2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - the original

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Little loser limo lies, lies, and lies again!

Why hasn't he taken his 1 week break? He said he would and then posted an hour later.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I don't think the generic ballot will go down from here instantly, but I do think it'll drop like a rock in October once premium information comes out. GCB will remain roughly the same until October imo.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I like how none of these outlets covered the D+16 CNN poll (which was a huge outlier), but are covering the D+3 CNN poll (also an outlier)

The GCB has also been D+6 to D+7 this entire time and special elections have been exactly the same for months, but suddenly we're supposed to think that cuz of 1 poll, republicans are suddenly going to have a red wave.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Wow, D+8 is devastating for the GOP. Mitch Mcconell and Trump are crying in their boxers.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I take issue with the sample size. 500/24 is 21. So they basically polled 21 people per congressional district? 500 people for a generic ballot number is fine but 500 people to accurately poll 24 districts is not enough in my opinion. Way too much margin for error for such a small sample size.

That wasn't the only thing included in the competitive district polling. They also included states like North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, and Tennessee.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

People’s Pundit Daily is restarting Trump approval polls/generic ballot polling next week.

Anyone who posts this crap gets an auto ignore from me.

What is people pundit daily?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Benchmark Model released their first House Model which has the dems winning 26 seats https://shareblue.com/benchmark-model-gop-lose-house-midterms/amp/

These models are still pretty meh. PA-17 being Lean R? I'm pretty sure if dems don't win PA-17, they aren't winning 15 house seats. Conor Lamb should be able to win this race easily.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I'm actually surprised dems are leading in CA-45. I honestly thought democrats would gain 40 house seats before CA-45, but maybe I am overestimating California Republicans. I had Walters down as the least vulnerable of the 7 California Clinton-Republican seats.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I'm actually surprised dems are leading in CA-45. I honestly thought democrats would gain 40 house seats before CA-45, but maybe I am overestimating California Republicans. I had Walters down as the least vulnerable of the 7 California Clinton-Republican seats.

Or Dems are already gaining 40 seats anyway, which seems more likely than not at this point

That could be it too honestly. IIRC Obama's 2008 performance (7.2% win) under this congressional map would get dems a net gain of about 48-50 seats. I don't expect a D+7.2% win to actually lead to 48-50 seats, because Obama did it by destroying the gerrymanders in Michigan/Wisconsin, but they could probably get to 40 seats with a D+8 spread.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

Agreed. Dems thinking they were going to win the generic vote by double digits were dreaming anyway. Even in the massive waves of 2008/2010, Obama and the Republicans only won by 7 points. +5 is actually a pretty great spot to be at 6 months before the election, considering the fact that Democrats were actually leading the generic ballot at this point in 2010, which for whatever reason tends to be a historical high point for the incumbent party.

Tbf d's won the house by 10.5% in 2010

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

Agreed. Dems thinking they were going to win the generic vote by double digits were dreaming anyway. Even in the massive waves of 2008/2010, Obama and the Republicans only won by 7 points. +5 is actually a pretty great spot to be at 6 months before the election, considering the fact that Democrats were actually leading the generic ballot at this point in 2010, which for whatever reason tends to be a historical high point for the incumbent party.

Tbf d's won the house by 10.5% in 2010

True, but that was during a time when they were not only competitive in, but occasionally even dominating in, territory that they couldn't even dream of making competitive today.

I still think they can win by 10.5%. There is no spin on AZ-08. That was a complete disaster for the GOP. Dems didn't even come close in 2008 there. Obama didnt do very hot in places like suburban TX and CA in 2008.

Obviously dems won't replicate the rural success they had in 2008, though.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

LL, why should anyone take you seriously when you always get predictions wrong by 8+? Gillespie +3 is an embarrassment when Northam ended up winning by 9.

You even got a FL special election result wrong when the results were already in.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/999314587194417152

I think this tradeoff would make the Democrats quite happy.

How did educated whites vote in 2006?

How did uneducated whites vote in 2014?


The tradeoff is not good imo. More uneducated whites vote than educated whites in basically every state, besides maybe Massachusetts. There's an even bigger difference in highly competitive Senate seats in places like West Virginia, Indiana, and Nevada.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/999314587194417152

I think this tradeoff would make the Democrats quite happy.

How did educated whites vote in 2006?

How did uneducated whites vote in 2014?


The tradeoff is not good imo. More uneducated whites vote than educated whites in basically every state, besides maybe Massachusetts. There's an even bigger difference in highly competitive Senate seats in places like West Virginia, Indiana, and Nevada.

I interpreted it a little differently: that educated whites were polling strongly D (since 2006 was a D wave) this year, while uneducated whites were polling strongly R.  That would be consistent with other polling this year; and since it also seems that educated voters are highly motivated this year, that would overall be good news for the Democrats.  But your point about the effect in certain states being potentially bad for them is well taken.

It's just impossible to say whether this is a good or bad thing without knowing the exact numbers.

However, in every state, uneducated whites outnumber educated whites. While midterm turnout will increase educated white turnout, I'd expect only possibly Massachusetts and Maryland to have more educated whites turning out. A 5 point gain among educated whites for a 5 point loss among uneducated whites is a pretty bad trade overall.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/999314587194417152

I think this tradeoff would make the Democrats quite happy.

Well I found this graphic that is of relevance:

Again, the exit polls are notoriously awful at getting the margins for educated whites. Exit polls wayyyy over sample educated whites, which leads to them making the educated white margin a lot more GOP than it actually is.

Obama won or got very close to winning educated whites in 2012. The issue is there are far, FAR more uneducated whites that vote than educated whites. Look at how democrats won 15/16 of the most educated districts (GA-06 didn't go dem by 1.5%). I believe they won 14/16 or so in 2012. Also, educated whites are far more common in uncompetitive states (like New England, Texas, California, etc.) besides Colorado and Virginia.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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).

It's a myth that generations get more conservative or shift to Republicans as they get older. Generations political leanings lock in after voting for the same party after 3 elections. There can be Ebbs and flows, but it doesn't really change.

Yeah... the GI generation voted for Reagan, but then went right back to voting for Bill Clinton & Al Gore (and voted dem downballot).

Millenials actually became more democratic between 2014 --> 2016.

I do think people generally become more socially conservative as they get older, but a lot of the reason Republicans are doing well with baby boomers is a ton of those baby boomers voted for Reagan. Remember that Ronald Reagan was extremely popular with the youth in the 80s.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I think Rossi is slightly favored. He's a strong candidate. I'd consider voting for him. WA-08 is more Republican downballot and Dave Reichert was very popular there too.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Fletcher doesn't impress me. I don't think she will win. Hillary only won the district by 1.5, whereas Romney won it by 21. It still has some GOP DNA, even if it is shifting super fast. Dems depend on young voters to win districts like this, and young people will be turning out poorly in this midterm, just as they always do in this midterm.

Thankfully for democrats, there are plenty of other districts that are easier to win IMO. There's plenty of ripe targets in NJ/NY/PA, the midwest, and the west coast (although I am skeptical about dems making many gains in Orange County).

As for whether this poll is a good or bad result for dems... it's just a neutral result. About what I expect the final margin to be. I was actually thinking Fletcher would lose by 4 in November. I think Sessions loses by 2 and Hurd vs Jones is a big tossup (Hurd is a very strong incumbent - Sessions/Culberson would lose this matchup).

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

If the Election Insights poll (D+7) is correct, then Fletcher will win.

D+7 doesn't mean dems get 5 points in every district, if you use common sense. In some districts, dems will do more than 5 points better (e.g Rod Blum & Tenney's district); in others, they will do worse (e.g Carlos Curbelo and Valadao's district)

Dems underperformed in GA-06 because it was a rich suburban district where dems relied on young people. Meanwhile, they won in PA-18 because Conor Lamb was a great fit for the district and it had more dem roots & old people in PA-18 voted for dems.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

If the Election Insights poll (D+7) is correct, then Fletcher will win.

D+7 doesn't mean dems get 5 points in every district, if you use common sense. In some districts, dems will do more than 5 points better (e.g Rod Blum & Tenney's district); in others, they will do worse (e.g Carlos Curbelo and Valadao's district)

Dems underperformed in GA-06 because it was a rich suburban district where dems relied on young people. Meanwhile, they won in PA-18 because Conor Lamb was a great fit for the district and it had more dem roots & old people in PA-18 voted for dems.

You really need to use more critical thinking in your posts.

Oh buddy. It's called a prediction. Of course I know that not every race will swing that way. I don't appreciate it when you insult my intelligence.

There is nothing to suggest Fletcher is a weak candidate that will underperform the national swing.

You really need to use your manners when talking to people.

The issue is that this district may not be as dem as Hillary's result. Hillary may have won it by 1.5, but every single other dem has gotten completely blown away in this district. Romney won it by 21, statewide repubs won it by 10+, culberson easily won, etc.

While some GOP areas are rapidly trending dem, you must take into account the overall partisanship of the area. GA-06 ended up trending a bit Republican despite the environment becoming better for dems than 2016 because GA-06 was more Republican than Hillary's result suggested.

I was being rude when talking to you but that's because you really need to snap out of it and stop being such a hack in every single post. It's annoying a lot of people, especially other democrats. You can yell about my tone, or you can consider what I said and try to change.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Sessions is still overwhelmingly likely to be re-elected, and Culberson is somewhat less favored but still over 50/50.
Hurd is in more danger...

Colin Allred strikes me as a much better challenger than Fletcher. I don't think Sessions is much safer.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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?

Oh, I meant compared to Hillary's result. Hillary won by 2.1%, so 0.2 + 2.1 + 5 = 7%

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

A wave in 2018 won't be about enthusiasm. While dems will turnout better than 2016 in 90%+ white places where the dem base skews older (midwest & Maine in particular), dems will turnout worse than 2016 in places where the dem base is more minority and young (OC Cali, Texas)