2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[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?

The county parties can endorse candidates who then get favorable positioning on the ballot. A candidate who has "the line" will have a huge advantage in that particular county's primary but it's not an absolute guarantee of victory.

That's an interesting system and I'm suprised i didn't know about that given how much time I spend in NJ.

[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?

The county parties can endorse candidates who then get favorable positioning on the ballot. A candidate who has "the line" will have a huge advantage in that particular county's primary but it's not an absolute guarantee of victory.

That's an interesting system and I'm suprised i didn't know about that given how much time I spend in NJ.

I actually like it. New Jersey is probably tied with Utah for having the least MAGA-fied state GOP and I think the county line is a big part of why that is.

To NJ Rs credit, they’ve been able to hold down a lot of pretty blue seats even during the Trump era you may not normally expect.

[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.

The Supreme Court elections are just as partisan. People knew McLaughlin was the D and Brobson was the R, and the ads reflected that.

There was also nearly 2.8M turnout which I wouldn't call "low turnout"

Also, yes it was R+1. It was Brobson 50.45, McLaughlin 49.55.

You’re on the ground so I trust you on stuff like ads, but ballotpedia says it was R + 5. I tried looking for a site that said otherwise but couldn’t find anythibg

[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.

The Supreme Court elections are just as partisan. People knew McLaughlin was the D and Brobson was the R, and the ads reflected that.

There was also nearly 2.8M turnout which I wouldn't call "low turnout"

Also, yes it was R+1. It was Brobson 50.45, McLaughlin 49.55.

You’re on the ground so I trust you on stuff like ads, but ballotpedia says it was R + 5. I tried looking for a site that said otherwise but couldn’t find anythibg

LMK if this works - https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/SummaryResults?ElectionID=84&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0

That's the most up to date, the DOS website. I think ballotpedia and places like NYT also just stopped counting after that night (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/02/us/elections/results-pennsylvania.html)

Ah thank you. Honsetly it's annoying how annoying it can be to get accurate data for some of these non-federal races.

[ProgressiveModerate]

All of the ratings sites are just reacting to polls. They have no more clue than all of us but won’t admit it.

They also tend to overreact to the story of the day or even just ET narratives that have gained traction for whatever reason.

[ProgressiveModerate]

If you believe the ABC/WaPo Poll from a week ago there will be a significant overvote from Democrats in SAFE Democratic Districts. Democrats need a 4-5 Popular Vote Win possibly even more to keep the House.

Biden won by 7M+ Votes in 2020, 81M+ to 74M+ yet the Electoral College was 306-232 with a handful of States only being decided by 20K Votes or less.

The Structural Advantage Republicans have in this Midterm IMO have not being talked enough.

YET the Democrats here on Talk Elections and elsewhere keep pushing this narrative that they have a chance at holding the House. No, they don't. It is gaslighting and a pipe-dream. Pelosi & Sean Patrick Maloney know this. They just won't admit it to the Public.

It's a bit of a paradox because while a hypothetical super high turnout scenario would grow the PV - Majority divide in the House, it'd actually likely shrink it in the Senate due to basically all the key Senate races being a question of whether a single liberal mega-city or two can outvote the rest of the state.

[ProgressiveModerate]

2016 is even admitting that Dems will probably win the GCB, and is coping accordingly lol

And, Democrats will still lose the House. It will not be a wave so what? Pelosi had a 222-213 House for the most part of 2021 and 2022 and still got most of her stuff done.

Republicans will win those 6 Seats required to win the House I can guarantee you that.

2016 you are making things up. There is no over-vote. If there is, it’s probably related to the fact that Dems are more likely to live in urban hyper-packed 80% Biden districts where it’s rare for full congressional districts to be unanimously republican. This always exists. And no Dems are not favored to win the popular vote at this time

Also worth noting that the vast majority of these Biden + 60 or more seats are relatively low turnout minority seats in cities like NYC and LA. Even though they're politically lopsided, the traditionally lower turnout means there aren't as many wasted votes.

On net, Dems don't really have a geography disadvantage, it's just that redistricting gave Rs a notable but not insurmountable boost.

[ProgressiveModerate]

An update from RepublicanCuratedPolls – Tom Bevan has now (tearfully, one assumes) accepted that Warnock is favored, but to compensate, he has for some reason decided that a 2 point (I can't put enough quotation marks around the following word so I won't try) "adjusted" Kelly lead is actually a Masters lead.

Yeah that's just screams mega-hack. Sure Masters could def win, but if you've already "unskewed" the polls from a particularly selective sample and they still show Kelly leading how is that justification to have Masters winning in the no tossups map?

The other issue that I have with RCP is they rate everything remotely competitive as tossups all the way till election day, and it just seems like they do it to have more leeway. NH and WI are not both simultaneously tossups this cycle. They literally have 10 governorships rated as "tossups"

[ProgressiveModerate]

Don’t know if this has been brought up, but RCP moving NY Gov to tossup is really stupid and hackish on their part.

Yes I think Hochul will underperform Biden severely but someone in needs to tell me where Zeldin is going to find the 1million + net votes needed to outvote NYC.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Zooming out to see the bigger picture-

538 GCB average

June 19: R+2.3
July 19: R+1.7
August 19: D+0.5
September 19: D+1.4
October 19: D+0.3

A lot of hay has been made of GOP momentum, but we're... essentially where we were two months ago, and in the same place we've been for three months now (Tied-D+1-ish)

I think a lot of people set their expectations too high or misunderstood what a neutral environment might look like. A lot of people were acting like we're in a 2012/2018 style environment, but the people who think we've reverted to a 2010/1994 style environment are also wrong.

It's a 2016/2020 style environment. That means Republicans win the House, probably not more than 20-25 seats. Democrats likely keep the Senate, but they could still lose it if a lot of races are close.

A 2016/2020 style environment would average out to like D+1 though, (which is where the average is pointing us), and that would mean a probably pretty close House result, wouldn't it? (I feel like Ds need to win by 2 to have a chance)

Somewhere between D+2 and D+3 is the likely break-even point.  If it gets in that vicinity, it depends on which districts each party overperforms in.

Yeah on 2020 Pres the median district VA-02 which is Biden +2.1, and 538 has the median seat with a PVI around R+2.3 iiirc.

The only case where this wouldn't be true is if Dems experience the largest turnout dropoff in safe D cities like NY and CA hence wasting far fewer votes in those districts.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Zooming out to see the bigger picture-

538 GCB average

June 19: R+2.3
July 19: R+1.7
August 19: D+0.5
September 19: D+1.4
October 19: D+0.3

A lot of hay has been made of GOP momentum, but we're... essentially where we were two months ago, and in the same place we've been for three months now (Tied-D+1-ish)

I think a lot of people set their expectations too high or misunderstood what a neutral environment might look like. A lot of people were acting like we're in a 2012/2018 style environment, but the people who think we've reverted to a 2010/1994 style environment are also wrong.

It's a 2016/2020 style environment. That means Republicans win the House, probably not more than 20-25 seats. Democrats likely keep the Senate, but they could still lose it if a lot of races are close.

A 2016/2020 style environment would average out to like D+1 though, (which is where the average is pointing us), and that would mean a probably pretty close House result, wouldn't it? (I feel like Ds need to win by 2 to have a chance)

Somewhere between D+2 and D+3 is the likely break-even point.  If it gets in that vicinity, it depends on which districts each party overperforms in.

Yeah on 2020 Pres the median district VA-02 which is Biden +2.1, and 538 has the median seat with a PVI around R+2.3 iiirc.

The only case where this wouldn't be true is if Dems experience the largest turnout dropoff in safe D cities like NY and CA hence wasting far fewer votes in those districts.

There will almost certainly be an R bias but a lot of Dems in safe areas seem among the most likely to defect. A lot of people in NYC have tired of the homeless people attacking.

I would tend to disagree. Even if people are unhappy, most would never consider voting GOP. The main exceptions are obviously South Brooklyn Russian/Jewish communities, Asian communities, and perhaps the few remaining Central Park East precincts where R's still crack 30% sometimes.

Generally, 90% one-sided communities tend to have the smallest swings between cycles because there's just so little room for things to fluctuate.

[ProgressiveModerate]

One question is are we clasifying a red wave in terms of the GCB or the actual results? If it's by the GCB, it still seems pretty unlikely Rs are going to get some R+6 or R+8 GCB that can be classified as a "red-wave", however, in terms of results Rs winning both the House, Senate, and most key governorships was always in the cards and still is.

For instance, most people considered D + 4 2020 to be a good year for Democrats but not a wave. If 2022 is R+4, Republicans are likely flipping both chambers with realtive ease and winning a lot of key state level races in the traditional "swing states", and people would likely classsify that as an R wave.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/santiagomayer_/status/1584253336735297538

My personal prediction is on college campuses and amongst college graduates youth turnout will be really solid as we’ve seen in some of the recent special elections. However, young voters on a larger scale maybe not so much.

Hard to say exactly who that favors though since non-college young voters are split more even and probably have huge variations across the country.

This may be anecdotal on my part, but I go to a pretty high performing public high school you have to test in to. There is def *more* political engagement amongst people at my school (why by and large can’t yet vote) than there was 4 years ago and almost everyone in my class will be very reliable voters as soon as they are eligible. Another thing I will note is girls generally seem more politically active or at least extroverted than boys at my school and I think that’s for a variety of reasons.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The Political Environment is much more worse then Democrats will admit to themselves.

Consider this: President Biden is going to New York State to save Kathy Hochul and to New Mexico to save Michelle Lujan-Grisham? C'mon! That doesn't pass the smell test.

This reminds me when President Obama campaigned for Pat Quinn in Illinois and Anthony Brown in Maryland during the 2014 Midterms and they both still lost + it wasn't even close in both Races.

I agree with this. Democratic leaders, strategists, and donors certainly are not on the "offensive", and are not acting as if they are leading the Generic Ballot right now. Yet there are still people who insist that Democrats are winning and that they are poised to sweep the elections in a few weeks.

Quite frankly, even if the Democrats were leading on the GCB right now, they would never be "acting" like it in public, especially after so many polling errors in the past. Even if the Dems were up by 10, there would still be an entire aura of "is it even real?"

Plainly, these days, because people are so burned by polls, only a Republican lead among polls is to be trusted. Even a Dem is leading, there is still whispers of, "but are they really?"

The Democratic campaigns are probably seeing concerning numbers in their own internals, and are acting accordingly. I would expect for there to be a much more aggressive investment of Democratic time, money, and resources into Republican-leaning districts and states if they truly felt that they held a dominating lead in the Generic Ballot. Instead - aside from the Hofmeister-Stitt rate in Oklahoma and the Oz-Fetterman race in Pennsylvania - they are clearly on the defensive at this point, and are calling in national support for their candidates in states such as Oregon, New Mexico, and now, New York, which should not be in danger for them. I don't think we would be seeing Biden and Obama going to these states if they weren't concerned about those races.

Well there was also 2020, where Democrats were kind of fooled into thinking they should go for other GOP districts than they shouldn't have, so whether or not Dems have a lead, I think it's smart just to go for the ones that you absolutely need first and foremost. Even if you have a lead or not.

Oregon is a more specific case with the GOV race, they needed to nationalize it a bit to sink Johnson and scare Dem voters back into Kotek's column. Grisham may be in a bit of trouble, but most of the polls (sans Trafalgar) and the EV don't really indicate that, and Biden may still be relatively popular in New Mexico, so may not be a huge surprise he's going.

Is Biden planning on doing a rally in New York or something? I didn't see that. I saw he did an event with Hochul/Schumer yesterday, but that looked like more of the usual small-time stuff.

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1586085207827890177?s=46&t=IQbLk_K4EEYQSm0QtNQP9A

I would like another round of polls. But is NV-1 just another Vegas polling problem? That might be ground zero for low response/transient population.

For NJ-7 I would like some proof, Kean has a lot of Christie’s political hacks around him with plenty of ties to national media for years.

Yeah, NV-01 is a good question. Siena undercounted Dems considerably in their 2018 NV poll, but it's possible that was an anomaly.

I'm unsure about NJ-07 too. Malinowski actually seems to be putting up a good fight. I feel like prior to the last few months, people assumed he was all but dead. He's raised way more than Kean, and the district is pretty educated. I'm not sure where the tangible signs are that he's struggling a lot.

I mean he did have those scandals.

I think the reason people immediate wrote him off is because Kean almost won against him in a considerably bluer district in what was likely a better year for Ds than 2022 will be. At face value, people would have every reason to believe Kean would easily win. Dynamics in individual races and matchups can change across cycles though.

I'd say Lean R seems fair.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1586789028501901316
LOL RCP is a joke

This is all a conservative journalist project, not anything serious.

Given they have Utah as lean R as well, how is it a conservative journalist project.

RCP just rates everything remotely competitive as tossup even though we know some of those races are not really tossups. It's a shield they use to say "oh well we were right" basically no matter what.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I don't think suburban Southern California is swinging hard to the GOP in wake of Dobbs. Especially not the Thousand Oaks area nor the Ventura area.

My grandmother lives in Thousand Oaks (a very swingy white part of CA-26). Politically, it seems remarkably stable due to the relative abundance of older people and the area generally being less transient. The people who live there generally stay there for a long time.

Brownley is not in any immediate danger; if she loses Dems are already losing like 60+ seats.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/1587154699538546688

Hmm...

The only reason they doing this is because NY-25 was suprisingly close in 2014. Realistically, things are too polarized for this district to flip now.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Just noticed this, Politico moved OH-01 to Leans Democratic yesterday 👀

https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/ohio/house/district-01/

It's not an unreasonable rating. The party that gets drubbed in the midterms does usually get a few pickups. OH-01 is probably at the top of the list.

My theory is that since they have to redraw Ohio's maps in 2024 no matter what, the fate of OH-01 will depend on the outcome of this election. If Chabot holds on, they'll try to shore him up as much as possible, but if he loses, they'll finally draw a Hamilton-only district, effectively ceding the district to Landsman.

Whats the point in doing that when the current seat isn't endangering any of the surrounding ones.  There is no benefit to sinking it.

Well I mean the current Config is Biden + 8.5 so in a normal year, Republicans would probably be losing it. Legally, Cinci has to be kept whole so at best for Rs they'll be one swingy Cinci seat (that probably narrowly went to Biden) and then another more solid seat. We have seen both sides not aggressively crack out Dem incumbents they theoretically could such as MO-05 or IN-01, and infact in the case of MO-05 basically ceded the bluest possible config to Dems.

There's a good chance a more formal redistricting commission will be passed in OH this decade, perhaps as early as 2024, and the commission would likely draw an OH-01 nested entirely within Hamilton County.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Interesting that Wasserman seems to think that an R wave would hit the northeast particularly hard when it seems like a lot of conventional wisdom is the opposite.

Also imo that's *wayyy* too many tossups. It's hard to find a world where AZ-01 and NY-04 are tossup simultaneously.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The ME-02 result is... odd? Considering even if Golden doesn't win outright, he's likely to win b/c of the Independent vote going for him in the 2nd round.

Cartwright losing also kind of goes against all the stuff we've seen from that district polling wise.

Quite a bit of curious choices on there.

They are both running in Trump districts in a year that will prolly be worse than 2020 for Dems. Yes they have both made an effort to distance themselves, but with the way things are looking, Golden may need like a 12 point overperformance of partisanship which is quite tricky though not impossible.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The ME-02 result is... odd? Considering even if Golden doesn't win outright, he's likely to win b/c of the Independent vote going for him in the 2nd round.

Cartwright losing also kind of goes against all the stuff we've seen from that district polling wise.

Quite a bit of curious choices on there.

They are both running in Trump districts in a year that will prolly be worse than 2020 for Dems. Yes they have both made an effort to distance themselves, but with the way things are looking, Golden may need like a 12 point overperformance of partisanship which is quite tricky though not impossible.

I mean I'm literally just going off of public polling, all of which has had Cartwright and Golden ahead.

That's fair, but district level polling tends to be very iffy. It can def be taken into consideration but shouldn't be used as the sole basis in a prediction, especially if the pollr esults just don't seem to logically make sense. We def got a few of those polls in 2020.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Levin and Harder losing both seem like reaches to me. I've not really heard any convincing evidence so far that either of them are in danger of losing, but it happen, I guess.

Levin could lose but I disagree with this call by Wasserman, especially given a lot of the other seats he lists as D wins.

CA-13 seems like fair game though. Biden did win the district by 10.8% in 2020 but did underperform Clinton and rural/small town Hispanics seem to be one of the areas where Dems are facing big problems.