2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread v2

[Pericles]

Yeah Atlas hasn't quite grasped out that Donald Trump is an unpopular President.

[Pericles]

UT-04: Ben McAdams raised around $900K in Q4

https://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/22584-campaign-sources-mcadams-raised-nearly-1-million-in-campaign-cash-has-nearly-2-million-in-the-bank

Yeah, I doubt that republicans will take back this district next year especially with Trump lukewarm approval rate in Utah

It would be safer for republicans to make a Salt lake dem vote sink next decade.

Why ? The other districts are safe and should remain so, it’s not that Utah is becoming a progressive state, it’s just that Trump brand of republicanism is not attracting mormons

Trump brand of republicanism has redefined the GOP and it is going to stick. Being against immigration and against free trade is helping the GOP with WWC voters , but it's hurting them with mormons.

Mormons contrary to white suburbanites Romney/Clinton voters are still very socially and fiscally conservative, they will easily support a ''Trumpist'' republican as long he doesn't have the personal flaws that Trump has, I mean Ron DeSantis would probably win 2/3 of the vote in Utah if he were to run for / when he will run for the presidency

Mormons do have issues with Trump's stances on immigration and free trade and generally his populism, but given how dominant Republicans are in Utah they can easily afford to lose a few Mormons in Utah in return for WWC voters in the Upper Midwest. The main worry with Mormons for the Republicans is that it may cost them Arizona.

[Pericles]

He voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 which could help him in this district.

Congressmen Richard Ojeda and Gene Taylor can attest to that.

To be fair both ran way ahead of the district's partisanship. However, I doubt FL-26 flips back since Curbelo was pretty moderate and a strong incumbent and he still lost.

[Pericles]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

To be fair, we would need more like 61 - 63 to pass anything major. First the filibuster-proof majority, and then up to a extra votes to deal with R-state Democrats who are afraid of voting on anything major.

But it's all moot anyway. Biden is an institutionalist and so he's not going to support Senate Democrats changing the filibuster rules. I'd be very surprised if he did push for that, because let's be honest, this is a guy who is still talking about somehow cutting deals with Mitch McConnell and about how he'll consider everyone for his cabinet, including Republicans.

Until the party moves on from people like that, nothing major is going to change. After all, Biden said it himself.

Indeed. We are not in an era where major change is going to be effected by legislation, at least by one Party. The ACA was a fluke. In the future, partisan policy change will happen via executive action that is ratified by friendly courts. Congress increasingly becomes irrelevant. The point of getting 51 seats in the Senate is so you can push through (or block) court nominations. Ditching the filibuster might make things a bit easier, but not much. One party would still need to control the federal trifecta and herd its Senators.

Now, this is a bad development. The centralization of policymaking in the executive pushes the U.S. closer to the dictatorial model of government, Article 48 Weimar style. But it is inevitable, as the only alternative is policy paralysis and the latter is not going to hold.

Damn the founders for being so conservative. The only other alternative is bipartisanship.

The amount of pessimism on the Democratic side is insane. Have you people never heard of reconciliation? The GOP just passed a major tax law with a 52-seat majority.

Medicare For All might be a pipe dream, but Democrats will be well positioned to pass a couple major laws with reconciliation, especially if they can get a 51st seat and not have to rely on Manchin.

Plus the Supreme Court and cabinet are filibuster-proof. So if RBG and Breyer retire a Democratic Senate is needed to fill those seats and can do so, and if say Clarence Thomas' seat becomes vacant then Democrats need the Senate to get a big win out of that. And I still think the filibuster will be further weakened or even eliminated in the coming years.

[Pericles]

So far 2020 is looking like 2008 at the congressional level (with 2018 being 2006 of course), rather than a reversion to a more neutral environment like 2012 and 2016 were. This could change, but Democrats have been polling at blue wave levels basically since Trump took office so it doesn't seem likely to change.

[Pericles]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20200608_OK.pdf

Horn leads "Republican Challenger" 42-41. For reference, Biden is winning this seat 50-44 according to this poll.

A bad sign for her to be running behind Biden by 5 points. Trump did win her district by 13 points, so I would be surprised if Biden won it comfortably. However, maybe he could given it also had a strong trend in 2016.

[Pericles]

A Biden landslide will mean a down ballot landslide for Democrats. I find it hard to believe the polls are actually tightening, especially right now. Biden has been leading by double digits for over a month now.

That raises another good point about the differences between 2016 and 2020. Hillary's big leads were much more short-lived.

[Pericles]

Garcia internal has him leading by 48-41, Biden+5. Given the rules around released internals, it clearly looks like a tossup race for CA-25.

Also a bad poll for the D v D CA53 race:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1291231978679926784?s=20

Clinton won CA-25 by 7 points after it voted for Romney. I'm sceptical of Biden only being up by 5 there, given how well he's doing nationally. Though it does suggest Garcia has a shot, if he is outrunning Trump by so much.

[Pericles]

Inside Elections has come up with a list of GOP-held seats they list as Safe R, but are potentially worth watching in a huge wave. Trump won all of these districts in 2016 with 52-58 percent. 
https://www.insideelections.com/news/article/house-races-to-watch

CA-04 (McClintock)
CA-08 (Open, Cook)
CA-22 (Nunes)
CA-50 (Open, Hunter)
FL-18 (Mast)
IL-16 (Kinzinger)
KS-02 (Open, Watkins)
KY-06 (Barr)
MI-02 (Huizenga)
MI-07 (Walberg)
MN-08 (Stauber)
NE-01 (Fortenberry)
NV-02 (Amodei)
NJ-04 (Smith)
NY-21 (Stefanik)
NY-23 (Reed)
NC-09 (Bishop)
OH-12 (Balderson)
OH-14 (Joyce)
OH-16 (Gonzalez)
SC-02 (Wilson)
TX-03 (Taylor)
TX-17 (Open, Flores)
TX-31 (Carter)
VA-01 (Wittman)
WI-01 (Steil)
WI-06 (Grothman)

I have my doubts about most of these seats, but could any realistically be in play? I feel like a lot of the incumbents are pretty strong and have a good change of significantly outperforming Trump.

The TX ones are plausible flips if the trends are really strong there. Other than that, OH-12 and NC-09 seem the most competitive. Nunes might be vulnerable but it's unlikely. There may be other vulnerabilities but those are the most plausible ones to me right now.

[Pericles]

TX-03 internal for Taylor shows him up 13 on Seikaly:

The presidential race in this district was not polled.

It probably was, but they didn't like what they saw.

If Taylor is outrunning Trump by double digits, that is pretty impressive and seems like something they'd want to publicise.

[Pericles]

IN-05 - Tulchin Research (D)

Hale 50%
Spartz 44%

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/512749-democrat-holds-5-point-lead-in-key-indiana-house-race-dccc-poll

Spartz overperforms Trump by 7 points.

Ugh, that overperformance is worrying. Though Spartz is just 2% ahead of Trump, Hale is 5% under Biden. I'm not sure if the presidential numbers are real or an overestimate, likely the latter but wild swings aren't impossible.

[Pericles]

House Dems could realistically pick up 20+ seats this election. These internals are wild.

You're not kidding. Some of the indications show upwards of 25+. I'd be surprised if Democrats can reclaim what they had after Obama's first election, but it's getting close. It could potentially be a wave-proof majority. We'll have to see.

No such thing as a wave proof majority.  

Very true, but it was sort of in context of a recent topic. No, not wave proof, but a Democratic House approaching 260 is a far stronger majority than something closer to the mid-230s. It could potentially withstand 2022.

Having close to 260 just means more vulnerable seats to have to protect.

It does if the DCCC takes the NRSC approach to incumbent protection, but having lots of incumbency bonuses should be a net benefit for the caucus.

A larger majority also makes for faster/more ambitious lawmaking and if you're of the opinion that good governance can help an incumbent party, that's worth considering.

It's easier to win a seat that you already hold, especially with the sophomore effect. Plus having more Democratic Representatives might make Republicans more cautious with their gerrymanders, even if redistricting reforms aren't passed. I'd say if Democrats gain 20 seats they'll get lucky with some of those seats and manage to hold about 5 in 2022. While otherwise none if those 20 seats would vote Democratic in 2022.

[Pericles]

Sabato needs to be fired. TX 21 and 22 are long gone
Don Bacon is not winning what is likely to be Biden +11
And don't get me started on MN 01

LOL OH-01 and MN-01 before like half a dozen TX seats more likely to flip

Turns out MN-01 would have flipped before every TX Republican seat except TX-24 lol.