2018 Congressional Recruitment/Fundraising/Ratings Megathread v2

[Hindsight was 2020]

So former Arizona AG and McCain chief of staff Grant Wood is thinking about running for John’s seat in 2020 as a Democrat https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mccains-former-chief-of-staff-says-hes-considering-senate-bid-as-a-democrat/2018/09/05/34e59e94-b14e-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html?noredirect=on

[wesmoorenerd]

So former Arizona AG and McCain chief of staff Grant Wood is thinking about running for John’s seat in 2020 as a Democrat https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mccains-former-chief-of-staff-says-hes-considering-senate-bid-as-a-democrat/2018/09/05/34e59e94-b14e-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html?noredirect=on

Wood is alright and I respect the guy, but he'd be Richard Painter 2.0. It's probably going to be Gallego or Stanton.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Sabato's Crystal Ball has changed URLs, but looks like basically the same site.

Five rating changes this week, three in favor of Republicans (AK Gov, FL-26, PA-8), and two in favor of Dems (IA-01 and a long overdue TX-SEN).

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Sabato's Crystal Ball has changed URLs, but looks like basically the same site.

Five rating changes this week, three in favor of Republicans (AK Gov, FL-27, PA-8), and two in favor of Dems (IA-01 and a long overdue TX-SEN).

Why in God's name did they shift FL-27?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Sabato's Crystal Ball has changed URLs, but looks like basically the same site.

Five rating changes this week, three in favor of Republicans (AK Gov, FL-27, PA-8), and two in favor of Dems (IA-01 and a long overdue TX-SEN).

Why in God's name did they shift FL-27?

Sorry, I meant FL-26 and have corrected my post.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Sabato's Crystal Ball has changed URLs, but looks like basically the same site.

Five rating changes this week, three in favor of Republicans (AK Gov, FL-27, PA-8), and two in favor of Dems (IA-01 and a long overdue TX-SEN).

Why in God's name did they shift FL-27?

Sorry, I meant FL-26 and have corrected my post.

THAT makes so much more sense.

[MT Treasurer]

Thoughts on this part of Sabato's analysis?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[new_patomic]

Thoughts on this part of Sabato's analysis?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The polling we've had so far seems to back this up. Rosen has generally been up in most Nevada polling, but not consistently and rarely outside the margin of error. Sinema has had both a more consistent and a larger lead in her Senate race. Arizona seems to have shifted more than other states relative to where it was in 2012, and for a lot of reasons Nevada might not be as elastic as a lot of people thought before 2016.

That being said... we're just now past Labor Day, and I'd really prefer to get some credible pollsters in both before making this sort of judgement.

[Devout Centrist]

I hate how ratings agencies have reacted to 2016 by, uh, making rash decisions based on one poll and moving races back to lean R at the drop of a hat:



But I'm sure the NRCC insists that Cartwright is only barely ahead and Curbelo won't lose this year. Good for Sabato, good enough for me!

[Florida Man for Crime]

Thoughts on this part of Sabato's analysis?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Nevada is not "a 50-50 kind of state." LOL. There is a basic failure here to recognize that there is a difference between something like 53-47 and 50-50. Not the same thing.

2) Yes, NV is a (slightly) better pickup opportunity because of this point 1).

3) One thing I have noticed over time is that there is a general tendency for candidate general election numbers to be somewhat understated while they are in a seriously contested primary. This is because some of the members of their own party who are supporting someone else in the primary are a bit reluctant to tell a pollster that they will nonetheless support the other candidate.

4) Sinema was likely benefiting partly from point 3) in polls prior to the primary, understating Republican support in those earlier polls. However, now that McSally is the Republican nominee, most Republicans will come home to her, and other things being equal (i.e. if the GCB doesn't keep going more Dem) her poll numbers should be a bit higher than they were in earlier polls. It is only really in this sense that Sinema has had a "head start" - Sabato is probably confusing this effect for an effect from having a "head start."

5) When McSally appears to have gained a bit of ground relative to pre-primary polls, this will be misinterpreted and attributed to "Muh McSally Tutu ad effective OMGz Sinema gonna lose against strong candidate McSally" and "Muh Sinema too moderate hero running a bad campaign, should be more progressive." While I would certainly agree that stuff like Sinema saying she won't support Schumer is stupid, it is stupid because absolutely nobody cares about that other than a few posters on Atlas, not because it will do anything to hurt her (or help her). It's just irrelevant.

Although I would be possibly very slightly worried that Sinema might fall into the typical Democratic trap of failing to respond adequately to attacks and failing to attack on her own part, for the moment there isn't really sufficient evidence to back up the idea that she doesn't know what she's doing.

[IceSpear]

Thoughts on this part of Sabato's analysis?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's just ignore that Democrats almost always outperform the polls in Nevada. Let's also ignore that we haven't gotten any Arizona polls since the primary (in fact, we haven't gotten a poll there in over a month.) Let's also ignore the fact that we've never gotten an apples to apples comparison since it's different firms polling these states at different times. Also, muh incumbency. Voila. Great #analysis Larry.

[IceSpear]

And I find it funny that he's keeping NV at toss up because Heller is supposedly "still standing." Really Larry?

- Polling in the low 40s, even in the polls where he's doing relatively "well"
- Dems almost always do better than the polling average in Nevada
- Low approval rating
- Obama/Obama/Clinton state
- Probable Dem wave
- Beat a corrupt lady under ethics investigation by only 1 point
- Got less votes than Romney

Yeah, he's "still standing" in the same way Mark Pryor was "still standing" throughout most of 2014. Oh wait...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-2014-05-15/

[new_patomic]

Yeah, he's "still standing" in the same way Mark Pryor was "still standing" throughout most of 2014. Oh wait...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-2014-05-15/

To be fair, these were the polls that he had to go on as of the time he wrote that:


I mean yeah obviously the fundamentals of Arkansas and it being a midterm and only one of those polls having him above 50 percent made for a concerning picture, but with that data it's sort of hard to not say the race looks like a toss-up or that Pryor seemed to be holding his own. Certainly better than Heller is doing now.

[TarHeelDem]

The analysis from the pundit class on the Senate this year has been generally awful, Sabato included. Hopefully they come around before Election Day.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Looking at the Cook House ratings and they have only one incumbent Republican as lean D: Comstock. 25 GOP incumbents are tossups. That can't be right?

On another note, doing some back-of-the-envelope-random-assumptions-so-probably-useless maths with their ratings: let's say Ds flip 7/10 Lean or Likely D seats, 15/30 tossup seats, 8/27 Lean R seats, 4/26 Likely R seats, and lose 3 held seats, which all seems quite reasonable assuming I understand what the ratings imply. That gives a +31 swing to Democrats, giving them a majority of 17. I guess I'd be worried if I were a Republican congressman.

[Zaybay]

I hate how ratings agencies have reacted to 2016 by, uh, making rash decisions based on one poll and moving races back to lean R at the drop of a hat:



But I'm sure the NRCC insists that Cartwright is only barely ahead and Curbelo won't lose this year. Good for Sabato, good enough for me!

I agree with this sentiment. It seems that pundits are, after getting it wrong in 2016 have decided that the Rs automatically get a +5 advantage to every seat, and that, if the Rs show them an internal that has them up, then they move the seat, of course, not for the Ds, because they are obviously using bad polling.

It gets annoying to a large degree when its obvious that they are clearly being overtly cautious and downright R biased in these ratings. And they seem to have no reason for moving these seats. Matt was moved because the GOP was targeting him. Ok? That isnt a good factor to use in this. Meanwhile, they move Hurd over to lean R due to the fact that, according to them, cause "Hurd has won competitive races before, and he appears to have the edge", but there is no proof to back this up, it all seems to be based on intuition, not polling/national environment.

Anyway, Im starting to rant again about pundits, again, so Ill stop now.

[Skye]

This thread is a dumpster fire, Jesus.

[ltomlinson31]

Roll Call: The 10 Most Vulnerable House Members of 2018:

1. Rod Blum (IA-01)
2. Keith Rothfus (PA-17)
3. Barbara Comstock (VA-10)
4. Jason Lewis (MN-02)
5. Claudia Tenney (NY-22)
6. John Faso (NY-19)
7. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
8. Steve Knight (CA-25)
9. Mike Coffman (CO-06)
10. Kevin Yoder (KS-03)

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/two-months-10-vulnerable-house-members

[Brittain33]

Roll Call: The 10 Most Vulnerable House Members of 2018:

1. Rod Blum (IA-01)
2. Keith Rothfus (PA-17)
3. Barbara Comstock (VA-10)
4. Jason Lewis (MN-02)
5. Claudia Tenney (NY-22)
6. John Faso (NY-19)
7. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
8. Steve Knight (CA-25)
9. Mike Coffman (CO-06)
10. Kevin Yoder (KS-03)

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/two-months-10-vulnerable-house-members

No Collin Peterson? #fakenews

[MT Treasurer]

Roll Call: The 10 Most Vulnerable House Members of 2018:

1. Rod Blum (IA-01)
2. Keith Rothfus (PA-17)
3. Barbara Comstock (VA-10)

lmao

[ON Progressive]

Roll Call: The 10 Most Vulnerable House Members of 2018:

1. Rod Blum (IA-01)
2. Keith Rothfus (PA-17)
3. Barbara Comstock (VA-10)
4. Jason Lewis (MN-02)
5. Claudia Tenney (NY-22)
6. John Faso (NY-19)
7. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
8. Steve Knight (CA-25)
9. Mike Coffman (CO-06)
10. Kevin Yoder (KS-03)

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/two-months-10-vulnerable-house-members

I'd reverse that top 3 (Comstock/Rothfus/Blum), but other than that, this seems reasonable.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/StuPolitics/status/1037810211422171137

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/StuPolitics/status/1037810211422171137

Please, please, please!

[IceSpear]

Yeah, he's "still standing" in the same way Mark Pryor was "still standing" throughout most of 2014. Oh wait...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-2014-05-15/

To be fair, these were the polls that he had to go on as of the time he wrote that:


I mean yeah obviously the fundamentals of Arkansas and it being a midterm and only one of those polls having him above 50 percent made for a concerning picture, but with that data it's sort of hard to not say the race looks like a toss-up or that Pryor seemed to be holding his own. Certainly better than Heller is doing now.

Exactly. You'd think that he would learn to place more importance on fundamentals after getting burned by early polls so many times in the past. And this time we hardly even have any polls of Nevada, besides a few which unanimously agree that Heller has a mediocre (at best) approval rating in a Clinton state and in the low 40s in the horse race.

[new_patomic]

Yeah, he's "still standing" in the same way Mark Pryor was "still standing" throughout most of 2014. Oh wait...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-2014-05-15/

To be fair, these were the polls that he had to go on as of the time he wrote that:


I mean yeah obviously the fundamentals of Arkansas and it being a midterm and only one of those polls having him above 50 percent made for a concerning picture, but with that data it's sort of hard to not say the race looks like a toss-up or that Pryor seemed to be holding his own. Certainly better than Heller is doing now.

Exactly. You'd think that he would learn to place more importance on fundamentals after getting burned by early polls so many times in the past. And this time we hardly even have any polls of Nevada, besides a few which unanimously agree that Heller has a mediocre (at best) approval rating in a Clinton state and in the low 40s in the horse race.

But wouldn't we rather people pay attention to polls than rely entirely on their own judgement/bias/guesses as to the national political environment and state political environment will be?

I mean I guess it would be one thing for him to call Arkansas lean Democrat or something but even with multiple polls showing Pryor up double digits he only moved it to tossup. Like how he's still kept Tennessee as lean-R even with all the polls showing Bredesen ahead.