2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[UncleSam]

The issue is that for the Republicans, Pelosi has not been proven to negatively affect the Democrats significantly lately. They tried this in both GA-06 and Montana and both those races we're still a lot closer than they probably should've been.

Voters for whom Pelosi is a strong negative are probably motivated Republicans already, so the net effect of focusing on Pelosi is likely to be minor.

Voters for whom Trump is a strong negative are probably motivated Democrats already, so the net effect of focusing on Trump is likely to be minor.

(The above is a patently absurd statement meant to demonstrate the absurdity of another, similarly absurd statement)

[UncleSam]

Did they move to a different screening model? Hard to understand that large a shift otherwise.

That being said, my first paycheck came through under the new tax plan and I greatly appreciate the extra money. My guess is this poll is a response to seeing larger paychecks, but there will be many news cycles between now and the midterms. If history has shown us anything, it is that, while good for the president temporarily, larger paychecks and a stalwart economy will be afterthoughts after another bad tweet or three in the coming months - time has that impact on people.

Still, don't understand the argument that this isn't an R surge (and a predictable one at that) due to the tax cuts. Rs have clearly gained ~5 points on the generic ballot in the last month or so. Dems should probably stop trying to say the tax cuts are a disaster until they actually cause some damage, it's just bad strategy to try to tell people that them making more money is harmful, especially if there's no caveat of reduced employment options to go with it.

[UncleSam]

I wonder what the reason for this downturn is

Just Rs coming home or a reaction to the budget bill discussions / immigration talks?

[UncleSam]

How is it possible to look at the grotesque shapes that are California's congressional districts and not conclude it is gerrymandered.

Just because it doesn't increase partisan advantage in one direction or the other doesn't make a map ok. Districts should be drawn based on county lines, compactness, and keeping traditional communities together. California's map (along with most others in this country) fails to do that spectacularly.

[UncleSam]

I think the second moment of public opinion is shifting moreso than the first. In other words, Rs both had a positive shift and momentum over the last month or so. Now, momentum is shifting back to the Democrats, just the short term trend isn't showing it yet.

[UncleSam]

King Lear if you really think Rs will have a good midterm cycle then it's pathetic but it's probably better to just not say it on this forum. The red avatars here get very upset by predictions that are not in line with the Atlas Consensus (TM) tidal wave that is approaching. Literally any signs to the contrary (even ones pointing towards merely a good cycle for Dems rather than a great one), will be ignored and dismissed summarily. And by the way, it is also very unlikely Rs will have a good midterm from where we stand, outside of perhaps the Senate.

Atlas is a lot more useful for learning about current obscure political events or learning about the Democratic Party's response to an issue then it is to learn about 'real' projections (as if such a thing even exists this far out, much less decades into the future) of future races.

In other words, Atlas is best used with a self filter and as a learning exercise if you're curious about certain things. I wouldn't recommend taking the projection threads too seriously, and I honestly just wouldn't post rosy predictions for Rs at all even if you earnestly thought they would come to be reality.

Lighten up, it's an online political forum. It could not matter less whether people like you here or anyone believes what you post.

[UncleSam]

YouGov, Feb 25-27, 1290 RV

D 40 (-3)
R 38 (+3)

The good people in Kentucky, NH and Connecticut must have missed the memo.

Special elections are about enthusiasm because turnout is so low, but in a midterm turnout is much higher. Saying that special election results have much of anything to do with the generic ballot (particularly when 22% are undecided) is a bit silly.

[UncleSam]

Well the survey says imminent danger. Could be he’s up like 6 or something

[UncleSam]

It's so maddening how we get hit with low-mid single digit D+ GCB polls, only to see other state-level polls or special election results that indicate a much worse environment for Republicans. Like, you get WaPo with D+4 a month after a Democrat picked off an R+11 district in Pennsylvania. Those two are not compatible with each other.

It's also annoying because the poll trend is weaker than it was in 2006, which seemed to show a lot more double digit polls, but at the same time, it's not 2006 anymore. Not only have the coalitions shifted, but probably even polling itself has gone through some decent changes, on top of the political environment being so different. So I don't really think Democrats need to have a huge polling lead to feel safe about the election.

But in the end I'd love the peace of mind that 2006-level polls would provide, so, meh. The polls keeping jumping around, but it still seems like at least a D+8 - D+10 environment.

They are compatible with each other. Dems are more enthused and so will overperform in low-turnout specials in comparison to polls measuring a (relatively) higher turnout midterm or just polling everyone. Additionally, Democrats overperform in special elections always due to the fact that they have such an advantage among activists and volunteers. I’m not remotely surprised Dems overperform by 15 on average in specials if the GCB is D+7-8, but that would only correspond to a midterm advantage of roughly, well, D+7-8 lol.

[UncleSam]

I agree that PPP is garbage that gets a free pass on this site because of their left leaning bias, but the notion of ‘Roy Moore +27’ calling out anyone is kind of ridiculous.

[UncleSam]

Dems need to amend Top Two so that if the top two are of the same party then a third candidate of the next biggest party is automatically added.

If that were implemented the minority party would want to come in third and hope to split the vote. You need either the stipulation that top two can’t be from the same party, RCV, or just go to separate primaries like almost all other states.

[UncleSam]

That was 10 points a little while ago. Something's happening...

Ya, it’s been a good news cycle for Trump. If a similar news cycle hits before the election id expect similar numbers. If a bad one hits I’d expect much worse numbers, and if a neutral one hits then somewhat worse. People really are lemmings that way, and reading too much into fluctuations in either direction is probably a mistake. That’s not to say that the fundamentals or average can’t change over time, just that it would be a slow change and probably a minor one.

GCB usually overshoots the PV margin though - see all of the recent wave years where the out party was massively ahead in the GCB. GCB usually also overshoots Dem support, though not always (for example in 2012).

I think D+8 in the PV is a reasonable projection as of now, with a final GCB between D+9-10. That should be enough to win the house barring a lot of terrible luck. Probably not enough to win the senate.

PSA: there are still 5.5 months and roughly a hundred news cycles between now and the election. Projections are highly liable to change and to look silly down the line.

[UncleSam]

Bear in mind that most of the tightening in the generic ballot lately has been Rs coming home - in general R numbers are up but D numbers are about the same. This makes sense when you consider that Trump has had a few good weeks, primary season is underway, and Trump has started campaigning a bit. No one ever doubted (well, almost no one doubted) the ability of Rs to get 44-45 percent of the house vote this November. The question is can they get much if any beyond that. If Rs take 46.4-47 percent of the vote it’s hard to see the house as better than a coin flip and it’s virtually impossible to see a senate flip. If they get 44.5 percent then the house flips easily and the senate is a tossup. Obviously it’ll depend where the independents, disaffected Rs, and Obana-Trump voters go to see where in that range are fall.

Ds can be happy as long as they numbers don’t fall below 46-47 percent and R numbers don’t climb beyond 45 in any meaningful average, given how strong independents have broken for them thus far, in my opinion.

[UncleSam]

so basically Dems are at +1 and most Rs support Trump, with lots of undecided voters. To convert that into a 7 point win Dems need to win Indy’s and undecided voters about 3-1 (which is roughly in line with their best performances in special elections). So a flip of the house is possible but unlikely under that scenario.

The Trump support number is very important though. It indicates that the Senate could be every bit as tough a lift for Dems as expected - I did not anticipate supporting Trump to have such a high portion.  Rs who want an independent voice are the best pickup opportunities for Manchin etc, and if they’re only 9% of the population it’s hard to see him or other deep red state Dems winning.

[UncleSam]

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/week/filters/PD1:1/dates/20180101-20180521/collapsed/true

GOP leading according to newest reuters poll if I am reading it right

Reuters's new model is already discredited.

What do you mean by discredited? As in you don’t like the results or there are known statistical issues with it? Do you have methodological problems with it? I’m not familiar with how Reuters does their poll.

[UncleSam]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the poll is accurate. The question is, what is it about the methodology that is different? If it’s a matter of having a rosier turnout model for Rs but also just seeing shifting opinions toward Rs, then it should get thrown in the average. If it’s more experimental, than it shouldn’t be thrown in the average yet until we see how it moves and reacts to shifting opinions.

If the generic ballot is actually down to around even, then an R+5.5 or whatever poll isn’t out of the question. It’s also possible that their turnout model tilts a few (or more than a few) points to the right, making the information valuable in change terms of not in absolute or top line terms.

It’s also possible this is just an outlier like we see all the time. Remember that CNN poll with D+20 or whatever? That looks as out of place next to the average as this does now, just in the other direction.

[UncleSam]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the poll is accurate. The question is, what is it about the methodology that is different? If it’s a matter of having a rosier turnout model for Rs but also just seeing shifting opinions toward Rs, then it should get thrown in the average. If it’s more experimental, than it shouldn’t be thrown in the average yet until we see how it moves and reacts to shifting opinions.

If the generic ballot is actually down to around even, then an R+5.5 or whatever poll isn’t out of the question. It’s also possible that their turnout model tilts a few (or more than a few) points to the right, making the information valuable in change terms of not in absolute or top line terms.

It’s also possible this is just an outlier like we see all the time. Remember that CNN poll with D+20 or whatever? That looks as out of place next to the average as this does now, just in the other direction.

Yeah it’s worth recalling that CNN poll came out when the averages were more like D+10-11

Sure, but the difference was still 10 points or so off the average. R+5.5 is about the same in the other direction - should’ve been clear I meant adjusted for the difference in average.

[UncleSam]

If it's R+6, Republicans don't lose anything but PA-05 and FL-27 and gain MN-1, MN-8, PA-7, both NH seats, NJ-5, FL-7, and PA-8.

>Implying it could be
LMAO

I mean he’s not wrong based on his hypothetical, just the hypothetical is incredibly unlikely to actually occur.

[UncleSam]

Democrats (and especially Democratic women) are jacked to vote:

Could you link the question or do you have access to it? Obviously Dems are more enthusiastic but be wary of polls which ask comparative questions like ‘are you MORE enthusiastic to vote this year than in prior years’ vs analytic questions like ‘how enthusiastic are you to vote this year’?

[UncleSam]

Democrats (and especially Democratic women) are jacked to vote:

Could you link the question or do you have access to it? Obviously Dems are more enthusiastic but be wary of polls which ask comparative questions like ‘are you MORE enthusiastic to vote this year than in prior years’ vs analytic questions like ‘how enthusiastic are you to vote this year’?

Here you go

Thank you! A lot of interesting take seats in this, though the enthusiasm poll is a comparative one so it’s not as valuable as it would appear. The issues questions are very interesting though.

[UncleSam]

MTV/AP-NORC Youth Political Pulse Poll:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

Yeah, the “Most Conservative Generation since WWII” theory is dead and buried.

I hardly see how this is the case, to be honest the only rational assumption that can be made from this poll is that this generation is still developing, 22% say they don't even know what party they identify with and identifying with a party does not always mean you can tell how they stand on every issue.

It’s less Republican than the population, according to the poll. I should’ve mentioned the slew of other polls disproving the theory as well.

Every generation is less Republican than the population in their 20s, though. Even the Millennials are becoming less liberal by the year (though it’ll be forty years before they vote for the GOP, making them the most liberal generation relative to age perhaps ever). The fact that the gap is this small surprises me, and leads me to believe that many of the ‘unsure’ youth are actually just going to vote straight Democrat. There’s been a movement on the left to support Democrats but not necessarily to identify as one, and I suspect that’s at play in why these numbers aren’t more lopsided (even if the actual way they vote is).

[UncleSam]

WA-08 House Majority PAC Poll

Jason Rittereiser 50%
Dino Rossi 47%

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/01/26573432/new-poll-shows-a-democrat-beating-dino-rossi-in-race-to-replace-rep-reichert

That's only after people read positive & negative information about every candidate. Rossi is beating Ritt by 9 before that.

It’s an internal for a Nancy Pelosi pac, what do you expect

It’s a Lean R race until I see a non-push poll that shows any Dem within a few points of Rossi. Frankly this internal is so embarrassing I’m surprised they released it.

[UncleSam]

CBS/YouGov, May 24-30, 24759 registered voters including 5693 in 64 "competitive and likely competitive" districts.  The overall topline is D 43, R 38.  Applying a "multilevel regression and post-stratification model", they estimate the final tally at 219 D, 216 R...but with a MoE of +/- 9 seats.

The 64 districts are AR02, AZ01, AZ02, CA07, CA10, CA21, CA24, CA25, CA39, CA45, CA48, CA49, CO06, CT05, FL07, FL18, FL26, FL27, GA06, IA01, IA02, IA03, IL06, IL12, KS02, KS03, KY06, ME02, MI08, MI11, MN01, MN02, MN03, MN08, NC09, NC13, NE02, NH01, NH02, NJ02, NJ03, NJ05, NJ07, NJ11, NV03, NV04, NY11, NY19, NY22, OH01, PA01, PA05, PA06, PA07, PA08, PA17, TX07, TX23, TX32, UT04, VA02, VA07, VA10, and WA08.

This sample is only very slightly more republican than the US (0.2% more repub). Consistent with a generic ballot lead of about D+7, which would be about a 1-10 seat house majority for dems.

If the sample is R+.2 and the generic ballot is D+5, would that make for a D+5.2 environment? Or did you typo the .2 and it is actually 2% more R?

[UncleSam]

No enthusiasm gap in CBS poll -->

https://twitter.com/Brand_Allen/status/1003368303065223169

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm...

That is the usual definition of enthusiasm...

Would be interesting to see if the ‘definitely’ were significantly higher for Dems though

[UncleSam]

No enthusiasm gap in CBS poll -->

https://twitter.com/Brand_Allen/status/1003368303065223169

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm...

Republicans are starting to get really aggravated with the Mueller investigation. The economy is humming and Trump is getting the credit. Korea seems to be going well.

Some of you seem to over analyze the poll figures. You make voting into a mathmatical problem.

Some others of you totally ignore the feelings and opinions of those opposed to you.

You got a surprise in 2016.  You could be setting yourselves up for another one this year.  

I know some of you dream of 2006. But what if 2010 was a realigning year with regard to how folks vote in Congressionial elections.  Have you  put that possibility into your analysis?

Arkansas Yankee in 2009: "But what if 1998 and 2002 were realigning years?"

All you ever say, you wit, is that Republicans will always win and Democrats are doomed to permanent failure. And you take habitual joy in this as well.

Also, YouGov is not a good poll at all.

If you flip that you get like over half this forum though, including yourself. So not sure what you’re attacking him for.