2018 Congressional Generic Ballot and House Polls Megathread - Part 3

[GeorgiaModerate]

New NBC/WSJ national poll coming out Sunday morning.

[Person Man]

New NBC/WSJ national poll coming out Sunday morning.

Link?

[GeorgiaModerate]

New NBC/WSJ national poll coming out Sunday morning.

Link?

https://mobile.twitter.com/chucktodd

[IceSpear]

http://www.nydailynews.com/mc-nws-pa-7-muhlenberg-college-poll-nothstein-wild-silfies-20181017-story.html

PA-7 Muhlenberg: Wild (D) 48, Nothstein (R) 41

Seriously glad our nominee wasnt Morganelli.

Yeah, remember when some people were saying that it had to be Morganelli because Wild couldn't possibly be electable in a Clinton D+1 district?

That wasn’t the argument. The argument for Morganelli was that he could hold it down long-term better than anyone else could. We’ll see!

Morganelli would've made the race safe R the same way Charlie Baker and Phil Scott made their races safe D.

[TheRocketRaccoon]

GA-7 McLAUGHlin (Woodall internal): Woodall (R-inc) 59, Bourdeaux (D) 32

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-7th-why-rob-woodall-feeling-bullish-about-his-house-race/JWHi2rao2TdAvhmBPRg1QI/

[IceSpear]

GA-7 McLAUGHlin (Woodall internal): Woodall (R-inc) 59, Bourdeaux (D) 32

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-7th-why-rob-woodall-feeling-bullish-about-his-house-race/JWHi2rao2TdAvhmBPRg1QI/

Well, if you apply the standard D+20 like you should to all McLaughlin "polls", this looks like a lean/likely R race, as expected.

[GeorgiaModerate]

GA-7 McLAUGHlin (Woodall internal): Woodall (R-inc) 59, Bourdeaux (D) 32

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-7th-why-rob-woodall-feeling-bullish-about-his-house-race/JWHi2rao2TdAvhmBPRg1QI/

Well, if you apply the standard D+20 like you should to all McLaughlin "polls", this looks like a lean/likely R race, as expected.

Woodall may win, but he's not going to win by 27, or even 20.  I don't see how McLaughlin is still in business with their track record.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Woodall may win, but he's not going to win by 27, or even 20.  I don't see how McLaughlin is still in business with their track record.

There is a certain market for favorable internal polls. If what you are looking for is good news, as opposed to the actual news.

[GeorgiaModerate]

HarrisX for scottrasmussen.com, Oct. 14-19, 5000 RV including 3729 likely voters and 2991 "definite" voters (1-week change)

RV:

D: 44 (+2)
R: 36 (nc)

LV:

D: 48 (+1)
R: 40 (nc)

Definite voters:

D: 50 (nc)
R: 41 (+1)

[ON Progressive]

GA-7 McLAUGHlin (Woodall internal): Woodall (R-inc) 59, Bourdeaux (D) 32

https://politics.myajc.com/blog/politics/georgia-7th-why-rob-woodall-feeling-bullish-about-his-house-race/JWHi2rao2TdAvhmBPRg1QI/

Well, if you apply the standard D+20 like you should to all McLaughlin "polls", this looks like a lean/likely R race, as expected.

Woodall may win, but he's not going to win by 27, or even 20.  I don't see how McLaughlin is still in business with their track record.

There is no such thing as “too incompetent” in Washington DC.

[Person Man]

HarrisX for scottrasmussen.com, Oct. 14-19, 5000 RV including 3729 likely voters and 2991 "definite" voters (1-week change)

RV:

D: 44 (+2)
R: 36 (nc)

LV:

D: 48 (+1)
R: 40 (nc)

Definite voters:

D: 50 (nc)
R: 41 (+1)

So hopefully we are in burn down the clock mode in the house.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, given how absurd the early voting turnout has been in some states, and the predictions of the highest midterm turnout in ~50 years, if that is indeed the case, I could see Democrats over-performing their generic ballot numbers. Normally I'd be skeptical of that in a midterm due to the demographics of the Dem coalition, but high turnout absolutely makes that possible.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Honestly, given how absurd the early voting turnout has been in some states, and the predictions of the highest midterm turnout in ~50 years, if that is indeed the case, I could see Democrats over-performing their generic ballot numbers. Normally I'd be skeptical of that in a midterm due to the demographics of the Dem coalition, but high turnout absolutely makes that possible.

How does HIGH turnout benefit Democrats this cycle?! Democrats are clearly more enthused about the elections this year, and this means that if we have a low turnout election, it is because Republicans are not showing up. I want low turnout.

[Brittain33]

Honestly, given how absurd the early voting turnout has been in some states, and the predictions of the highest midterm turnout in ~50 years, if that is indeed the case, I could see Democrats over-performing their generic ballot numbers. Normally I'd be skeptical of that in a midterm due to the demographics of the Dem coalition, but high turnout absolutely makes that possible.

How does HIGH turnout benefit Democrats this cycle?! Democrats are clearly more enthused about the elections this year, and this means that if we have a low turnout election, it is because Republicans are not showing up. I want low turnout.

That was my thought as well—that a best case scenario is enthused Democrats and Independents voting Democrat, but depressed Republican turnout. High turnout to me means Republicans are showing up to support their guy.

[MT Treasurer]

I agree, the idea that low turnout automically benefits Republicans is a myth. Of course a higher turnout doesn’t necessarily indicate a good night for Republicans, but they’re more likely to have a better than expected night if turnout is closer to 2016 levels than 2014 in many places.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I agree, the idea that low turnout automically benefits Republicans is a myth. Of course a higher turnout doesn’t necessarily indicate a good night for Republicans, but they’re more likely to have a better than expected night if turnout is closer to 2016 levels than 2014 in many places.

[new_patomic]

To be fair wasn't turnout in 2014 the lowest in more than half a century?

There's a pretty wide range of turnout scenarios between 2014 and 2016.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1. Voter turnout is an inherent good regardless of how people vote.

2. Democrats still have a LOT of upside in turning out their core voters.

[Florida Man for Crime]

1. Voter turnout is an inherent good regardless of how people vote.

Sorry, but as one obvious example, turnout of Nazis in the 1933 German election was not an inherent good. Nor was turnout in the 2002 Iraqi Presidential election, as another example.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1053748514180816896

[Virginiá]

Honestly, given how absurd the early voting turnout has been in some states, and the predictions of the highest midterm turnout in ~50 years, if that is indeed the case, I could see Democrats over-performing their generic ballot numbers. Normally I'd be skeptical of that in a midterm due to the demographics of the Dem coalition, but high turnout absolutely makes that possible.

How does HIGH turnout benefit Democrats this cycle?! Democrats are clearly more enthused about the elections this year, and this means that if we have a low turnout election, it is because Republicans are not showing up. I want low turnout.

That was my thought as well—that a best case scenario is enthused Democrats and Independents voting Democrat, but depressed Republican turnout. High turnout to me means Republicans are showing up to support their guy.

I would think high turnout means more young people / POC are voting. Older and wealthier people pretty much vote in every election, and they are more Republican-leaning. The parts of society that fill in the gaps made between presidential -> midterm years are disproportionately Democratic.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Honestly, given how absurd the early voting turnout has been in some states, and the predictions of the highest midterm turnout in ~50 years, if that is indeed the case, I could see Democrats over-performing their generic ballot numbers. Normally I'd be skeptical of that in a midterm due to the demographics of the Dem coalition, but high turnout absolutely makes that possible.

How does HIGH turnout benefit Democrats this cycle?! Democrats are clearly more enthused about the elections this year, and this means that if we have a low turnout election, it is because Republicans are not showing up. I want low turnout.

That was my thought as well—that a best case scenario is enthused Democrats and Independents voting Democrat, but depressed Republican turnout. High turnout to me means Republicans are showing up to support their guy.

I would think high turnout means more young people / POC are voting. Older and wealthier people pretty much vote in every election, and they are more Republican-leaning. The parts of society that fill in the gaps made between presidential -> midterm years are disproportionately Democratic.

You are probably speaking from a skewed memory that remembers 2014 and 2010 in more detail because they were more recent, and therefore, putting more weight into what happened those years compared to other midterms.

[Person Man]

Honestly, given how absurd the early voting turnout has been in some states, and the predictions of the highest midterm turnout in ~50 years, if that is indeed the case, I could see Democrats over-performing their generic ballot numbers. Normally I'd be skeptical of that in a midterm due to the demographics of the Dem coalition, but high turnout absolutely makes that possible.

How does HIGH turnout benefit Democrats this cycle?! Democrats are clearly more enthused about the elections this year, and this means that if we have a low turnout election, it is because Republicans are not showing up. I want low turnout.

That was my thought as well—that a best case scenario is enthused Democrats and Independents voting Democrat, but depressed Republican turnout. High turnout to me means Republicans are showing up to support their guy.

I would think high turnout means more young people / POC are voting. Older and wealthier people pretty much vote in every election, and they are more Republican-leaning. The parts of society that fill in the gaps made between presidential -> midterm years are disproportionately Democratic.

You are probably speaking from a skewed memory that remembers 2014 and 2010 in more detail because they were more recent, and therefore, putting more weight into what happened those years compared to other midterms.

This pattern goes back to the 1990s. Democrats underperformed because the base forgets to vote.

[Virginiá]

You are probably speaking from a skewed memory that remembers 2014 and 2010 in more detail because they were more recent, and therefore, putting more weight into what happened those years compared to other midterms.

I dunno, I don't remember 2010. 2014 was the first election I seriously tuned into.

To what degree does turnout from each side influence the electorate? 2006 had a 3% Democratic plurality over Republicans. 2010 had them tied. 2014 had Republicans up 1. 2008 was a year where Democrats really blew Republicans out of the water with a 40-33 partisan split in the exit polls. It seems that independents are really making up the difference in midterm waves. The difference in turnout among the parties is not nothing but it doesn't explain all of it. My only question is whether indies are actually changing their minds or whether the actual composition of the independent electorate is changing between waves.

Overall, Democrats still have more to gain based on the demographics of who votes most often in midterms regardless of the national environment. Like, if you turned out every 65+ year old and every 18-29 year old, you'd probably end up with a rather substantial Democratic advantage due to the enormous number of 18-29 year olds that don't vote and because they are so overwhelmingly Democratic in their preferences. So I don't think really high turnout in this case hurts as much as if it was lower. I guess it could, but it doesn't have to be that way.

[Gustaf]

The shift among educated and non-educated white voters I suspect change these patterns a bit.

It's clear that low turnout doesn't really hurt Democrats this time around because of their higher enthusiasm and the shift of educated whites. If higher turnout is driven by disenchanted Republicans and no-college whites it'll benefit Republicans, while if it's driven by young people and POC it will benefit Democrats. It's not super clear to me which one of these is more likely to have happened given a high turnout scenario.