Are The Democrats Toast in 2018 after Kavanaugh?

[Zaybay]

Yes.

Well not toast... but the house is a Tossup at best.

Senate is long gone

Im tired of saying that it isnt, so I will instead ask, how is the house just a tossup? Doesnt polling point towards a D house gain being lean D at worst?

[Politician]

SN2903 isn't worth responding to. Just put him on ignore and report his posts. Anyway, of course not, most voters won't even remember this in 2 weeks.

[American2020]

Interesting analysis from James Carvill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/08/carville_kavanaugh_worth_a_lot_more_alive_than_dead_democrats_are_going_to_keep_digging_up_stuff.html

[MillennialModerate]

Yes.

Well not toast... but the house is a Tossup at best.

Senate is long gone

Im tired of saying that it isnt, so I will instead ask, how is the house just a tossup? Doesnt polling point towards a D house gain being lean D at worst?

I say that’s because so many districts are gerrymandered to the point that Dems need to have far bigger turnout in a lot of them. The congressional generic ballot likely needs to be around 8% for the House. If all things were equal as far as the districts being fairly drawn, then yes’s easily Dems take the House. But things aren’t equal. They are rigged for the GOP. I see the house being like 221-214 for the (non-atlas red) red team

[Zaybay]

Yes.

Well not toast... but the house is a Tossup at best.

Senate is long gone

Im tired of saying that it isnt, so I will instead ask, how is the house just a tossup? Doesnt polling point towards a D house gain being lean D at worst?

I say that’s because so many districts are gerrymandered to the point that Dems need to have far bigger turnout in a lot of them. The congressional generic ballot likely needs to be around 8% for the House. If all things were equal as far as the districts being fairly drawn, then yes’s easily Dems take the House. But things aren’t equal. They are rigged for the GOP. I see the house being like 221-214 for the red team

That is the reasoning I expected, and one that fails to see where the GOP gerrymander wall actually is.

Lets do a quick, but crude, look at the house:

 The Ds need 24 seats to flip the house, and surprisingly, a lot can be made up in D areas. There are currently 18 districts that voted for Clinton and are currently rated tossup or D favored: https://www.270towin.com/2018-house-election/

That leaves 6 districts needed to take the house, which polling shows the Ds already have, by large margins, with PA-17, KS-03, NY-22, MI-11, NJ-03 and NJ-11. Boom, you have the D house. And that leaves out a lot of other tossup seats that could be won.

What gerrymandering blunts is the margin for the D house, for instance, a D vote of 8 nationwide will yield less seats than if all states were drawn fairly. But there is also the fact that gerrymandering can backfire, and cause more seats to be lost than should be, such as in AK for the Ds, and VA for the Rs. There is a point where the Ds gain more in these maps than they should, around D+14, of course, this will likely not be the margin.

The house is still likely to go D, but the margin is still up in the air, depending on what the final GCB is.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

At this point, Dems will definitely lose 4-5 senate seats. The house will break even at best.

Well, I'll take this prediction very seriously considering your impeccable blemish free track record.

My personal sources are all saying Saccone by 10-12 points. Tomorrow will be a very lackluster night.

Gillespie by under half a point.

Normally I'd say Polis, but boring white women are doing really well this year, so Kennedy by 2 points.

Kucinich by 1 point.

Scott by 10-12.

55-44 Moore

Stabenow will win by 3 points.

Balderson by 8 now.

Rofl. How has this dude managed to get everything so so wrong?

[IceSpear]

Rofl. How has this dude managed to get everything so so wrong?

The funny part is that his predictions are actually good in a sense...you can get a ballpark estimate of the final result by adding roughly 10 points to the Democrats.

If the House was "break even at best", I assume that would make the generic ballot something like R+1. So according to my formula, the end result will be D+9. Congrats Speaker Pelosi!

[ShamDam]

This is the most egregious example of "both sides"-ism I have ever seen

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

[Oryxslayer]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

Gender gap only become more prominent post-Kav in this poll. Seriously guys, think, before you concern troll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How on earth can the House be "break even at best" when the Republicans have already ceded more House seats than there are Dem-held seats they are targeting?

[SN2903]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

[Yank2133]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

You realize that this poll is a Likely voter screen?

[ElectionsGuy]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

Those are likely voters, so I wouldn't sneeze at those numbers. But there is room for skepticism after 2016. This will at least be a mildly good year for Democrats.

[Gass3268]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

Those are likely voters, so I wouldn't sneeze at those numbers. But there is room for skepticism after 2016. This will at least be a mildly good year for Democrats.

The poll has a 10 point enthusiasum advantage for Democrats too. Also the national polls were very good in 2016. Only fear I have is educational weighting in the Frost Belt.

[ElectionsGuy]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

Those are likely voters, so I wouldn't sneeze at those numbers. But there is room for skepticism after 2016. This will at least be a mildly good year for Democrats.

The poll has a 10 point enthusiasum advantage for Democrats too. Also the national polls were very good in 2016. Only fear I have is educational weighting in the Frost Belt.

Yeah, but since Dems are concentrated in CA, NY, MA, MD, etc. outside of those states its more like D+5, which is still good, but almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states (with the exception of some being in upstate NY). That would be my main concern if I were a Democrat.

[Lechasseur]

Yes.

Well not toast... but the house is a Tossup at best.

Senate is long gone

Honestly this is what I think too.

[Doimper]

almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states

I don't think this is true regarding the House? Illinois, California, and NY (which you did mention) all have several very competitive races.

[Lechasseur]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

Those are likely voters, so I wouldn't sneeze at those numbers. But there is room for skepticism after 2016. This will at least be a mildly good year for Democrats.

The poll has a 10 point enthusiasum advantage for Democrats too. Also the national polls were very good in 2016. Only fear I have is educational weighting in the Frost Belt.

Yeah, but since Dems are concentrated in CA, NY, MA, MD, etc. outside of those states its more like D+5, which is still good, but almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states (with the exception of some being in upstate NY). That would be my main concern if I were a Democrat.

Agreed

[Yank2133]

I don't see how anyone can say the House is a toss up. Republicans could retain the house, but it is not 50/50. It is more like 75/25 in favor of Democrats.

[Gass3268]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

Those are likely voters, so I wouldn't sneeze at those numbers. But there is room for skepticism after 2016. This will at least be a mildly good year for Democrats.

The poll has a 10 point enthusiasum advantage for Democrats too. Also the national polls were very good in 2016. Only fear I have is educational weighting in the Frost Belt.

Yeah, but since Dems are concentrated in CA, NY, MA, MD, etc. outside of those states its more like D+5, which is still good, but almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states (with the exception of some being in upstate NY). That would be my main concern if I were a Democrat.

There is obvious truth here, which is part of why I'm starting to come to the conclusion where we could be seeing a divergence with the Senate and House this cycle. Democrats can get very close to the House majority only winning seats in Democratic states and regions of states. Compared to the Senate where the map is brutal.

[Zaybay]

Totally:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1049691950704672769

So what? The energy is now even. It's not the #s it who turns out to vote and democrats notoriously struggle to turnout in midterms and now the GOP/GOP Leaners are enthused.

Those are likely voters, so I wouldn't sneeze at those numbers. But there is room for skepticism after 2016. This will at least be a mildly good year for Democrats.

The poll has a 10 point enthusiasum advantage for Democrats too. Also the national polls were very good in 2016. Only fear I have is educational weighting in the Frost Belt.

Yeah, but since Dems are concentrated in CA, NY, MA, MD, etc. outside of those states its more like D+5, which is still good, but almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states (with the exception of some being in upstate NY). That would be my main concern if I were a Democrat.

There is obvious truth here, which is part of why I'm starting to come to the conclusion where we could be seeing a divergence with the Senate and House this cycle. Democrats can get very close to the House majority only winning seats in Democratic states and regions of states. Compared to the Senate where the map is brutal.

I feel it should be noted that polling so far has shown little increase in already held D seats compared to 2016, vs Red districts. There is a point to where a state, such as CA, reaches its maximum D capacity, which currently is around 65-35. Most D states were at full capacity in 2016, there is little room to go for these states. In the competitive states, however, the Ds have a lot of room to make up, and polling shows this. Its very likely, based on current information, that the R seats will see most of the D increase, compared to D districts.

[ElectionsGuy]

almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states

I don't think this is true regarding the House? Illinois, California, and NY (which you did mention) all have several very competitive races.

Your right, California has many competitive house races, and Illinois has a few. However, the seats that are competitive are traditionally Republican-leaning. My concern would still be how much could Democrats run up the vote in these 80+% D districts (especially in California where Republicans aren't even on the ballot in many of them) that the national ballot race would be misleading for some of these. Don't get me wrong, I think Democrats will pick up most of these seats and win the house, but that would be my #1 concern about just reading GCB numbers.

[Doimper]

almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states

I don't think this is true regarding the House? Illinois, California, and NY (which you did mention) all have several very competitive races.

Your right, California has many competitive house races, and Illinois has a few. However, the seats that are competitive are traditionally Republican-leaning. My concern would still be how much could Democrats run up the vote in these 80+% D districts (especially in California where Republicans aren't even on the ballot in many of them) that the national ballot race would be misleading for some of these. Don't get me wrong, I think Democrats will pick up most of these seats and win the house, but that would be my #1 concern about just reading GCB numbers.

This doesn't make any sense. Mathematically, there's less ground for Democrats to gain in Safe D districts - therefore you'd expect the majority of GCB gains to be concentrated in less traditionally Democratic parts of the nation.

[ElectionsGuy]

almost all the competitive races in the house and Senate lie outside very blue states

I don't think this is true regarding the House? Illinois, California, and NY (which you did mention) all have several very competitive races.

Your right, California has many competitive house races, and Illinois has a few. However, the seats that are competitive are traditionally Republican-leaning. My concern would still be how much could Democrats run up the vote in these 80+% D districts (especially in California where Republicans aren't even on the ballot in many of them) that the national ballot race would be misleading for some of these. Don't get me wrong, I think Democrats will pick up most of these seats and win the house, but that would be my #1 concern about just reading GCB numbers.

This doesn't make any sense. Mathematically, there's less ground for Democrats to gain in Safe D districts - therefore you'd expect the majority of GCB gains to be concentrated in less traditionally Democratic parts of the nation.

If you take into account turnout, it does. Obviously, we will not see a uniform % gain among all districts, but we could see much higher turnout in districts that are safe D. We're talking about an enthusiasm gap? Yes? That's what that is. Extra votes in D districts that add to their total but don't add to their house total. In the Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this year Dane County had record Democratic turnout for an April election, which mattered to the overall statewide numbers. In house races, they don't matter to the overall control of the house. I'm really not trying to argue with anyone, and I'm not saying that it will happen. So please take it with a grain of salt.