2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - Part 3

[Person Man]

No,
Republican Motivation will not drop off.

This is getting hilarious. Now Democrats relying on Republican Dismotivation to win Elections, LOL.

It's been working for the GOP for a while.

[Yank2133]

No,
Republican Motivation will not drop off.

This is getting hilarious. Now Democrats relying on Republican Dismotivation to win Elections, LOL.

LOL

Democrats have a bigger pool of voters to draw from. If they turnout, it doesn’t matter if Republicans show up or not. The GOP is the ones who depend on a low turnout election to win.

Dead Wrong. Trump brought a lot more new Voters in during the 2016 Primaries & 2016 Election.

And he still lost the popular vote and this was with Clinton shedding a ton of support to either third party candidates/staying home. High turnout elections always favors Democrats. Republicans know this which is why they try to suppress the vote and exploit the system through gerrymandering to maintain an advantage.

[Person Man]

No,
Republican Motivation will not drop off.

This is getting hilarious. Now Democrats relying on Republican Dismotivation to win Elections, LOL.

LOL

Democrats have a bigger pool of voters to draw from. If they turnout, it doesn’t matter if Republicans show up or not. The GOP is the ones who depend on a low turnout election to win.

Dead Wrong. Trump brought a lot more new Voters in during the 2016 Primaries & 2016 Election.

And he still lost the popular vote and this was with Clinton shedding a ton of support to either third party candidates/staying home. High turnout elections always favors Democrats. Republicans know this which is why they try to suppress the vote and exploit the system through gerrymandering to maintain an advantage.

We gotta beat 'em by more than they cheat.

[2016]

CBS NEWS BATTLEGROUND TRACKER

Enough said! CNN in their National Poll last week had the GOP down 63-33 among Women. Big nonsense.

[libertpaulian]

The fact that the Dems have been having single-digit deficits among men in their recent polls is bad news if you're a Republican.

In terms of the House, I'd rather be a Democrat right now, to be honest.

[Person Man]

CBS NEWS BATTLEGROUND TRACKER

Enough said! CNN in their National Poll last week had the GOP down 63-33 among Women. Big nonsense.

You realize those are almost all Republican districts, right?

[2016]

Republican Districts or not Democrats weren't up 63-33 (30 Points) among Women like CNN/SSRS claimed. That was big bogus and they know it.

[ON Progressive]

Republican Districts or not Democrats weren't up 63-33 (30 Points) among Women like CNN/SSRS claimed. That was big bogus and they know it.

Imagine not realizing that crosstabs have bigger margins of error than the actual toplines.

[Hindsight was 2020]

An the CBS/Yougov poll is more accurate then the CNN poll (that both MC and ABC is more inline with) because?

[Brittain33]

Again, you realize this is apples to oranges because CBS is only looking at selected districts, right?

[Doimper]

Again, you realize this is apples to oranges because CBS is only looking at selected districts, right?

Wow, look at this lib! So owned!

[Xing]

Again, you realize this is apples to oranges because CBS is only looking at selected districts, right?

I don't care, as long as it fits my narrative, it's EVIDENCE that the BLUE WAVE is DEAD! And any so-called "evidence" supporting the blue wave is fake news created by Soros/Pelosi and the failing New York Times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the love of God, stop feeding the troll.

[2016]

An the CBS/Yougov poll is more accurate then the CNN poll (that both MC and ABC is more inline with) because?

Because ABC & CNN looking at the Nation as a whole which means Red and Blue Districts AND even then I very much doubt Republicans would lose Women by 63-33 as CNN claims. This is 30 Points folks. If that were to happen the GOP would lose between 65-70 Seats in the House.

CNN is bogus with their National Poll as well as ABC. They did crap and they know it.

[2016]

Again, you realize this is apples to oranges because CBS is only looking at selected districts, right?

For months Democrats telling Republicans that there will be a big blue Tsunami Wave on Nov 6th.

I very much bet my life and my House on that Democrats will not win the 63 Seats Republicans gained in the 2010 MidTerms nor the 54 Seats the GOP gained in 1994.

2018 will be similar in line with 2006 which gives Democrats the House but that's about it.

[Person Man]

Again, you realize this is apples to oranges because CBS is only looking at selected districts, right?

For months Democrats telling Republicans that there will be a big blue Tsunami Wave on Nov 6th.

I very much bet my life and my House on that Democrats will not win the 63 Seats Republicans gained in the 2010 MidTerms nor the 54 Seats the GOP gained in 1994.

2018 will be similar in line with 2006 which gives Democrats the House but that's about it.

TBH, I can see the House looking like it did in 2007 (with Republicans being just over 200) and the Senate being 47-53 because Hawley and Berg won and all other incumbents won. The would be the same margin as 2011 was.

so, I think 3 dozen house seats and -2 is what will happen.
If Sinema and Rosen pull it off, we will have an Even Senate and probably a house similar to what we have now but backwards. That's about 45 seats.

[Virginiá]

TBH, I can see the House looking like it did in 2007 (with Republicans being just over 200) and the Senate being 47-53 because Hawley and Berg won and all other incumbents won. The would be the same margin as 2011 was.

so, I think 3 dozen house seats and -2 is what will happen.
If Sinema and Rosen pull it off, we will have an Even Senate and probably a house similar to what we have now but backwards. That's about 45 seats.

2006 isn't really the best example. Democrats gained a slim majority in the Senate, which, coincidentally, is the most likely outcome for Democrats -if- they were able to win the Senate this cycle.

Better example might be like 1982 - huge House popular vote margin for Democrats but doesn't flip the Senate, despite coming really close in a handful of races.

[Person Man]

TBH, I can see the House looking like it did in 2007 (with Republicans being just over 200) and the Senate being 47-53 because Hawley and Berg won and all other incumbents won. The would be the same margin as 2011 was.

so, I think 3 dozen house seats and -2 is what will happen.
If Sinema and Rosen pull it off, we will have an Even Senate and probably a house similar to what we have now but backwards. That's about 45 seats.

2006 isn't really the best example. Democrats gained a slim majority in the Senate, which, coincidentally, is the most likely outcome for Democrats -if- they were able to win the Senate this cycle.

Better example might be like 1982 - huge House popular vote margin for Democrats but doesn't flip the Senate, despite coming really close in a handful of races.

and it was a 27 seat swing. It would take it to 222-213 Dems. That is probably the best realistic outcome for Republicans.

[2016]

Again, you realize this is apples to oranges because CBS is only looking at selected districts, right?

For months Democrats telling Republicans that there will be a big blue Tsunami Wave on Nov 6th.

I very much bet my life and my House on that Democrats will not win the 63 Seats Republicans gained in the 2010 MidTerms nor the 54 Seats the GOP gained in 1994.

2018 will be similar in line with 2006 which gives Democrats the House but that's about it.

TBH, I can see the House looking like it did in 2007 (with Republicans being just over 200) and the Senate being 47-53 because Hawley and Berg won and all other incumbents won. The would be the same margin as 2011 was.

so, I think 3 dozen house seats and -2 is what will happen.
If Sinema and Rosen pull it off, we will have an Even Senate and probably a house similar to what we have now but backwards. That's about 45 seats.

The CBS House Tracker predicts 235-200 for Democrats if there is a High Turnout. That would be 40 Seats and that's about the best the Dems can get. Will that be enough to flip the Senate? I seriously doubt that.

[Virginiá]

and it was a 27 seat swing. It would take it to 222-213 Dems. That is probably the best realistic outcome for Republicans.

Counterpoint: The house popular vote in 1982 was D+11.8, which brought the already-existing Democratic majority from 243 to 269. D+11.8 in 2018 could probably put Democrats at around 250-ish, give or take.

[2016]

and it was a 27 seat swing. It would take it to 222-213 Dems. That is probably the best realistic outcome for Republicans.

Counterpoint: The house popular vote in 1982 was D+11.8, which brought the already-existing Democratic majority from 243 to 269. D+11.8 in 2018 could probably put Democrats at around 250-ish, give or take.

LOL, the Democrats will not win the House Popular Vote by nearly 12 Points because the Country as a whole is just too polarized and the Districts are too gerrymandered. Anyone who thinks that this will happen has probably drunken too much alcohol in my book!

[Person Man]

and it was a 27 seat swing. It would take it to 222-213 Dems. That is probably the best realistic outcome for Republicans.

Counterpoint: The house popular vote in 1982 was D+11.8, which brought the already-existing Democratic majority from 243 to 269. D+11.8 in 2018 could probably put Democrats at around 250-ish, give or take.

So a 12 point GCB advantage borne a two seat Senate loss for Democrats?

[Florida Man for Crime]

and it was a 27 seat swing. It would take it to 222-213 Dems. That is probably the best realistic outcome for Republicans.

Counterpoint: The house popular vote in 1982 was D+11.8, which brought the already-existing Democratic majority from 243 to 269. D+11.8 in 2018 could probably put Democrats at around 250-ish, give or take.

LOL, the Democrats will not win the House Popular Vote by nearly 12 Points because the Country as a whole is just too polarized and the Districts are too gerrymandered. Anyone who thinks that this will happen has probably drunken too much alcohol in my book!

The Dems will do better in the popular vote than the GCB, other things being equal, because there are a lot of districts that are uncontested by Republicans, and very few districts that are uncontested by Democrats. Republicans automatically get 0 votes in a lot of districts, and so that inflates the Dem popular vote margin.

Supposing that the GCB is D+10 and the undecideds split evenly, the popular vote could easily end up around D+12 because of that.

And a GCB of D+10 or so by the time of election day is not really implausible given that it is currently around D+8, and it is also not in any way outside the realm of normal error in polling averages. Of course, the error could go towards Republicans, but the error could also easily go towards Democrats - we have no way of knowing that in advance, and it also depends a lot on turnout, which is not yet known.

[Virginiá]

and it was a 27 seat swing. It would take it to 222-213 Dems. That is probably the best realistic outcome for Republicans.

Counterpoint: The house popular vote in 1982 was D+11.8, which brought the already-existing Democratic majority from 243 to 269. D+11.8 in 2018 could probably put Democrats at around 250-ish, give or take.

LOL, the Democrats will not win the House Popular Vote by nearly 12 Points because the Country as a whole is just too polarized and the Districts are too gerrymandered. Anyone who thinks that this will happen has probably drunken too much alcohol in my book!

Gerrymandering actually has little to do with the popular vote result. The idea of gerrymandering is that you can mitigate actual seat losses despite losing the popular vote. So if a state is constantly voting for Democrats by, say, 5 points, just because Republicans gerrymander all the districts doesn't mean Democrats will no longer win by 5 points. It just means that they won't win as many districts with that 5 points as they used to.

I'm not really convinced Democrats would win >= 11 points either, fwiw. I used 1982 as an example where the "out party" won a relatively large House PV margin, held the House but failed to take back the Senate. Similar to today, minus the larger margin and the fact that Democrats still controlled the House prior to 1982.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

TBH, I can see the House looking like it did in 2007 (with Republicans being just over 200) and the Senate being 47-53 because Hawley and Berg won and all other incumbents won. The would be the same margin as 2011 was.

so, I think 3 dozen house seats and -2 is what will happen.
If Sinema and Rosen pull it off, we will have an Even Senate and probably a house similar to what we have now but backwards. That's about 45 seats.

2006 isn't really the best example. Democrats gained a slim majority in the Senate, which, coincidentally, is the most likely outcome for Democrats -if- they were able to win the Senate this cycle.

Better example might be like 1982 - huge House popular vote margin for Democrats but doesn't flip the Senate, despite coming really close in a handful of races.

2006 does seem like the best example, because even if the Dems LOSE two Senate seats this cycle, they will be winning the same total number of Senate seats (and in most cases, the exact same seats) as they won in 2006 (ignoring the special elections).

In the Senate, 2012 was a wave in favor of the Democrats of historic proportions, winning seats on top of the 2006 wave that few thought possible.  Suggesting that Democrats this year should only be happy if they somehow improve upon even that wave is silly.