2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[kwabbit]

Economist is ran by Morris who has been badly off in 2016, 2018 and 2012.
No way we get a D+13 Electorate.

I don't think Morris would make the D sample super heavy to favor Dems. He's not the best prognosticator, but he's not explicitly partisan.

[kwabbit]

Very frustrating, but it doesn't appear Dems are really actively trying to go after Steel or Kim at this point.

Steel was a Clinton, Biden and no on recall district. Always a chance the Dems get lucky but Dobbs should be a focus in these Cali seats. Not sure why CA-27 is lean R with Roll Call, Garcia is as cooked as any GOP incumbent.

Apparently good internals for Garcia. During the summer when the Dobbs backlash was at its height, I thought Garcia was toast. But he obviously has some magic. Biden +13 district and doesn't even try to appear moderate but still the favorite in the eyes of the prognosticators. Even so, his district is somewhere I can see the Dems winning even on a good night for the GOP.

[kwabbit]

https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/1580543260883582977
In addition to Porter, the other double-digit Biden seats the CLF is targeting with these buys are CA-49 (Levin), CT-05 (Hayes), CA-22 (Valadao), CA-13 (OPEN, Duarte R nominee), TX-34 (Flores/Gonzalez), and RI-02 (OPEN, Fung R nominee).

Republicans having a good October in SoCal? Dems cutting spending, GOP ramping it up. It would take a wave to flip Porter’s seat, but she’s not necessarily the best fit for Orange County.

[kwabbit]

https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/1580543260883582977
In addition to Porter, the other double-digit Biden seats the CLF is targeting with these buys are CA-49 (Levin), CT-05 (Hayes), CA-22 (Valadao), CA-13 (OPEN, Duarte R nominee), TX-34 (Flores/Gonzalez), and RI-02 (OPEN, Fung R nominee).

Republicans having a good October in SoCal? Dems cutting spending, GOP ramping it up. It would take a wave to flip Porter’s seat, but she’s not necessarily the best fit for Orange County.

The Dems in CA 27, 41 and 45 have decent fundraising. Remember the polls in the CA recall did underestimate Newsom quite a bit in this region. Obviously Dobbs is a wildcard here as well.

There is a well organized GOP effort to gaslight everyone into thinking a red wave is the only possible outcome of the 2022 election. Look at betting markets, for a month we've had little movement either way outside of Wisconsin and Georgia (better for both incumbents).

The NJ-7 investment suggests the GOP is a bit concerned, I would be too in a 50% college district. Both sides have plenty of money there and not sure if it will matter.

The GOP isn’t spending millions to trick people in thinking it’s a red wave. They are spending because they think the spending will help them in those districts. Betting markets are useless and have the same lack of quality polling that we do. District polls have looked a bit better for the GOP lately and the actions of the parties reflect an understanding that the GOP is more competitive in Biden +5-10 seats than they were a few months ago.

Yeah, Malinowski is out campaigning Kean in NJ-07. Kean has snot himself in the foot by going MAGA in the primary. Polling indicates that the Dems will hold up well in this district because of the education level, but Kean would’ve won by a few points in this iteration of the district in 2020. So Malinowski needs a swing to him, which will be hard to get even if Kean has lost crossover appeal.

[kwabbit]

Let thank sink in:
The Field Dates for the CNN/SSRS Poll is September 3 to October 5

A ONE-MONTH POLL, give me a break!

And I still read your posts with in a deep voice with a heavy drawl with a bit of a snicker. You’re just that partisan. If we were somehow magically transported to 1992, I would probably be reading your voice the way I currently read Torie’s or Santander’s post.

He spells favored as favoured so he might be not be American.

[kwabbit]

SLF has dumped a lot of money into Alaska on a per capita basis to defend Murkowski. It's certainly an interesting choice. Murkowski is allied with McConnell, but she is a thorn in his side when it comes to legislating. Maybe Tshibaka would be even more troublesome, but spending so much money on an R vs. R race is intriguing.

[kwabbit]

SLF has dumped a lot of money into Alaska on a per capita basis to defend Murkowski. It's certainly an interesting choice. Murkowski is allied with McConnell, but she is a thorn in his side when it comes to legislating. Maybe Tshibaka would be even more troublesome, but spending so much money on an R vs. R race is intriguing.

I think McConnell would choose having a caucus of 49 Murkowskis over 49 Tshibakas without a second thought.

One Murkowski is all you need for some legislation to be killed. While One Tshibaka doesn't do much. Who knows if McConnell actually cares about legislation or any other policy though.

[kwabbit]

CNBC / Hart is good for the GOP. +2 in RV. GCB on 538 will cross back into the red in the next few days it seems.

[kwabbit]

CNBC / Hart is good for the GOP. +2 in RV. GCB on 538 will cross back into the red in the next few days it seems.

Will probably today if Monmouth finds an R lead.

They found R+2 in September, D+3 in August among RV.

I actually think Monmouth is likely to be unchanged. They just got an R friendly sample in September, which might not happen again even if there’s some actual movement. I’m thinking R+3 on RV, which might not be enough of a swing to change it.

[kwabbit]

CNBC / Hart is good for the GOP. +2 in RV. GCB on 538 will cross back into the red in the next few days it seems.

Will probably today if Monmouth finds an R lead.

They found R+2 in September, D+3 in August among RV.

I actually think Monmouth is likely to be unchanged. They just got an R friendly sample in September, which might not happen again even if there’s some actual movement. I’m thinking R+3 on RV, which might not be enough of a swing to change it.

Monmouth is R+4. Of course Dems will lose if they only win moderates by 6, lose white college by 1 and lose 35-54 by 16 as this poll suggests. It is worth wondering if they’ve lost some white college support since August. A few polls suggest this.

Yeah, this poll is essentially a worst case scenario for Dems. It has them losing White College by 1 and even losing *Women* by 1, 47-46.

It also has the GOP only up by 22 with non-college Whites, when Trump won them by 35pts. Definitely not the worst case scenario for the Dems. Don’t play the cross tab game.

[kwabbit]

I am not soundchaser or Milinnral moderate nervously

I'm equal parts flattered and confused as to how I ended up in this comparison.

Maybe he thinks you’re too optimistic and he’s completely unbiased 303 Map?

[kwabbit]

KS-03 has been a mystery the entire cycle. I’ve figured that Davids has been slightly favored, but there’s been a single released poll. This poll was part of the funky batch RMG released for the term limit pac that was largely anti incumbent. I guess Cook is privy to some good internals for Davids.

[kwabbit]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

[kwabbit]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

I mean, if we're going by the early vote data then Christy Smith should be Lean D, lol. (That's the only thing that makes me question the whole "triaging" thing - it's still early but it's D+13 in the early vote so far, the biggest out of all the competitive CA races)

I don't think Garcia vs. Smith was necessarily triaged either. Money probably makes less of a difference in that House race among all possible competitive races. The TV market is extremely expensive and the candidates are running against each other for the third time. The Dems were paying a lot of money for comparatively little viewership by people who already have more of a hardened opinion of the candidates. They would get more bang for their buck defending Axne, Craig, Luria and all of the non major-metro incumbents who would make up a possible Democratic majority. Probably the same reason that Malinowski lost some money, given how expensive the NYC market is.

[kwabbit]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

I mean, if we're going by the early vote data then Christy Smith should be Lean D, lol. (That's the only thing that makes me question the whole "triaging" thing - it's still early but it's D+13 in the early vote so far, the biggest out of all the competitive CA races)

I don't think Garcia vs. Smith was necessarily triaged either. Money probably makes less of a difference in that House race among all possible competitive races. The TV market is extremely expensive and the candidates are running against each other for the third time. The Dems were paying a lot of money for comparatively little viewership by people who already have more of a hardened opinion of the candidates. They would get more bang for their buck defending Axne, Craig, Luria and all of the non major-metro incumbents who would make up a possible Democratic majority. Probably the same reason that Malinowski lost some money, given how expensive the NYC market is.

https://twitter.com/vanceulrich/status/1585023835598118912?s=46&t=8UDBrtuE1yQSHe1s0CfJKw

Triage my ass

I literally said it wasn't triaged.

[kwabbit]

The polls suck this year. Literally anything can happen.

Maybe it's selective memory on my part, but I really don't recall another year with such extreme variance in the polls.

You also have a ton more right-wing commissioned polls/outfits popping up this year, flooding the zone with all types of results.

The right wing pollsters are flooding the landscape, but G Elliot Morris noted that they are actually increasing the Dem margin in 538/economist averages after the internal bias adjustment.

[kwabbit]

The polls suck this year. Literally anything can happen.

Maybe it's selective memory on my part, but I really don't recall another year with such extreme variance in the polls.

You also have a ton more right-wing commissioned polls/outfits popping up this year, flooding the zone with all types of results.

The right wing pollsters are flooding the landscape, but G Elliot Morris noted that they are actually increasing the Dem margin in 538/economist averages after the internal bias adjustment.

Are they actually on 538 though? The more they get added, Dems averages/chances still continue to drop.

I don’t see why it would be different since the Economist and 538 averages are similar and draw from the same polls. I guess if there’s no recent non partisan polling they could still help the GOP margin, as was the case in PA for awhile. I will note that the effect is quite small, less than a half of a percentage point in most states.

[kwabbit]

https://twitter.com/CATargetAlt/status/1585465157441814528
House Majority PAC dropped $2M into NJ-05. This is weird - the new district was Biden +12, Gottheimer is an insane fundraiser, his opponent is pretty lackluster and the GOP has spent nothing here.

Bloomberg loves his corporatist Democrats. Hopefully he’ll promise one of them $50 Million to primary Menendez.

[kwabbit]

https://twitter.com/politics_polls/status/1585648868133412864

At this point RV is just not something that should even be considered in averages. We are within two weeks of the election, people know whether they’re gonna vote or not.

Except that likely voter models are more than just asking people whether they're gonna vote.  The pollster makes certain assumptions about turnout in their LV models, which may or may not turn out to be true.  Since this looks like a high-turnout election for both parties at this point, using an RV model is probably just as reasonable.

Also, IIRC there have been studies showing that voter intention actually isn't that predictive.  That is, following up with such voters after the election showed that a surprisingly low percentage (68% from memory, but that may be inaccurate) of the "definitely will vote" actually did vote, while a surprisingly high percentage of the "maybe" or "possibly" groups voted.

I’m not opposed to just releasing RV numbers and letting people apply their own LV ideas, but doing so doesn’t make the poll more accurate to the final results. The GOP is going to have a 0-4pt gain from RV to LV. Just releasing RV implies that the typical gap is 0, when a gap of zero is a great result for Democrats.

I believe the NYT has voter history so I generally trust their LV model, which had a 2.5pt gain for the GOP. In conjunction with voter history vote intention is useful, but on its own it’s basically useless. Not all pollsters invest in the voter files.

[kwabbit]

Polls are not unusually variable this year. If anything, recent years suffered from too much herding. We won’t be as blindsided this year if there’s an unexpected outcome as we would be if every pollster was publishing R+1 on the GCB.

[kwabbit]

Is PA-12 literally just because of the Mike Doyle name sharing?

Mostly, but Summer Lee would likely underperform anyway. This district was unpacked and now includes a lot of working class White areas that may be less receptive to a Black progressive woman like Summer Lee. This district might have been Lee +12 if her opponent was named something else, but the naming thing is making it on the edge of competitiveness.

[kwabbit]

Are Dems getting an Obama bump? A Paul Pelosi bump? It does seem like GOP momentum is blunted right now.

[kwabbit]

Wasserman's thoughts on how the Tossup races break:
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1589426102141079554?cxt=HHwWhMDS7cyn444sAA...
I wouldn't be surprised if he does one final ratings update tomorrow morning.

This is 200-235 D-R I believe.

[kwabbit]

The west coast results look a bit discordant…especially Mike Levin losing while Salinas wins in OR-06; very weird given what Oregon is looking like atm.

It also does not take into account the apocalyptic rain on Tuesday in SoCal. Not a single soul will dare leave their house or workplace to vote lest they drown in the half inch of precipitation.

[kwabbit]

Also it's kind of crazy that there could actually be four Republican House members from New England. They haven't had that many since before the 2006 midterms.

A lot of this list will be one termers and completely cooked with a Trump 2024 nomination. A lot of this list flips in an R+4 year but not an R+1, will be interesting.

I disagree completely with CA-49, Levin was up 6 and it voted no on the recall I believe.

The New England Republicans could stick around, but >50% would be DOA in 2024.