2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[ProgressiveModerate]

Christy IN!

https://twitter.com/ChristyforCA25/status/1333806001921826816

Ah geez! She just lost a very winnable House race. We don't need a Martha McSally of CA-25.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I'm assuming he's running for the new 4th?

If he survives the primary safe R. If he loses around likely R give or take depending upon the "sanity" of the Republican candidate.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wouldn’t an increase in the gender divide depolarize a lot of things by giving both sides a bit of boost in areas where they’re in the deep minority?

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/DeFede/status/1524488060079116288

Seems like Democrats might get a real recruit against Salazar.

Still 2022 is prolly the wrong year. She really doesn't have to outperform Biden with minorities by much though as the district is only Trump + 1, however, there will be a defacto rightwards shifts in a lot of the educated whiter parts of the district which FL-27 actually has quite a bit of.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-june-22-2022/

Sabato's Crystal Ball made three rating changes today, all in favor of Republicans:

AK-AL Special- Likely R > Safe R
CA-45 (Steel)- Toss-up > Lean R
VA-10 (Wexton)- Safe D > Likely D

The Alaska and CA-45 moves are reasonable. The VA-10 move is laughable.

Real "NJ -> Leans D" 2018 vibes

Likely D isn't too unreasonable given the likely nature of the year and the fact Youngkin came close in the district. Def on the more solid end of it though so imo there wasn't really a need to move it, but the district did get slightly redder from redistricting and Wexton "only" won by 13 in 2020.

It's no different to how in 2020 many forecasters had states such as Kansas as Likely Trump even though statistically they were probably safe.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-june-22-2022/

Sabato's Crystal Ball made three rating changes today, all in favor of Republicans:

AK-AL Special- Likely R > Safe R
CA-45 (Steel)- Toss-up > Lean R
VA-10 (Wexton)- Safe D > Likely D

The Alaska and CA-45 moves are reasonable. The VA-10 move is laughable.

Real "NJ -> Leans D" 2018 vibes

Likely D isn't too unreasonable given the likely nature of the year and the fact Youngkin came close in the district. Def on the more solid end of it though so imo there wasn't really a need to move it, but the district did get slightly redder from redistricting and Wexton "only" won by 13 in 2020.

It's no different to how in 2020 many forecasters had states such as Kansas as Likely Trump even though statistically they were probably safe.

Put that another way: Youngkin wasn't able to win this district despite winning a state that's basically safely blue at this point. I'm reminded of VA-05, a district that Dems tried to contest a few times last decade even though Corey freaking Stewart won it. Tim Kaine couldn't break through there, and neither could Cockburn or Webb. Youngkin couldn't break through in VA-10, and Cao won't be able to either.

Most likely not, but theoretically, the votes are there for Cao to win whereas trying to win say VA-08 would be literally impossible.

Also you're assuming Younkin is the maximum perfomance by a R in VA these days. Most likely is pretty close to it but surely not the true max.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Money won't be the problem for Dems. It's how they will use it.

It's hard to analyze money though because while in some cases it may be genuine enthusiasm, that enthusiasm could just be coming from already very reliable voters or a few very wealthy folks. It may also be genuine enthusiasm on teh ground that causes them to get very solid turnout though. We just don't know.

These House Dems have the money to really run get out a message that will affect how their constituents see them optically, and many will have to make choices about how closely they want to tie themselves to Biden, how much they want to reference Trump, and how progressive or moderate they wish to be. In hindsight, I'm sure a lot of us will say many didn't spend their money well, but as of now it's hard to say what the best use is.

I also wonder if for some of these Rs, the lack of money is a good thing in the sense if they had tons of money, they may use it on stuff that ends up causing them more problems for them cause by spending money and taking a stand about who they are, they may either tie themselves too close to or not enough with Trump. Someone like Majewski is prolly better unknown and just seen as a generic R rather than making ads himself.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In somewhat of an upset Dems now have a candidate in MI-04 through a strong write in campaign during the primary. The fact they didn’t contest this district originally was silly but this is prolly likely R for now, if not safe.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/lxeagle17/status/1555700718819872773

That part I'm more suprised about is how do 16% of people still "not know" who they're going to support on the GCB. And it's not even like this "undecided" % has been going down any. That seems awfully high, and is way higher than we saw in Pres matchup polls.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/lxeagle17/status/1555700718819872773

That part I'm more suprised about is how do 16% of people still "not know" who they're going to support on the GCB. And it's not even like this "undecided" % has been going down any. That seems awfully high, and is way higher than we saw in Pres matchup polls.

I get your point but it's not 16% - it's 11.6% undecided/other right now (44.2 +44.2 decided right now, 88.4)

Mb bad math

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1557458057390694405

As gracile can attest, I'm not huge on this move. A cash deficit is impermanent. The fact is, Marlinga has a stronger brand than James here and that could make this race competitive. Lean R was a fair rating.

James didn’t even win the district in 2020 Senate and Whitmer will probably win it this year. Cash only goes so far, we just need Marlinga to get some late funding.

But James is a strong canidate cause muh black republicnan

[ProgressiveModerate]

Michigan being higher than CO is.... certainly something

Agreed. For what it's worth, I think Joe O'Dea has serious Youngkin potential this November.

Even if he gets the 12% Youngkin swing in CO, he still falls 1.5% short.

I'm not saying he'll win, but I wouldn't be surprised if the race was within 2-3 points. It might be this cycle's equivalent of VA-SEN 2014.

If there is any R path left in Colorado, this would probably be the race to prove it. One difference between VA and CO is Denver and Boulder provide Dems with a very hard floor and are very reliable in voting extremely D.

And even if you remove liberal CO-01 and CO-02 from the 2020 results, Biden still would've won Colorado. Finding the votes to outvote Denver and Boulder is tricky, especially since say 2014 CO-Sen performance in many suburbs is unrealistic for Rs now.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tbf, CA Latinos are disproportionately concentrated in greater LA so are prolly more prone to being liberal by default. You also have potentially more conservative ones in the Central Valley but those tend to be lower turnout and even then a lot are concentrated in liberal parts of Fresno and Bakerspider.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The CO change is pure Cook brain. This is Supposed To Be A Good Cycle For The Republicans so any change in the Democrats' favor, no matter how justified, must be balanced out by a change in the Republicans' favor, no matter how unjustified.

There's a 12+ point difference between how PA and CO voted in 2020. Obviously universal swing isn't real but c'mon.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/stateoftheraces/status/1324719036953993216

Any rater who had Alabama as less than Likely R purely had it as that rating as a rule of Jones incumbency which was flawed imo. Also given the final result, ratings such as Likely R Mississippi, Solid D Virginia, or even Tossup ME were fine (Collins won by a lot less than topline would suggest cause RCV). It was really the classic theme of them underestimating partisanhsip in many of these R states.

Also, Lean D AZ, CO, and MI were all appropriate, not to mention Tossup GA and NC. Most of the usual battleground states had appropriate ratings.

The big lesson we learned in 2020 we should consider when evaluating a 2022 race such as OH-Sen (or on the converse CO-Sen) is that partisanship tends to win.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My projects as of today; curious to look back on this.

Alaska: Tshibaka + 4

Nobody wins an outright majority, so it goes to RCV where Murkowski makes up a lot of ground but still falls short. A few progressive or lower info Democrats do not rank Murkowski on their ballot, and many believe that was decisive.

Arizona: Masters + 1

Kelly does just fine in whiter Maricopa and Tucson suburbs, but falls short due to the usual poor Hispanic midterm turnout in AZ. The Governor's race is remarkably close causing chaos mostly due to Lake being weird.

Colorado: Bennett + 6

O' Dea does manage to get solid performances out of traditionally redder parts of the state such as Colorado Springs. However, this election confirms that Boulder and Denver are just too hard to outvote at this point and Republicans give up on the state going forwards.

Florida: Rubio + 5

Some see the race as closer than expected. Much of Rubio's crossover support from 2016 erodes and the election map looks quite similar to 2020 Pres. This gives many Dems a renewed sense of optimism in the state and the belief 2020 was somewhat of an anomaly.

Georgia: Warnock + 2

He just narrowly avoids a runoff. Walker continues to implode as election day nears, Atlanta swings left, and black turnout is solid. The map looks very very simillar to his 2021 runoff performance. Warnock also has a pretty universal overperformance of both Biden and Abrams in rural communities. Many credit the victory to really strong organization on the part of Dem activists, and people begin to treat GA as a "Lean D" state for 2024. The Governors race goes to a runoff.

Illinois: Duckworth + 9

Turnout differentials make the race a bit closer than expected in the end, but Dems don't worry too much about the result as Pritzker does slightly better and they believe in a more normal year Illinois should produce a solid margin for Dems

Nevada: Laxalt + 2

Both CCM and Laxalt continue to run pretty milktoast campaigns. While CCM outperforms Biden in a few heavily Hispanic and Black parts of Vegas, Laxalt does really well in whiter communities which similar to AZ, experience less of a turnout drop-off putting him over the edge. Many Dems become worried about their future in the state, and believe CCM should've tried to run a more charismatic campaign.

New Hampshire: Hassan + 7

In New England, local politics matters, so Hassan does just fine in the end, having a simillar map to Biden's except doing slightly better in rural/ancesteral D communities and slightly worse in most suburbs.

North Carolina: Budd + 3

The race is somewhat closer than folks expect given the national result. Like in GA, Black turnout is decent, and so is turnout in Mecklenburg and Wake Counties. Despite this, Beasley is unable to sustain many of Biden's margin's putting Budd over the edge

Ohio: Vance + 7

Polarization ultimately wins out and the map looks similar to 2020. Many Dems slap themselves on the face for believing they had a chance

Pennsylvania: Fetterman + 2

Ultimately, his campaign of painting Oz as a memeworthy celebrity from NJ is successful and he's able to win by overperforming Biden basically everywhere in rural areas, especially rural areas where Dems have seem the biggest slips. Many point to the Fetterman campaign as a success story and how more campaigns need to be run, while Oz shows a cautionary tale of what happens when you run a celebrity

Washington: Murray + 12

She does just fine and Smiley's performance is solid but not particularly notable

Wisconsion: Johnson + 3

The map looks simillar to 2016-Pres but a few points redder. Barnes does really great in both Madison and Milwaukee but struggles to find appeal elsewhere. None of Johnson's controversial statements really stick despite the Barne's campaigns attempts, and he successfully ties Barnes to the radical left Biden agenda.

This makes the Senate 51R-49D

In the House, Republicans have a relatively underwhelming night with no clear strength of seats that wins them a massive majority (i.e. high education suburban seats for Dems in 2018). In the end, they get about 230 seats or so. Most see the House map as relatively boring and predictable with few upsets.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The way that there are never any articles about the GOP's total collapse with 18-29 year olds/Zoomers/Millennials is stunning. It's almost like they completely get away with not even bothering to try to appeal to that age group.

As things are today, 18-29 are still a relatively low turnout group. Plus, I imagine those who do vote are more likely predisposed to being more liberal (college students). In the future, the GOP will almost certainly do better with Zoomers and Millennials as more join the electorate and some become more conservative with age. Also once they become more dominant the GOP will literally be forced to appeal to them or not be able to win elections.

It'll probably be soon that the GOP will really start to find difficulty winning elections without closing the gap at least a bit with this group since everyear more Millenials and Zoomers will join the active electorate (as more Boomers die too).

[ProgressiveModerate]

One interesting Stat from the Pew Research poll is the lower education folks are a lot more likely to be "undecided" than college educated folks.

Firstly, I think this could explain a huge part of why polling tends to underestimate the GOP in this day and age. And secondly, it disproves the idea that most swing voters are these well to do high education people who think very critically about the pros and cons of each canidate before casting their ballot.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The most comparable generic ballots so far are 2002 (unprecedented incumbent victory) or 2014 (humiliating incumbent defeat).
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1564411069526843398?s=21&t=4q2kvDU...

2014 is really what is scary cause it was fairly recent and Dems had a good sense of optimism only to lose basically every remotely competative race, especially when it came to Senate and Gov.

Imo as a Democrat I feel like a reasonable hope to have is that Ds flip MA and MD Gov and at least hold MI and PA gov even if they lose WI, KS, AZ, GA, ect. They lose the House but hold the Senate so they can still confirm judges and begin to balance out the judiciary.

I think one difference between 2014 and 2022 though is that in 2014, basically all the battleground Senate seats were in states that had become R on the Pres level and were catching up downballot plus there was a general increase in polarization from 2012. In 2022, we are much more polarized already and all the key Senate races are in traditional battleground states making "unexpected blowouts" less likely. Rs winning AZ, NV, GA, and PA Senate is a very realistic possibility and will continue to be all the way up to eday.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Glad they're realizing that much hyped Yesli Vega is now a flop candidate.

They should start more moves like PA-7, VA-2, NJ-7 to tossup.

Kean and Kiggans will probably still win, but I agree those districts are more like a tossup. It’s just hard to see Kean being a sizable favorite in a Biden+5 seat when Republicans are losing Trump+10 or Biden+1 seats.

Eh, I think Luria will still pull it out. Luria has much more $, and has a lot more visibility now due to the 1/6 panel. Kiggans seems like another hyped candidate like Vega that hasn't really borne out as much as people said they would.

A lot are saying Kean (and Steel, others for that matter) because they outran the top of the ticket in 2020. But was 1/6 and Dobbs the final straw for these ancestral R voters? Judging by the special elections in Lincoln, Rochester and NY-19, the answer might just be yes. The Dem in MN-1 outran Tina Smith by 8% and Biden by 6% in Olmsted. NJ-7 is 51% college and this group is VERY angry. Not to mention Malinowski already represents all of Kean's state senate seat so he isn't flying in with no name recognition.

Steele I think is a special case of her running against a white opponent in 2020 allowing her to do very well with the Asian vote, specifically in Garden Grove (which also saw a heavy swing to Trump). A least Dems will be running an Asian candidate against her in 2022, so it'll be interesting if she still does well with the Asian vote and also if Trump's performance in the new district was somewhat of a fluke (Clinton + 13 --> Biden + 5, almost entirely due to heavily Vietnamese Garden Grove area).

[ProgressiveModerate]

I hate Ipsos polls tbh. Just ridiculously high number of undecideds most of the time

In 2020 NYT/Siena was so annoying cause till the end they’d give us polls with 10%+ “undecided” even though they were pretty well respected before.

[ProgressiveModerate]

So I agree with prognosticators who say the GOP is a virtual lock for the house.

HOWEVER: With the generic ballot being around tied .. even Dems up a few points. How are others coming to that conclusion with the generic ballot favoring Dems?

“With polling showing Dems tied or even ahead in polls, how can you say Dems are ahead”

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1572573036771147777

Just curious is there a different between italicized and unitaclized seats in the chart?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Good news: the 538 general ballot is now D+2.0, the highest since last November.

Bad news: the last time Democrat’s had this “big” of a lead, they lost VA and almost NJ

I feel like the VA and NJ races FWIW were very outside of what was going on nationally and very specific races. VA had a ton of local headwinds while Murphy also had to contend with NJ not usually being willing to re-elect a sitting Dem gov.

I think to the PA result where the Supreme Court race was R+1, which lined up perfectly with a national GCB of D+2, compared to 2020 (Biden wins by 1 with +4 nationally)

The GOP actually rigged the nomination for Youngkin by having a convention and NJ's county line basically rigged it for Ciatterelli. Both were very strong candidates.

Just curious how exactly would the County lines rig it for Ciatterelli?

[ProgressiveModerate]

It's also worth noting that universal swing isn't real. Even people expect neutral national environments have many Biden + 5-10 seats rated as tossups while a few Trump seats are also tossups.

Given the specific dynamics in VA and NJ, they likely voted slightly to the right of what you'd expect given the true "National Environment". I also feel like that Pennsyalvania SC Court race isn't really fair to use because of how much less partisan that sort of election is and the lower turnout. Also somebody above said that race was R+1 which isn't true, it was R+5 which while isn't as brutal of a shift for Dems, still isn't great.