2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Why do people keep saying Dems are losing ground with minorities because of one mediocre pollster? The Special Elections are saying the complete opposite.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Why do people keep saying Dems are losing ground with minorities because of one mediocre pollster? The Special Elections are saying the complete opposite.

Well, they clearly won't do as well as they did among minorities as Hillary, because most democratic candidates will not be running against someone as racially charged as Donald Trump, and they tend to have lower midterm turnout. Hillary pretty much maxed out among minorities, with the exception of 2020 Trump during a recession vs a candidate with strong minority appeal.

Notice how the biggest special election swings have been coming from districts that are mostly white (PA-18, AZ-08, Wisconsin, etc.). IIRC Tipinerni did about the same as Hillary among Latinos despite doing way better overall, and got less Latino turnout. And you can see how dems underperformed Hillary in Milwaukee in the Supreme Court election, specifically in the majority black areas.

[BundouYMB]

Why do people keep saying Dems are losing ground with minorities because of one mediocre pollster? The Special Elections are saying the complete opposite.

Well, they clearly won't do as well as they did among minorities as Hillary, because most democratic candidates will not be running against someone as racially charged as Donald Trump, and they tend to have lower midterm turnout. Hillary pretty much maxed out among minorities, with the exception of 2020 Trump during a recession vs a candidate with strong minority appeal.

Notice how the biggest special election swings have been coming from districts that are mostly white (PA-18, AZ-08, Wisconsin, etc.). IIRC Tipinerni did about the same as Hillary among Latinos despite doing way better overall, and got less Latino turnout. And you can see how dems underperformed Hillary in Milwaukee in the Supreme Court election, specifically in the majority black areas.

Yeah, but Democrat have problems with minority turnout every midterm. It's not losing ground if it's the same exact problem we had in 2014 and 2010.

[Virginiá]

Yeah, but Democrat have problems with minority turnout every midterm. It's not losing ground if it's the same exact problem we had in 2014 and 2010.

I agree somewhat, but I would also point out that 2010/2014 were years where depressed Democratic turnout would make sense. This midterm, however, is one where major portions of the Democratic Party are being shocked into a frenzy by an unpopular and controversial Republican president. If that isn't enough to push usually-ambivalent minorities (mostly Hispanic and maybe Asian voters I think) voters to the polls, then that presents a long-term problem that Democrats need to square somehow. It's risky to rely on these voters in certain states to deliver victories, only for them to show up in force every 4 years instead of 2.

The only other way to fix that is to bring more white college grads (high turnout demo) into the party and to wait until Millennials get older, where they will start voting more.

[Skill and Chance]

Why do people keep saying Dems are losing ground with minorities because of one mediocre pollster? The Special Elections are saying the complete opposite.

Well, they clearly won't do as well as they did among minorities as Hillary, because most democratic candidates will not be running against someone as racially charged as Donald Trump, and they tend to have lower midterm turnout. Hillary pretty much maxed out among minorities, with the exception of 2020 Trump during a recession vs a candidate with strong minority appeal.

Notice how the biggest special election swings have been coming from districts that are mostly white (PA-18, AZ-08, Wisconsin, etc.). IIRC Tipinerni did about the same as Hillary among Latinos despite doing way better overall, and got less Latino turnout. And you can see how dems underperformed Hillary in Milwaukee in the Supreme Court election, specifically in the majority black areas.

Yeah, but Democrat have problems with minority turnout every midterm. It's not losing ground if it's the same exact problem we had in 2014 and 2010.

IMO it's not so much losing ground as they have already hit their ceiling sooner than expected during 2012-16.  The fundamental Dem mistakes in 2016 was thinking they could improve on Obama's margins with non-white voters.

Interestingly, post-Trump Republicans also seem to be hitting their ceiling with white voters sooner than they expected.  As pointed out further upthread, this has be the biggest source of problems for them in the 2017-18 specials.

Overall, racial polarization seems reaching its limit sooner than expected.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Yeah, but Democrat have problems with minority turnout every midterm. It's not losing ground if it's the same exact problem we had in 2014 and 2010.

I agree somewhat, but I would also point out that 2010/2014 were years where depressed Democratic turnout would make sense. This midterm, however, is one where major portions of the Democratic Party are being shocked into a frenzy by an unpopular and controversial Republican president. If that isn't enough to push usually-ambivalent minorities (mostly Hispanic and maybe Asian voters I think) voters to the polls, then that presents a long-term problem that Democrats need to square somehow. It's risky to rely on these voters in certain states to deliver victories, only for them to show up in force every 4 years instead of 2.

The only other way to fix that is to bring more white college grads (high turnout demo) into the party and to wait until Millennials get older, where they will start voting more.

There's a reason why I think democrats are stupid for going for their stupid emerging majority educated white + minority coalition. For one, uneducated whites are 46% of the electorate, so you need at least some of them to win. And they will be over 40% of the electorate for a long time. Educated whites aren't going to ever become even 60-40 democratic. Secondly, minorities & young people have even lower turnout in midterms. It's also quite insulting to ignore a huge bloc of voters, and it's insulting to assume minorities will always be titanium D (granted, the GOP has a 40 year streak of doing a terrible job at courting minorities...) Thirdly, WWC are over represented in the electoral college and way more represented in the Senate.

States like Nevada have become way more diverse since the 1990s, but democrats aren't doing much better in Nevada today than they were in the 1990s...

[Virginiá]

States like Nevada have become way more diverse since the 1990s, but democrats aren't doing much better in Nevada today than they were in the 1990s...

Yes, it is kind of amazing how that has worked out. There is good reason to think that Democrats will have consolidated their power over NV after the Nov elections, but from 2000-now, it's not really been a good time for them. They have had the state House locked down mostly since the 1930s, but that's it. They haven't controlled the Governors mansion for 20 years. That is pretty bad, all things considered. They did better pre-1998.

Edit: I wonder if the inability of Nevada Democrats to consolidate power sooner is due to the post-Reagan shift of WWCs to the Republican Party. NV's changing demographics has helped balance it out, but there seems to be a similar pattern at play here. Or maybe Republicans just had a good run of it, with the electorate generally being too swingy for Democrats to lock down.

[BundouYMB]

Yeah, but Democrat have problems with minority turnout every midterm. It's not losing ground if it's the same exact problem we had in 2014 and 2010.

I agree somewhat, but I would also point out that 2010/2014 were years where depressed Democratic turnout would make sense. This midterm, however, is one where major portions of the Democratic Party are being shocked into a frenzy by an unpopular and controversial Republican president. If that isn't enough to push usually-ambivalent minorities (mostly Hispanic and maybe Asian voters I think) voters to the polls, then that presents a long-term problem that Democrats need to square somehow. It's risky to rely on these voters in certain states to deliver victories, only for them to show up in force every 4 years instead of 2.

The only other way to fix that is to bring more white college grads (high turnout demo) into the party and to wait until Millennials get older, where they will start voting more.

Well, I think you have to consider why Democrats are in a frenzy. The reality is that in terms of legislation Trump hasn't done anything significant. Democrats are in a frenzy because of the assault on American institutions and the President's offensive conduct. Minority voters in general have a more mixed view of America's institutions, I think, (after all, many of those institutions were used to oppress them) and Republican Presidents have always treated them like crap. Trump's attitude is shocking to middle class whites because it's the first time a President has treated them like this. So, I'm not surprised minority voters are the least enthused element of the Democratic coalition.

Whether this is a long-term problem I don't know -- since the issues of the day are always changing, and tommorrow it might be something that does fire up minority voters, I'm inclined to believe it's not. It is a problem for this specific election, but we ARE bringing in more educated and elderly whites. So as of today I'm not particularly concerned.

[KingSweden]

States like Nevada have become way more diverse since the 1990s, but democrats aren't doing much better in Nevada today than they were in the 1990s...

Yes, it is kind of amazing how that has worked out. There is good reason to think that Democrats will have consolidated their power over NV after the Nov elections, but from 2000-now, it's not really been a good time for them. They have had the state House locked down mostly since the 1930s, but that's it. They haven't controlled the Governors mansion for 20 years. That is pretty bad, all things considered. They did better pre-1998.

Edit: I wonder if the inability of Nevada Democrats to consolidate power sooner is due to the post-Reagan shift of WWCs to the Republican Party. NV's changing demographics has helped balance it out, but there seems to be a similar pattern at play here. Or maybe Republicans just had a good run of it, with the electorate generally being too swingy for Democrats to lock down.

Having the world-conquering titan that is Brian E. Sandoval helps too, of course.

[Skill and Chance]

States like Nevada have become way more diverse since the 1990s, but democrats aren't doing much better in Nevada today than they were in the 1990s...

Yes, it is kind of amazing how that has worked out. There is good reason to think that Democrats will have consolidated their power over NV after the Nov elections, but from 2000-now, it's not really been a good time for them. They have had the state House locked down mostly since the 1930s, but that's it. They haven't controlled the Governors mansion for 20 years. That is pretty bad, all things considered. They did better pre-1998.

Edit: I wonder if the inability of Nevada Democrats to consolidate power sooner is due to the post-Reagan shift of WWCs to the Republican Party. NV's changing demographics has helped balance it out, but there seems to be a similar pattern at play here. Or maybe Republicans just had a good run of it, with the electorate generally being too swingy for Democrats to lock down.

Don't forget the impact of retirees in NV as well.  It's a similar story in AZ and FL of how Republicans came back from 1996. 

[YE]

States like Nevada have become way more diverse since the 1990s, but democrats aren't doing much better in Nevada today than they were in the 1990s...

Yes, it is kind of amazing how that has worked out. There is good reason to think that Democrats will have consolidated their power over NV after the Nov elections, but from 2000-now, it's not really been a good time for them. They have had the state House locked down mostly since the 1930s, but that's it. They haven't controlled the Governors mansion for 20 years. That is pretty bad, all things considered. They did better pre-1998.

Edit: I wonder if the inability of Nevada Democrats to consolidate power sooner is due to the post-Reagan shift of WWCs to the Republican Party. NV's changing demographics has helped balance it out, but there seems to be a similar pattern at play here. Or maybe Republicans just had a good run of it, with the electorate generally being too swingy for Democrats to lock down.

This, basically. Both the WWC and Hispanic vote in my state are quite swingy (and the rural vote is quite weird), and unlike your state where it is due to incompetence from your state party, the streak of GOP controlled governors is more of bad luck than anything else. The only governor race since 1994 the Dems have had a good shot at winning is 2006; 2 of the 3 GOP governors have been actual moderates that have been able to appeal to Latinos and do well in Clark. While the Hispanics are getting older, they aleady turn out at higher numbers than AZ/TX so that state won't benefit as much in the long term. I expect my state to tilt D but never be truly safe D.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

Doug Jones did not get 98% of the black vote. He got ~95% vs a pedophile. He noticeably got 20-25% less votes in the major black counties than Hillary. Get your facts straight. You cherrypicked the example of the democrat who did the best with black people since 2016, and Doug Jones barely did any better than Hillary among black voters despite facing a racist pedophile.

Democrats will almost surely do worse with minorities in 2016 because most Republicans are not as racial charged as Donald Trump. It's been a consistent trend in the special elections. It's simply extremely hard to win minorities by 60+ points. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think dems did worse in GA-06 than Hillary (it's 40% minority). Because minorities aren't going to be nearly as D if you're not vs Donald Trump, and they're not going to turn out as much.

The huge swings in special elections have been from places that are 80+% white after all, like PA-18.

[Bidenworth2020]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

Doug Jones did not get 98% of the black vote. He got ~95% vs a pedophile. He noticeably got 20-25% less votes in the major black counties than Hillary. Get your facts straight. You cherrypicked the example of the democrat who did the best with black people since 2016, and Doug Jones barely did any better than Hillary among black voters despite facing a racist pedophile.

Democrats will almost surely do worse with minorities in 2016 because most Republicans are not as racial charged as Donald Trump. It's been a consistent trend in the special elections. It's simply extremely hard to win minorities by 60+ points. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think dems did worse in GA-06 than Hillary (it's 40% minority). Because minorities aren't going to be nearly as D if you're not vs Donald Trump, and they're not going to turn out as much.

The huge swings in special elections have been from places that are 80+% white after all, like PA-18.

you are cherrypicking data. sure, jones got 20-25% less, but roy got about 50% less, consistent with the state trend. I am seriously tired of people not recognizing how important minorities our to our coalition, it is sick.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

Doug Jones did not get 98% of the black vote. He got ~95% vs a pedophile. He noticeably got 20-25% less votes in the major black counties than Hillary. Get your facts straight. You cherrypicked the example of the democrat who did the best with black people since 2016, and Doug Jones barely did any better than Hillary among black voters despite facing a racist pedophile.

Democrats will almost surely do worse with minorities in 2016 because most Republicans are not as racial charged as Donald Trump. It's been a consistent trend in the special elections. It's simply extremely hard to win minorities by 60+ points. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think dems did worse in GA-06 than Hillary (it's 40% minority). Because minorities aren't going to be nearly as D if you're not vs Donald Trump, and they're not going to turn out as much.

The huge swings in special elections have been from places that are 80+% white after all, like PA-18.

you are cherrypicking data. sure, jones got 20-25% less, but roy got about 50% less, consistent with the state trend. I am seriously tired of people not recognizing how important minorities our to our coalition, it is sick.

I am not saying democrats should ignore minorities. In fact, my data is actively saying they should try to get more minorities! I am saying that they have consistently been doing worse with minorities in special elections from 2016. Black turnout completely bombed in Milwaukee in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, black turnout and margins were worse in Virginia governor, Latino turnout was worse in AZ-08 (the only places Hiral Tipinerni underperformed Hillary in was minorities). It's a very consistent trend, actually. Even as democrats are doing way better in elections across the country, they are doing worse among minorities than Hillary did (although better than Generic D vs Generic R in the 2016 vote).

And the Doug Jones point was to make it clear that even though he was facing a pedophile racist, he barely did any better than Hillary among minorities. You'd expect him to do a lot better, but it goes to show that minorities aren't as happy with the democratic party as they used to be.

Where did you get the idea that I said minorities are not important? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Very disrespectful of you. Please apologize for your petulance.

[Bidenworth2020]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

Doug Jones did not get 98% of the black vote. He got ~95% vs a pedophile. He noticeably got 20-25% less votes in the major black counties than Hillary. Get your facts straight. You cherrypicked the example of the democrat who did the best with black people since 2016, and Doug Jones barely did any better than Hillary among black voters despite facing a racist pedophile.

Democrats will almost surely do worse with minorities in 2016 because most Republicans are not as racial charged as Donald Trump. It's been a consistent trend in the special elections. It's simply extremely hard to win minorities by 60+ points. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think dems did worse in GA-06 than Hillary (it's 40% minority). Because minorities aren't going to be nearly as D if you're not vs Donald Trump, and they're not going to turn out as much.

The huge swings in special elections have been from places that are 80+% white after all, like PA-18.

you are cherrypicking data. sure, jones got 20-25% less, but roy got about 50% less, consistent with the state trend. I am seriously tired of people not recognizing how important minorities our to our coalition, it is sick.

I am not saying democrats should ignore minorities. In fact, my data is actively saying they should try to get more minorities! I am saying that they have consistently been doing worse with minorities in special elections from 2016. Black turnout completely bombed in Milwaukee in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, black turnout and margins were worse in Virginia governor, Latino turnout was worse in AZ-08 (the only places Hiral Tipinerni underperformed Hillary in was minorities). It's a very consistent trend, actually. Even as democrats are doing way better in elections across the country, they are doing worse among minorities than Hillary did (although better than Generic D vs Generic R in the 2016 vote).

And the Doug Jones point was to make it clear that even though he was facing a pedophile racist, he barely did any better than Hillary among minorities. You'd expect him to do a lot better, but it goes to show that minorities aren't as happy with the democratic party as they used to be.

Where did you get the idea that I said minorities are not important? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Very disrespectful of you. Please apologize for your petulance.

well, you seen to be recognizing white voters' influence more than black voters. They won us AL-sen. You are not respecting where they have gotten us, is my point, and them voting for us by slightly smaller margins is not changing where they have.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

Doug Jones did not get 98% of the black vote. He got ~95% vs a pedophile. He noticeably got 20-25% less votes in the major black counties than Hillary. Get your facts straight. You cherrypicked the example of the democrat who did the best with black people since 2016, and Doug Jones barely did any better than Hillary among black voters despite facing a racist pedophile.

Democrats will almost surely do worse with minorities in 2016 because most Republicans are not as racial charged as Donald Trump. It's been a consistent trend in the special elections. It's simply extremely hard to win minorities by 60+ points. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think dems did worse in GA-06 than Hillary (it's 40% minority). Because minorities aren't going to be nearly as D if you're not vs Donald Trump, and they're not going to turn out as much.

The huge swings in special elections have been from places that are 80+% white after all, like PA-18.

you are cherrypicking data. sure, jones got 20-25% less, but roy got about 50% less, consistent with the state trend. I am seriously tired of people not recognizing how important minorities our to our coalition, it is sick.

I am not saying democrats should ignore minorities. In fact, my data is actively saying they should try to get more minorities! I am saying that they have consistently been doing worse with minorities in special elections from 2016. Black turnout completely bombed in Milwaukee in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, black turnout and margins were worse in Virginia governor, Latino turnout was worse in AZ-08 (the only places Hiral Tipinerni underperformed Hillary in was minorities). It's a very consistent trend, actually. Even as democrats are doing way better in elections across the country, they are doing worse among minorities than Hillary did (although better than Generic D vs Generic R in the 2016 vote).

And the Doug Jones point was to make it clear that even though he was facing a pedophile racist, he barely did any better than Hillary among minorities. You'd expect him to do a lot better, but it goes to show that minorities aren't as happy with the democratic party as they used to be.

Where did you get the idea that I said minorities are not important? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Very disrespectful of you. Please apologize for your petulance.

well, you seen to be recognizing white voters' influence more than black voters. They won us AL-sen. You are not respecting where they have gotten us, is my point, and them voting for us by slightly smaller margins is not changing where they have.

I mean, I'm just saying that white people are going to swing more because Trump race-related politics won't be as prevalent in 2018, and white people are already more GOP. I am not endorsing any strategy. I wish republicans did far more to try to get minority voters.

[Bidenworth2020]

DTC, Clinton performed worse than Obama amongst minorities. Doug Jones won 98% of the black vote in Alabama. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are losing minorites, besides a mediocre daily tracking poll by Reuters. I expected Atlas to know better.

Doug Jones did not get 98% of the black vote. He got ~95% vs a pedophile. He noticeably got 20-25% less votes in the major black counties than Hillary. Get your facts straight. You cherrypicked the example of the democrat who did the best with black people since 2016, and Doug Jones barely did any better than Hillary among black voters despite facing a racist pedophile.

Democrats will almost surely do worse with minorities in 2016 because most Republicans are not as racial charged as Donald Trump. It's been a consistent trend in the special elections. It's simply extremely hard to win minorities by 60+ points. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think dems did worse in GA-06 than Hillary (it's 40% minority). Because minorities aren't going to be nearly as D if you're not vs Donald Trump, and they're not going to turn out as much.

The huge swings in special elections have been from places that are 80+% white after all, like PA-18.

you are cherrypicking data. sure, jones got 20-25% less, but roy got about 50% less, consistent with the state trend. I am seriously tired of people not recognizing how important minorities our to our coalition, it is sick.

I am not saying democrats should ignore minorities. In fact, my data is actively saying they should try to get more minorities! I am saying that they have consistently been doing worse with minorities in special elections from 2016. Black turnout completely bombed in Milwaukee in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, black turnout and margins were worse in Virginia governor, Latino turnout was worse in AZ-08 (the only places Hiral Tipinerni underperformed Hillary in was minorities). It's a very consistent trend, actually. Even as democrats are doing way better in elections across the country, they are doing worse among minorities than Hillary did (although better than Generic D vs Generic R in the 2016 vote).

And the Doug Jones point was to make it clear that even though he was facing a pedophile racist, he barely did any better than Hillary among minorities. You'd expect him to do a lot better, but it goes to show that minorities aren't as happy with the democratic party as they used to be.

Where did you get the idea that I said minorities are not important? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Very disrespectful of you. Please apologize for your petulance.

well, you seen to be recognizing white voters' influence more than black voters. They won us AL-sen. You are not respecting where they have gotten us, is my point, and them voting for us by slightly smaller margins is not changing where they have.

I mean, I'm just saying that white people are going to swing more because Trump race-related politics won't be as prevalent in 2018, and white people are already more GOP. I am not endorsing any strategy. I wish republicans did far more to try to get minority voters.

well, people like cochran and isakson did.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

CBS

Democrats: 50%

Republicans: 41%
____________________

44% of voters would be less likely to support a candidate that supports Trump compared to 28% that would.
Number is 42-25% for independents
____________________

Party favorabilities:

Democrats-

Favorable: 41%
Unfavorable: 52% (-11)

Republicans-

Favorable: 36%
Unfavorable: 59% (-23)
__________________

44% of independents prefer the Democrats win congress compared to 38% for the GOP. Cook released an article detailing how independents are probably going to break heavily for the Democrats: https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/if-democrats-are-doing-so-great-why-dont-they-have-bigger-lead

__________________

45% of voters say that a candidate that supports stricter gun laws makes them more likely to vote for them, compared to 33% saying the opposite

30% of voters say the Tax Cut law makes them more likely to support the candidate compared to 28% saying the opposite. The GOP's only key strategy for the midterms is falling apart.

45% of voters say that a candidate supporting DACA would win their vote, compared to just 20% saying the opposite

59% of voters oppose the US-Mexico border wall, just 38% support it.

46% of voters disapprove of the GOP Tax Cut law, 43% approve. Again, the GOP may want to reevaluate their midterm strategy.

35% of voters say the tax cut law will hurt their family, 30% say it will help

Overall VERY good numbers for the Democrats. They have a lot of ammunition to use against the GOP

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/six-months-before-midterms-both-parties-face-challenges-cbs-news-poll/

[LimoLiberal]

Updated my polling spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1lEBtD0DPaliUWSZQclSl_HqTZAO_bRrxjDRZPPrAKgM/edit#gid=0

[KingSweden]

Looks like YouGov is out today at +9 and Morning Consilt at +7, per DKE

[Hindsight was 2020]

The bizarre trend of Trump approval going slightly up while CGB gets worse continues

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The bizarre trend of Trump approval going slightly up while CGB gets worse continues

It’s supposed to continue getting better for the Dems from now leading up to Election Day, plus premiums are expected to sky rocket in the fall. Like we saw in that Tennessee Senate PPP Poll, Bredesen is winning because voters are concerned about healthcare. Things are only going to get worse for the GOP.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Morning Consult, May 3-7, 1992 RV

D 42 (-1)
R 35 (+1)

[Blackacre]

The bizarre trend of Trump approval going slightly up while CGB gets worse continues

It’s supposed to continue getting better for the Dems from now leading up to Election Day, plus premiums are expected to sky rocket in the fall. Like we saw in that Tennessee Senate PPP Poll, Bredesen is winning because voters are concerned about healthcare. Things are only going to get worse for the GOP.

Not quite. There's expected to be a small surge for the GOP around Labor Day, and then a final boost for Dems from there until election night