2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Unelectable Bystander]

House Majority PAC (D) is cutting back in the Los Angeles market (likely for CA-27) and Tuscon (AZ-06). They're also spending in MI-07 to support Elissa Slotkin, but not in MI-10-

https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/1583489247985954816
https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/1583489250254721025

For the 256th time, the Dems are NOT triaging CA-27. The pre-Dobbs primary was literally something like R+0.8 and usually CA gets more Dem for the general.

It is a smart strategy to not spend in this district, or NY-17, OR-6 and even RI-2. If the Dems get to 218 these will be in the list regardless. If they lose the House by 20 seats, who cares.

This is true of the presidency but not necessarily the house. People like Jared Golden are not automatically going down in a right-leaning environment. All the house seats have their own issues and don’t necessarily move in tandem. This could even be seen in 2020, where actual house republican seats + Trump seats would have been enough for a majority.

As for the others, not contesting  a takeover of marginally favorable seats is not a good idea. That’s how you end up with someone like Fung turning into Fitzpatrick or Golden.

[Unelectable Bystander]

When does the NBC poll come out

NBC has 47-46 D with RV and 48-47 R with LV. Not really any change from prior polls. Gives GOP a big enthusiasm edge though.

Correct me if I’m wrong. Hasn’t NBC showing *any* GOP lead always lead nationwide GOP wins historically? I thought they were notorious for showing competitive GCB’s in red years and being accurate in blue years.

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/24/midterm-elections-cook-sean-patrick-maloney

NY-17 moving to tossup in Cook. This could either be a sign of a wave or the NRCC version of Hillary visits Ohio 7 times and never goes to Wisconsin.

The NRCC is so sneaky. They even convinced the democrats to start triaging democrat won or Biden won seats in Wisconsin, Arizona, Oregon, and California.

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/24/midterm-elections-cook-sean-patrick-maloney

NY-17 moving to tossup in Cook. This could either be a sign of a wave or the NRCC version of Hillary visits Ohio 7 times and never goes to Wisconsin.

The NRCC is so sneaky. They even convinced the democrats to start triaging democrat won or Biden won seats in Wisconsin, Arizona, Oregon, and California.

Biden didn't win WI-03 lol

I said democrat or Biden, as in Ron Kind. Also not the point. Democrats are playing defense trying to win 50% +1. That’s not the NRCC, it’s their own strategy. There’s no conspiracy

[Unelectable Bystander]

And it's gonna be rock steady wrong

It should be noted that this poll didn’t move the needle at all in 538, which probably speaks to the fact that 538 has a decent rightward adjustment for their polls.

538 also has an interesting piece on the GCB. For all of the 2014 repeat enthusiasts, they pointed out that the GCB is currently what it was at this time that year. It then spiked towards republicans in the last two weeks. They pointed out that this is normal and the president’s party tends to lose 1.2 points of GCB on average in the final two weeks.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how you would square that with both the primary results (pre-Roe) and the early vote so far in the district.

What early voting? The GOP is far ahead in this district compared to 2020

[Unelectable Bystander]

Maybe they're trying to be clever by claiming it's because he's allegedly strong, when they have internals showing him actually losing and in fact Smith doesn't need the money.

no

Reports came out last week that NRCC also increasingly thinks Garcia is fine.

[Unelectable Bystander]

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

No comment on the triage discussion, which has taken its course, but I will add context to this. The margin two years ago at this time was something like 58-30. It might not necessarily be good for Garcia, but it is unequivocally not good for Smith. This pattern is common throughout SoCal.

Before anybody accuses that of being hackish, I have stated earlier what I think looks good for both parties (Michigan and Georgia in particular look like bloodbaths for R’s). This is not one of those places.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Morning Consult/POLITICO has D+5 this week, 47-42. It was D+1 last week, 45-44.

https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2022/10/25151347/2210148_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2_10-26-22_SH.pdf

I'm sure this shift will get just as much media coverage as last week's Republican shift

The 4 republican hacks of Wasserman, Sabato, Cohn, and Silver must not be privy to this very high quality polling

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1585261022490787840

You saw my map, turnout is higher...in GOP areas. Unless you think that coalitions flipped overnight and now Detroit is the most Republican part of Michigan, I don't see any good evidence for these claims. And his logic is still using very flawed specials, but the specials overperformances were all still low turnout relative to the midterms in areas where Dems can be expected to do better among high propensity voters. I have heard zero arguments against this. The ONLY possible argument would be Peltola, but even then she had HUGE crossover support and still does.

I have a hard time squaring this information. On one hand, he’s not wrong in certain states like Michigan and Georgia that numbers look good for democrats based on modeled partisanship. On the other hand, the map above and other target smart graphics make it clear that rural turnout is up and white turnout is up in these same states (yes, even in Georgia, at the expense of Hispanics/Asians). I will note that those are two states without partisan registration, so it’s possible that their model is garbage and way too democrat-friendly. This can’t explain it entirely though.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Big Village now the third poll today to show Dems up at least 4

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1585322952924729344

What's the Sample? If it's above D+5 trash it.

This is insanity. Nobody can even agree that D+13 sample is problematic lol. That big village poll is weighted by the CENSUS.

I’ll gladly give my honest view on the state of the environment but I’ve maintained this entire time that morning consult and big village are useless. My preferences are Siena/Ny times, Emerson, ABC, NBC, CBS, even CNN/Fox/Quinnipiac.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Big Village now the third poll today to show Dems up at least 4

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1585322952924729344

What's the Sample? If it's above D+5 trash it.

This is insanity. Nobody can even agree that D+13 sample is problematic lol. That big village poll is weighted by the CENSUS.

I’ll gladly give my honest view on the state of the environment but I’ve maintained this entire time that morning consult and big village are useless. My preferences are Siena/Ny times, Emerson, ABC, NBC, CBS, even CNN/Fox/Quinnipiac.

The last RV samples for Siena (tied), ABC (R+1) NBC (D+1) and CBS (D+1) were all pretty closely aligned with a neutral environment. Fox had D+3 too.

And those I am putting more stock in because they have supposedly more robust methods

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1585581558966132738?s=19

Wave is still on for the moment. The last week felt like a coordinated gaslighting campaign in the polling industry by only allowing hack pollsters to release GCB’s just so Bonier and his friends could tweet nonstop about momentum.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Not sure I buy any of that. I don’t think he’s lying but I doubt those things are true and that he has actual knowledge of them. GA sounds like pushing that narrative just to work on turnout. PA sounds like he’s trying to convince the average voter that the neighbor down the street hasn’t turned on Fetterman so you shouldn’t either.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Also figure there may have been a sugar high of sorts in GA after the initial Walker allegations (averaging going up to above Warnock +4) and now it's coming back down to earth.

Look at the last several polls. It’s literally all the trash ones on the right.

https://twitter.com/vanceulrich/status/1585843044011515905?s=46&t=ZHoLiKYYsgAIRxzKT9NGUg

I also don’t understand why anyone is taking GOP pollsters at their word on CA-27, this one has no business being in a lean R category.

This is misinformation

CA-27 2020 at this time: 52% D 25% R
CA-27 now: 46% D 32% R

R +13 shift

CA-47 2020: 45% D 28% R
CA-47 now: 42% D 34% R

R +9 shift

CA-49 2020: 46% D 29% R
CA-49 now: 41% D 36% R

R +12 shift

Southern California is the single biggest GOP over-performance at this time.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Also figure there may have been a sugar high of sorts in GA after the initial Walker allegations (averaging going up to above Warnock +4) and now it's coming back down to earth.

Look at the last several polls. It’s literally all the trash ones on the right.

https://twitter.com/vanceulrich/status/1585843044011515905?s=46&t=ZHoLiKYYsgAIRxzKT9NGUg

I also don’t understand why anyone is taking GOP pollsters at their word on CA-27, this one has no business being in a lean R category.

This is misinformation

CA-27 2020 at this time: 52% D 25% R
CA-27 now: 46% D 32% R

R +13 shift

CA-47 2020: 45% D 28% R
CA-47 now: 42% D 34% R

R +9 shift

CA-49 2020: 46% D 29% R
CA-49 now: 41% D 36% R

R +12 shift

Southern California is the single biggest GOP over-performance at this time.

are these using old lines vs new lines?
also, do you have links for 2020 early vote?

Here is the link for target smart’s graphic. I think it’s new lines because there’s a comparison for every district

https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2022

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/JoelWeingart_/status/1586749301820166147?t=udW5tkbBcYvWZcnTG...

I don’t believe this or the right wing WA-SEN polls.  We have actual numbers from June (when the generic ballot was worse than now) where Brownley got 54%.  I don’t expect she does worse than that in a week.

I mean it's fine believing what fits your priors and ignoring present data/warnings from democratic operatives.. that's part of being a partisan.

Either both democrat and GOP strategists have no pulse on what’s happening…or a certain blue avatar was correct all along that republicans now only turn out for high stakes elections

[Unelectable Bystander]

I’m calling the house

[Unelectable Bystander]

@AncestralDemocrat.
Herding is strong, isn't it?
Once again it confirms to me that CNN & NPR have very faulty Pollsters. Why not stricking with your guns and predict a Democratic Wave like you have been all year? I am disgusted by this herding from them. I will disregard their Polls regardless if D's or R's are up.

The Point is: Republicans were never behind for the entire Election Cycle.

I have to think that Morning Consult did the same thing as you mentioned.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Big Village now the third poll today to show Dems up at least 4

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1585322952924729344

What's the Sample? If it's above D+5 trash it.

This is insanity. Nobody can even agree that D+13 sample is problematic lol. That big village poll is weighted by the CENSUS.

I’ll gladly give my honest view on the state of the environment but I’ve maintained this entire time that morning consult and big village are useless. My preferences are Siena/Ny times, Emerson, ABC, NBC, CBS, even CNN/Fox/Quinnipiac.

[Unelectable Bystander]

I'm pretty much done caring about polls for now, but one thing I will say is that weighting polls more heavily based on how closely they hew to your priors is pretty asinine and no better than just ignoring polls altogether. It's one thing if it contradicts the fundamentals by some ludicrous amount, like that rumored poll that showed that Thune was in danger or whatever, but you shouldn't just chuck polls like that YouGov one.

Hard disagree. There’s no good poll that has a D +14 electorate and Biden +6 recall. That’s not about priors, that just makes no sense. It’s false equivalence to just throw these in the average and frankly no better than junk GCB polls from Trafalgar and Rasmussen.

[Unelectable Bystander]

I see the delusion that the Dems can retain the house is already materializing..

Of course they can. If you think there is literally a 0% chance of it happening, then you are as delusional and hackish as the ones who think it probably will.

House is Safe R and has been for a while.

That's not hackish to suggest.. it's just the realistic conclusion given how dems have consistently had to play defense in districts that if the house was in play, would be easy holds.

I concur that the house is gone and I made that call last week, but we will see soon enough.

I also very strongly disagree with the idea that the world operates in Nate Silver’s probability model. I don’t believe he ever has a truly accurate read on the probability of certain outcomes (even if he has the best model out there!). I don’t think it’s accurate to say democrats have a 16% chance in the house. They have some probability, and we don’t really know what it is. Remember, this model also had the democrats at 70% senate odds a few weeks ago, which everybody knows was never the case, and has Walker being the first Republican to win a senate seat.

[Unelectable Bystander]

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.

Fascinating; he's at 234-201, to RRH's final call of 245-190. Here are the races they're predicting break differently:

Wasserman blue, RRH red:
IN-1 (Mrvan)
MI-8 (Kildee) (Wasserman at Leans D)
NV-1 (Titus)
NV-4 (Horsford) (Wasserman at Leans D)
NY-3 (Suozzi)
NY-18 (Ryan) (Wasserman at Leans D)
NY-19 (Ryan)
OH-1 (Chabot)
PA-17 (Lamb)
TX-28 (Cuellar) (Wasserman at Leans D)
TX-34 (Flores)
VA-7 (Spanberger)

Wasserman red, RRH blue:
CA-49 (Levin)

There is probably one seat I've missed them disagreeing on, because the numbers need one more "Wasserman blue, RRH red" seat to add up, but for the life of me I can't find it. I guess, uh, pretend Wasserman didn't call Levin losing -- by far his weirdest call, points at a much redder year than everything else he said -- and then this all works, and there are 11 "especially controversial" seats to look at, where both sides seem confident.

EDIT: NVM, found it, was confused by Wasserman terming NY-19, which Ryan is leaving, to be "Ryan's seat", while RRH was terming NY-18, which he is coming to, as Ryan's seat. There are 12 seats that Wasserman has called blue but RRH has called red, and 1 seat that is the reverse; for some reason CA-49.

CNAnalysis's final call for the House is 230-205, so a little more pessimistic on GOP odds than Wasserman: https://projects.cnalysis.com/21-22/house

He has CA-49 going blue (...obviously), and of the races where Wasserman and RRH disagree, he has 10/12 going Democratic (all but NY-19 and OH-1, which he's calling for the GOP). This leaves 5 races he's calling for the Democrats which both RRH and Wasserman have going Republican:
CA-13 (Harder)
IL-17 (Bustos)
ME-2 (Golden)
MI-7 (Slotkin)
MN-2 (Craig)
WA-8 (Schrier)

...you'll notice 6. There is one race CN has going Republican which Wasserman and RRH both have as blue:
OH-13 (Gibbs)

~~

So, we have the following breakdown:
RRH red, Wasserman blue, CNAnalysis blue:
IN-1 (Mrvan)
MI-8 (Kildee)
NV-1 (Titus)
NV-4 (Horsford)
NY-3 (Suozzi)
NY-18 (Ryan)
PA-17 (Lamb)
TX-28 (Cuellar)
TX-34 (Flores) (R --> D possibility)
VA-7 (Spanberger)

RRH red, Wasserman blue, CNAnalysis red:
NY-19 (Tenney) (R --> D possibility)
OH-1 (Chabot) (R --> D possibility)

RRH red, Wasserman red, CNAnalysis blue:
CA-13 (Harder)
IL-17 (Bustos)
ME-2 (Golden)
MI-7 (Slotkin)
MN-2 (Craig)
WA-8 (Schrier)

RRH blue, Wasserman red, CNAnalysis blue:
CA-49 (Levin)

RRH blue, Wasserman blue, CNAnalysis red:
OH-13 (Gibbs) (R --> D possibility)

Seats that all of these analyses agree are flipping R to D: IL-13, MI-3

Seats that all of these analyses agree are flipping D to R: AZ-2, AZ-6, CT-5 (!!), FL-4, FL-7, FL-13, GA-6, IA-3, MI-10, NV-3 (!), NH-1 (!!), NJ-7, OR-5 (!!!), PA-7, PA-8 (!), RI-2 (!!!!), TN-5, TX-15, VA-2, WI-3

That is a strange and motley crew of seats everyone agrees are going Republican. (There also might need to be a category of 'seats that everyone notably thinks will be held by Democrats, even though they are obviously on-paper good targets' -- AK-AL, OH-9 and KS-3 fit in this category.)

I count 227 seats that all of these projections agree are voting Republican, though more than a couple of them are actually very weird calls.

I just find it weird the Senate with all these Biden +1 or less seats is a complete tossup, yet everyone is giving the GOP a ton of Biden +7-12 House seats with very little evidence. It would be one thing if we had multiple high quality polls in CT-5, RI-2, OR-5 but we have none. Meanwhile we have them in PA-8, NM-2, NY-19, NY-22, CA-49, MN-2, NH-1 and none are really bad for Dems.

Given polarization, it's just difficult seeing the GOP not winning the Senate but then winning 25 house seats as these analysts suggest. I feel like a 51-49 GOP Senate could come alongside a disappointing 12 house seat gain for them instead of a major wave. If they are gaining 25+ it very well may be a 53-47 Senate and Ds getting a 51-49 Senate may mean the GOP is sweating out the House for a week.

Some of these do have polls, Fung is winning the average by like 6 points. Hayes is winning the average by 1 and that includes high quality polls from Emerson and Fabrizio Lee. It’s also possible that seats don’t shift in the exact same patterns.

I do agree that R’s will win most of the seats that Trump won if it is actually that good of a night. This seems like hedging by the experts. They probably think R’s will win if polling shows Wild or Golden tied in the mid 40’s in states that have underestimated republicans, but it makes them look stupid if they move them to lean R without any polling evidence. It’s far less risky for their reputations to move surprise seats to toss-ups when they show close polling.