2018 Congressional Recruitment/Fundraising/Ratings Megathread

[GeorgiaModerate]

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

[junior chįmp]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

[Doimper]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

[Devout Centrist]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

Yes. Dunno why this is being hyped so much.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

Yes. Dunno why this is being hyped so much.

Based on the way it's described ("how many seats will they lose in the House") I assumed it was net loss of seats. 

[junior chįmp]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

Idk, nobody has posted that question....though you could be right

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Apparently Republicans have dumped more money against Baldwin than all other Senate Democrats combined? Why?

They don't like the fact a lesbian is a united states senator?

[Doimper]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

Yes. Dunno why this is being hyped so much.

Based on the way it's described ("how many seats will they lose in the House") I assumed it was net loss of seats. 

Where does it say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

Yes. Dunno why this is being hyped so much.

Based on the way it's described ("how many seats will they lose in the House") I assumed it was net loss of seats. 

Where does it say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mondale described it that way when he posted it:

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

[junior chįmp]

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

What market is this?

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/79

85 or more is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your viewpoint).  I wonder if someone is manipulating that market.

It's been at 85 + since the market was established. I don't think 70+ is unrealistic at all given a combination of factors

Since this is referring to "turnover", does that include retirements?

Yes. Dunno why this is being hyped so much.

Based on the way it's described ("how many seats will they lose in the House") I assumed it was net loss of seats. 

Where does it say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mondale described it that way when he posted it:

Not looking too hot for the GOP right now on how many seats will they lose in the House:

I assumed, based on my reading of the title, it meant "number of seats lost." Seems kind of silly to include retirements as turnovers

......

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[henster]

Shocking how little Senate polling we have so far. Virtually nothing for WV, PA, WI, ND, IN, MT, OH.

[Doimper]

Shocking how little Senate polling we have so far. Virtually nothing for WV, PA, WI, ND, IN, MT, OH.

Right? Of course PPP came up with a Trump-Cuban matchup in Texas, though.

[Pericles]

People say Democrats run bad campaigns, but in the Senate, Republicans have really shot themselves in the foot. They had Roy Moore, Ken Buck, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin, so they should have at least 57 Senate seats(at least). But they only have 51.

[LimoLiberal]

Reuters/Ipsos
1/1-1/4

Democrats: 41% (-4)
Republicans: 34 (+1)

The week before was D+12 and the week before that was D+15. Now they're at D+7. Not enough to take the house.

That has to be worrying for Democrats.

[IceSpear]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

[smoltchanov]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

10 months, to be precise. And yes - one poll doesn't mean too much, but it's interesting to follow the development of events. Right now i am not convinced yet that the "wave" is real, and will survive until November (though with Trump it's, probably, quite possible). We shall see. Different scenarios are still possible. And, as i said many times, Democrats are extremely "apt" to underperform in polls in last 1-2 month before elections and in elections itself. 2010 (when most expected maximum 20-30 seats loss in the House) and 2014 (where most expected gains), not even mentioning 2016 (90% were convinced in Hillary's victory) are good examples.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Reminder: Republicans were barely ahead of Democrats at the generic ballot in January 2010.
And Democrats reclaimed their lead the following summer.
We all know how that movie ended.

[IceSpear]

Reminder: Republicans were barely ahead of Democrats at the generic ballot in January 2010.
And Democrats reclaimed their lead the following summer.
We all know how that movie ended.

Also, Republicans were barely ahead a week before the election in 2014, lol.

[junior chįmp]

Reuters/Ipsos
1/1-1/4

Democrats: 41% (-4)
Republicans: 34 (+1)

The week before was D+12 and the week before that was D+15. Now they're at D+7. Not enough to take the house.

That has to be worrying for Democrats.

Just wait for the WOLFF BOOK BUMP for the Dems

[Virginiá]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

Kind of an indictment of the way we elect public officials when people actually worry whether D+7 is enough to claw back even a bare majority.

[smoltchanov]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

Kind of an indictment of the way we elect public officials when people actually worry whether D+7 is enough to claw back even a bare majority.

It's surely no secret, that Democrats are hyperconcentrated in fewer number of districts, so Republicans inherently have an advantage (even without gerrymandering). The best Republican districts in 2016 were about 81% Trump (those, like TX-13), the best Democratic - about 95% for Clinton. And this is true in non-presidential races too...

[Oryxslayer]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

Kind of an indictment of the way we elect public officials when people actually worry whether D+7 is enough to claw back even a bare majority.

It's surely no secret, that Democrats are hyperconcentrated in fewer number of districts, so Republicans inherently have an advantage (even without gerrymandering). The best Republican districts in 2016 were about 81% Trump (those, like TX-13), the best Democratic - about 95% for Clinton. And this is true in non-presidential races too...

The median house district is R+3. The real spike in difficulty comes from the incumbency hump, which occurs for both parties, and varries from candidate to candidate.

[smoltchanov]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

Kind of an indictment of the way we elect public officials when people actually worry whether D+7 is enough to claw back even a bare majority.

It's surely no secret, that Democrats are hyperconcentrated in fewer number of districts, so Republicans inherently have an advantage (even without gerrymandering). The best Republican districts in 2016 were about 81% Trump (those, like TX-13), the best Democratic - about 95% for Clinton. And this is true in non-presidential races too...

The median house district is R+3. The real spike in difficulty comes from the incumbency hump, which occurs for both parties, and varries from candidate to candidate.

Of course. But R+3 is enough for at least modest Republican lean.

[junior chįmp]

Just your daily reminder....demographics ARE destiny. (GOP ded.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do these two years have in common?