 2020 we will have to wait to see the reaction.

I agree with the first half of this post. Trump’s narcissism is his own Achilles heel. A President who would just shut up and not be a d!ck every five seconds would be at 60% approvals in this economic environment, IMO.

True.  But if Trump weren't the way he is, he wouldn't have been elected.

That... yeah that’s depressingly true too.

That is debatable.  It may have gotten his base.  He only got my family because we so disliked Hillary so.  His tweeting drove off large segments of normally Republican voters.

Berney was not the answer.   Biden was probably the answer.  But the crazy Democrats wanted to break a glass ceiling.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

It definitely got him through the primary.

It did make him weaker in the general, but he was vs Hillary, so he was still able to win anyways.

[Arkansas Yankee]

It definitely got him through the primary.

It did make him weaker in the general, but he was vs Hillary, so he was still able to win anyways.

He got through the primary due to
     
       1. Divided Field
       2. Democrat help : http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
       3. Joe Scarborough and his girlfriend Mika
       4. Jeb Bush, Joe Scarborough, and Cuz destruction of Rubio the only candidate who could have defeated both Trump and Hillary.  I admit Rubio assisted.  But a united front would have carried him through.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

It definitely got him through the primary.

It did make him weaker in the general, but he was vs Hillary, so he was still able to win anyways.

He got through the primary due to
     
       1. Divided Field
       2. Democrat help : http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
       3. Joe Scarborough and his girlfriend Mika
       4. Jeb Bush, Joe Scarborough, and Cuz destruction of Rubio the only candidate who could have defeated both Trump and Hillary.  I admit Rubio assisted.  But a united front would have carried him through.

I dunno. I think Ted Cruz would have been the only person who could beat him in a 1v1. And even then I doubt it. Trump got in the high 40s despite the divided field.

[ON Progressive]

It definitely got him through the primary.

It did make him weaker in the general, but he was vs Hillary, so he was still able to win anyways.

He got through the primary due to
     
       1. Divided Field
       2. Democrat help : http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
       3. Joe Scarborough and his girlfriend Mika
       4. Jeb Bush, Joe Scarborough, and Cuz destruction of Rubio the only candidate who could have defeated both Trump and Hillary.  I admit Rubio assisted.  But a united front would have carried him through.

I dunno. I think Ted Cruz would have been the only person who could beat him in a 1v1. And even then I doubt it. Trump got in the high 40s despite the divided field.

I wouldn't put a ton into him being high 40s in the final nationwide result, given that 23% of his votes were from the final 9 primaries where everyone else had dropped out.

[Arkansas Yankee]

It definitely got him through the primary.

It did make him weaker in the general, but he was vs Hillary, so he was still able to win anyways.

He got through the primary due to
     
       1. Divided Field
       2. Democrat help : http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
       3. Joe Scarborough and his girlfriend Mika
       4. Jeb Bush, Joe Scarborough, and Cuz destruction of Rubio the only candidate who could have defeated both Trump and Hillary.  I admit Rubio assisted.  But a united front would have carried him through.

I dunno. I think Ted Cruz would have been the only person who could beat him in a 1v1. And even then I doubt it. Trump got in the high 40s despite the divided field.

I wouldn't put a ton into him being high 40s in the final nationwide result, given that 23% of his votes were from the final 9 primaries where everyone else had dropped out.

Who knows?

Interesting question.  If there had been no Trump, might Hillary have been indicted?

[Bidenworth2020]

It definitely got him through the primary.

It did make him weaker in the general, but he was vs Hillary, so he was still able to win anyways.

He got through the primary due to
     
       1. Divided Field
       2. Democrat help : http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
       3. Joe Scarborough and his girlfriend Mika
       4. Jeb Bush, Joe Scarborough, and Cuz destruction of Rubio the only candidate who could have defeated both Trump and Hillary.  I admit Rubio assisted.  But a united front would have carried him through.

I dunno. I think Ted Cruz would have been the only person who could beat him in a 1v1. And even then I doubt it. Trump got in the high 40s despite the divided field.

I wouldn't put a ton into him being high 40s in the final nationwide result, given that 23% of his votes were from the final 9 primaries where everyone else had dropped out.

Who knows?

Interesting question.  If there had been no Trump, might Hillary have been indicted?

no, not a chance.