2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - Part 3

[Florida Man for Crime]

Gallup, Sep. 17-23, 1308 RV (change from June)

D: 51 (+3)
R: 42 (-1)

Oh no. Gallup is doing generic ballot polling again??? I thought they stopped that and were never going to do it again after they realized that they could not do a remotely accurate poll and are a horrible pollster.

This is a terrible thing for anyone who cares about the accuracy of polling averages.

[Florida Man for Crime]

This is going to be interesting.

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1047202668614209538

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Florida Man for Crime]

LOL. If even the "informed voters" (read: push poll) part can't get her above 45%, she is absolutely toast.

This is a please-triage-me poll. I guess she is just tired of being in Congress and wants to make sure Republicans don't waste any more money on her.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Sorry, Mimi, there aren't enough #informed (LOL) voters to save you. Bye.

The other funny thing is that Mimi has a 37-36 lead among voters "who have definitely made a decision."

Think about what that directly implies...

That means that 27% of voters... "who have definitely made a decision" have made that definite decision to be.... undecided...

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://dccc.org/dccc-poll-brendan-kelly-dead-heat-congressman-mike-bost/

DCCC internal of IL-12: Bost+1

Kelly (Dem): 41
Bost (GOP): 42
Auxier (Gre): 8

Why is the Green polling so well?

Because the DCCC released the poll.

The DCCC is trying to send a message to lefty voters: "Don't vote for the Green, you'll cost us the race and give Trump a Republican House that will let him continue to run amok with a complete lack of accountability, like in 2016 when the Jill Stein votes could have made the difference."

[Florida Man for Crime]

AARP seems to have more of those super-annoying Age 50+ only polls... for Congressional races now.

As far as I can tell, these are in fact only for people age 50+, but it is hard to tell for sure.

They have polls of NY-19 and NY-22.

https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/politics/info-2018/2018-mid-term-state-voter-surveys.html

https://states.aarp.org/delgado-leads-faso-43-36-brindisi-leads-tenney-48-35-among-50-aarp-polls/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regardless of whether it is just age 50+ or all voters, those seem like horrible numbers for the Republicans, having incumbents at 35% and 36%. If those are at all accurate, NY-21 and NY-24 have to be in real danger as well, I would think.



They also have TX-07 and CO-06, I am not sure if those have been posted before???

If not, CO-06 is 41-36 in favor of Dems, TX-07 is 50-36 in favor of Reps. Again though, that is just age 50+ I think, so that would make a difference for TX-07 in particular, probably.

[Florida Man for Crime]

That's roughly unchanged since earlier this month...

Red wave incoming.

[Florida Man for Crime]

A bunch of California House polls should be coming Thursday morning:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidLauter/status/1047575187296804865

[Florida Man for Crime]

Lol at the insistence that attack ads ( or ads in general) matter

It is not like McGrath doesn't have millions to waste on ads of her own. With the amount of money going into the Lexington media market, there won't be a single non-political commercial airing over the next month there.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Lol at the insistence that attack ads ( or ads in general) matter

It is not like McGrath doesn't have millions to waste on ads of her own. With the amount of money going into the Lexington media market, there won't be a single non-political commercial airing over the next month there.

Is there a way to know how much money a campaign spends on ads and how much on staff, voter mobilization, etc.?

FEC reports have publically available spending data, but obviously with a lag by reporting periods. There are also private firms that monitor ad spending in real time, so the campaigns themselves and DCCC/NRCC/Superpacs know all of that, but I don't think any of that is publicly available at the moment (I recall some of that being available in the past, though from news organizations).

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1048596114935615491

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1048575528469495808

:thinking_emoji:

Chris Smith?

Smith and Marchant don't fit the 50-to-1 fundraising. It is not so lopsided (only 20 to 1) in TX-24 with Marchant, and the Dem actually has a lead in fundraising against Chris Smith.

Here is one that DOES fit the roughly 50 to 1. Sean Duffy, WI-07

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/wisconsin/7/

And it seems plausible that Duffy could only be up by that much. It is an R+8 district, but this is an area where Obama was very competitive not-too-long-ago. Just a question of how many terms it takes for Wasserman to call someone a "longtme" incumbent. 4 terms?

The 538 pages for house races lists the fundraising in terms of "50 to 1" etc, so that may be where Wasserman looked to characterize it that way.

[Florida Man for Crime]

How exactly is stating an opinion trolling? He isn't saying anything all the Dem hacks here don't say with the names changed.

Actually, the absurd Dem hacks like Solid are far more unreasonable than his post was.

I do like Solid, but this. 2016's post is not a crazy unreasonable take. It is an R-leaning take, but that should be fine. This is not supposed to be just a partisan Dem forum.

[Florida Man for Crime]

If I had to guess, I'd say Justin Amash since Wasserman has hinted several times over the past 1-2 weeks that MI-3 is a good example of a seat that may end up flipping despite being a complete recruiting failure.  Justin Amash was elected eight years ago (2010) and is apparently only R +6 (at least according to Wikipedia).  Amash isn't exactly the best fit for this area and it includes Grand Rapids and all of Calhoun County (Battle Creek).  Obviously this is a pretty conservative area, but Amash would seem to fit the description Wasserman gave and Trump "only" got 52% here (granted, he improved on Romney's overall margin by 3%, but that's not all that much for a conservative Republican district in Michigan).  

Regarding Amash, I do think there is a very real possibility that his district could be more competitive than expected. In the model that I am using for my timeline, it had Dems doing very well and maybe picking up Amash's district, based largely on the swing to Clinton. Grand Rapids (Kent County) is one of the only parts of Michigan that swung to Clinton, and that is because of College educated/suburban voters there.

However, it is not the particular seat Wasserman is talking about, because the Dem fundraising was 17% of the Rep fundraising.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Some of the other possibilities listed by Pope Michael Bolton

---

Ken Calvert - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (12% of total in race)
Justin Amash - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (5% of total in race - ie 20 to 1, rather than 50 to 1)
Mike Turner - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (42% of total in race)
Pete Olson - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (52% of total in race)
Michael McCaul - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (17% of total in race)
Gus Bilirakis - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (39% of total in race)
David Schweikert - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (30% of total in race)
Bill Huizenga - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (47% of total in race)
Don Young - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (58% of total in race)
Vern Buchanan - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (57% of total in race)
Tom Reed - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (14% of total in race)
Peter King - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (51% of total in race)
Chris Smith - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (53% of total in race)


So I think it has to be Duffy. He is the only one I can see where the fundraising fits the 50-to-1 margin.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Some of the other possibilities listed by Pope Michael Bolton

---

Ken Calvert - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (12% of total in race)
Justin Amash - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (5% of total in race - ie 20 to 1, rather than 50 to 1)
Mike Turner - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (42% of total in race)
Pete Olson - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (52% of total in race)
Michael McCaul - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (17% of total in race)
Gus Bilirakis - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (39% of total in race)
David Schweikert - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (30% of total in race)
Bill Huizenga - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (47% of total in race)
Don Young - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (58% of total in race)
Vern Buchanan - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (57% of total in race)
Tom Reed - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (14% of total in race)
Peter King - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (51% of total in race)
Chris Smith - doesn't fit description, too much Dem fundraising (53% of total in race)


So I think it has to be Duffy. He is the only one I can see where the fundraising fits the 50-to-1 margin.

What about WI-08?

Dem fundraising is 10% of the total, a bit too much. It should be about 2% to match 50-to-1.

[Florida Man for Crime]

That has generally been how some of the special elections went too. PA-17 broke towards Lamb in the end. I don't have time to look up all of them, but I do remember some of the others moving towards what became the final result in the final couple weeks. That was how Udall and Nunn's challenges worked out too, as you stated.

I think it's just the natural result of people making up their minds. Suffice to say, Republicans doing ok right now could easily become a loss a month from now. We are not yet at the point where the races move towards the actual winner. That is still probably like 2 weeks away or so.

This is true, but the only problem is that early voting is starting soon (within a week or two so in large numbers), and in some cases is occurring right now in smaller numbers.

[Florida Man for Crime]

mods pls drone/merge with the generic ballot thread.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Yea, in less than 2 weeks people moved on from Trump being labelled a unindicted conspirator, while his long time lawyer and fixer plead guilty to very serious crimes. Voters are complete morons, with the attention span of a peanut.

Lol. Actually, you're right. We should stop insulting goldfish by comparing their attention span to that of the average American voter.

For me, it goes too far to compare the attention span of the average American voter to a peanut. Peanuts are capable of growing into a peanut plant, which is animate activity. A better comparison would be to compare the attention span of voters to the attention span of a rock or another such inanimate object, which is not capable of any activity whatsoever.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Can Twenty42 get his own concern troll thread?

[Florida Man for Crime]

Democrats gain 3 points in CNN's Generic Ballot vs September:

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

Kavanaugh  Bump

What a nice poll.

Freedom poll.

[Florida Man for Crime]

The gender gap in the CNN poll is pretty Yuuuuuuuuuuge

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/cnn-poll-midterms/index.html

[Florida Man for Crime]

Ipsos has D+12 on the GCB... something’s going on...

You should just ignore Ipsos. Wait for some more real pollsters to come out with polls. We should see some more this week from good pollsters. Many of them were probably waiting to go into the field post-Kavanaugh.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Just a week or two ago, amidst the height of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings, chances of Republicans holding the House seemed to be increasing dramatically. The generic ballot had the Dem lead shrinking, down to the point where Republican Gerrymanders could maybe hold the House. Lindsay Graham was hailing himself as a hero to all self-respecting angry white males who like beer. People were talking about the Reps holding the House with the help of the gerrymander wall. That big batch of FOX Senate polls had just come out, including the ND-SEN one with Cramer up 53-41 (Oct 2).

Now a week or two later, the Trumptard base of the GOP has gotten what they want - a partisan psychotic hack on the court - and suddenly ... Republican numbers in the GCB are plummeting, starting to drop even below 40, and Democrats are posting more and more double-digit leads. Here are the 7 most recent polls on the 538 GCB (date on the graph is the date the poll ended), plus the most recent Yougov poll that just came out but they haven't entered in yet at the time I am posting this.



If you look at the trend here, it is pretty horrific for the GOP. The thing to notice is not just that the Dems are going up, but the Reps are going down even more quickly, at a shocking pace. The GOP is literally hemorrhaging support, like a GenX drunk hemorrhaging vomit after a hard night of heavy blackout drinking:



If you extrapolate the trend all the way to election day, it looks like this, with Republicans headed towards support of about 17% if current trends continue:



Don't get me wrong. It probably won't be quite that extreme, and the Republicans should eventually hit some sort of minimum floor of support like a wobbly alcoholic preppy falling flat on his face (maybe around 30% or so, the minimum deplorable amount???).

But regardless of if or when they hit a hardwood floor and regardless of whether they break their nose or not in the process of so doing, the implications could be horrific for the Republicans. You do not win elections - even elections rigged by gerrymandering and a tilted Senate map - with 40% (or less) of the vote. Remember, those Senate polls that seemed to be so favorable for the GOP all came out at the height of the Kavanaugh bump (the FOX news Senate polls all ended on Oct 2, the exact day when the charts above begin).

Because if the numbers hold, the Dems will have a commanding majority in the House - possibly even a veto-proof majority - and many of the close races in the Senate will break in favor of the Dems. Republican oil workers in North Dakota will not be allowed to vote because of an accidental Republican own-goal. There will be a historically low amount of ticket splitting, meaning that Republican losses will come up and down the entire ballot, not just in a few high profile races. The wipeout will be uniform and near absolute, with even Republican dog catcher candidates unable to differentiate themselves from Trump amidst a surge of angry female Democrats turning out at near-Presidential levels and voting straight ticket Dem.

It is also clear, that if this trend holds, even if Democrats do not pick up the Senate this year, they will defeat Trump and pick up the Senate in 2020, and then we'll have a Democratic trifecta. Democrats will pick up Governorships and State Legislatures across the nation, block and overturn Republican gerrymanders, and install gerrymanders of their own to lock in a permanent Democratic majority in the House for the rest of the decade. And as old White males increasingly die off and are replaced in the electorate by Millennials and Gen Z, things only get worse for the GOP.

For these voters, indelible in the Hippocampus is the uproarious laughter and the high fives of Republican Senators as they celebrated having rammed Kavanaugh through without conducting a proper FBI investigation, only a sham investigation in which the FBI was not allowed to follow up leads and forced by the White House to turn away tips and witnesses.



In other words, for these voters, this was a traumatizing experience that will stick in their memories permanently. They will remember it in a month when they go to vote. They will also remember it 2 years from now, and 30 years from now as well. Whereas for the Republicans, they got what they wanted and lack the traumatizing experience solidifying their memories. They will have forgotten all about Kavanaugh by the time of election day. Indeed, the nosedive in the polls shows that this process of forgetting is already well underway as the next news cycle attracts their attention.

All across the country, hordes of angry women are awakening each morning with a new sense of purpose. What was formerly confined within the boundaries of New Hampshire is spreading like an unstoppable contagion across the fruited plain, to the tremendous detriment of the Republican party. Republicans face the prospect of losing the women's vote - a majority of voters - by 30 points as in the CNN poll, spurred on by this profound sense of anger, rage, and anguish. I am not sure the Republicans understand what they have unleashed.

These voters are also worried that with Ginsburg surely retiring or god forbid passing (she’s up there in age) then you’re looking at 6-3 conservative majority - not just that but with at least 2 of those judges highly partisan. Whereas for Conservatives, they do not particularly care about Ginsburg, because they already have their majority. And Republican base voters are complacent, fooled by Trump's claims that Republicans are sure to hold the house, so they don't think they need to even bother voting.

I’ve always advocated for a split court. Four Conservatives. Four Liberals and 1 Centrist. Which is what we HAD until - well, until booze bag got confirmed.

[Florida Man for Crime]

How long did it take you to type all of that?

Longer than the time FBI was allowed to conduct its supplemental Kavanaugh background investigation.