2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

It would be nice if it were somewhat higher than D+8. Hopefully we will get some other GCB live phone polls showing it higher. D+8 is too close for any real comfort.

No it isn’t. JC guys I get gerrymandering I’d bad but 8 is nowhere near the danger zone

It is well within the danger zone where with a little bit of polling error going the wrong way, Rs could hold the House.

Also, even with D+8, a number of Senate races have potential to break to the Rs. It would be better if that did not happen.

One good thing in this poll, however, is it seems like Trump approval is only 40%. That will probably influence undecideds to some degree.

It's 40% among adults, which is irrelevant. The RV numbers seem to be converging with the generic ballot number, which is unsurprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, then not good. It doesn't spell doom or anything, but it is not enough for any sort of comfort. I really hope we don't get stuck with this being the only GCB poll before the election, or I am going to spend the next few days doing nothing but worrying. If this is accurate and there are a few points of polling error the wrong direction, America could be F****d

[Yank2133]

I'm not sure if it's 8 or 7. ABC is reporting 8, Washington Post is saying 7.

It is D+8. WAPO is using the RV numbers which is D+7.

https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1202a2The2018Midterms.pdf

[Pericles]

lol, the WAPO is short-changing us by a point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They need their "Dems in disarray" headline.

It is amazing how biased towards Republicans the general media is. If it was R+8, they would be writing the political obituary for house Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. I am serious, switch the positions. No one would be talking about the 15-20% chance Democrats have at holding the house.

Uh-because R+8 would make the House Safe R. D+8 only makes the House Likely D, and a reasonable polling error-to say D+5 would mean the Republicans could still hold the House, and even in some of the higher single digit margins there would be a chance they get lucky on a race by race basis. D+8 itself is very likely enough for Dems to win a majority, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a GOP win, gerrymandering means that lead is less safe than it would be for the Republicans(as the Republicans would therefore be winning by a landslide in the tipping-point district,  while now Democrats have a narrow lead in the tipping-point district).

[Hindsight was 2020]

I’m sorry but the “Dems in disarray” stuff needs to die. At this point it’s more likely there is a polling error underestimating the Dems and the dam breaks over a polling error resulting in the R’s holding

[Yank2133]

lol, the WAPO is short-changing us by a point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They need their "Dems in disarray" headline.

It is amazing how biased towards Republicans the general media is. If it was R+8, they would be writing the political obituary for house Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. I am serious, switch the positions. No one would be talking about the 15-20% chance Democrats have at holding the house.

Uh-because R+8 would make the House Safe R. D+8 only makes the House Likely D, and a reasonable polling error-to say D+5 would mean the Republicans could still hold the House, and even in some of the higher single digit margins there would be a chance they get lucky on a race by race basis. D+8 itself is very likely enough for Dems to win a majority, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a GOP win, gerrymandering means that lead is less safe than it would be for the Republicans(as the Republicans would therefore be winning by a landslide in the tipping-point district,  while now Democrats have a narrow lead in the tipping-point district).

I know that. Yet the general media has barely talked about the chances of a polling error in the other direction. Democratic support has been underestimated by the polls since 2017 and yet no pundit talks about it.

[Gass3268]

Best number in this poll is D+5 in the battleground seats, given that's almost entirely on Republican turf.

Makes me think that a lot of the movement here is coming in the Solid R districts.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I’m sorry but the “Dems in disarray” stuff needs to die. At this point it’s more likely there is a polling error underestimating the Dems and the dam breaks over a polling error resulting in the R’s holding

Yes, polling error can go in either direction, but if Dems are only ahead by 7-8, the impact of a polling error is asymmetrical depending on which way it goes. A polling error in the R direction means Rs could continue to have a trifecta and Trump be totally unchecked (what is worse, he would probably feel emboldened). Whereas a polling error in the D direction would just mean that Dems win a bit bigger of a majority in the House - which would be nice, but doesn't really matter for passing legislation since no legislation will be passed anyway, and the main benefit of holding the House is simply denying Trump an R trifecta and having subpoena power.

[Ebsy]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I know that. Yet the general media has barely talked about the chances of a polling error in the other direction. Democratic support has been underestimated by the polls since 2017 and yet no pundit talks about it.

Pollsters adjust their LV models in response to previous errors, including 2017 errors. For example, the NYT/Siena turnout model is explicitly based in part on VA-Gov 2017 and special elections which had underestimated Dems.

[IceSpear]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

[libertpaulian]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

I don't think many people thought 2012 would be a wave year for the out-party.

[KingSweden]

Wasn’t their last August poll during Cohenfort?

Wish they polled more often

[Yank2133]

Some of these swings in demographics are wild.

Non whites certain to vote is +26 from 2014. The 18-39 bracket is +25 from 2014.

[UncleSam]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

I don't think many people thought 2012 would be a wave year for the out-party.

No but Dems did better than the polls suggested.

The point is that polls breaking one way or the other is pretty random. It doesn’t have much to do with who is in power. I do wonder whether there might be a correlation with enthusiasm though? Not sure of the history on that.

Either way, I wouldn’t assume to know which way the error will go this year. No one knows at this point.

[Ebsy]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

Not really what happened in 2006 or 2010, just looking at an RCP average does not really tell a complete story.

[Gass3268]

Wasn’t their last August poll during Cohenfort?

Wish they polled more often

They did one in October.

[IceSpear]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

Not really what happened in 2006 or 2010, just looking at an RCP average does not really tell a complete story.

How would you measure it then? We're discussing the generic ballot here, so it only makes sense to compare previous generic ballot averages to the end results.

[Ebsy]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

Not really what happened in 2006 or 2010, just looking at an RCP average does not really tell a complete story.

How would you measure it then? We're discussing the generic ballot here, so it only makes sense to compare previous generic ballot averages to the end results.

in 2010 for example you had a lot fewer generic ballot polls, and Rasmusssem (lol) and Gallup were showing consistently high numbers for the GOP while almost everyone else had more realistic numbers (around 6 points) that ended up close to the real result. Not sure I would call that systemic polling error.

[IceSpear]

Polling error towards the party in power seems like a remote possibility.

It happened in 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I wouldn't call that remote.

Not really what happened in 2006 or 2010, just looking at an RCP average does not really tell a complete story.

How would you measure it then? We're discussing the generic ballot here, so it only makes sense to compare previous generic ballot averages to the end results.

in 2010 for example you had a lot fewer generic ballot polls, and Rasmusssem (lol) and Gallup were showing consistently high numbers for the GOP while almost everyone else had more realistic numbers (around 6 points) that ended up close to the real result. Not sure I would call that systemic polling error.

That's true. I do think people are also underrating the possibility that there isn't a massive error in either direction. But I can understand why considering that hasn't happened in a while.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That WaPo poll was D+13 in October. That is worrying.

[Gass3268]

That WaPo poll was D+13 in October. That is worrying.

Reading into it, basically they've solidified rural voters. Democrats have a 5 point lead in the overwhelmingly Republican battleground seats.

[IceSpear]

That WaPo poll was D+13 in October. That is worrying.

Reading into it, basically they've solidified rural voters.

Who could've seen that one coming?

[CookieDamage]

Polls have been ranging from D+8 to D+14 all year and y'all are worried that the lowest we've recently had is still above D+7.

[Person Man]

In 2006, it was at D+6 as their final answer. Before that, it was D+13 in 2006.

[Tender Branson]

Des Moines Register / Selzer poll for IA congressional districts (GCB):

Iowa (statewide): D+6

IA-01 (Blum-R): D+7

IA-02 (Loebsack-D): D+12

IA-03 (Young-R): D+9

IA-04 (King-R): R+4

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2018/11/03/iowa-poll-suggests-closer-contest-steve-king-2018-jd-scholten-midterms-election-chances-vote-said/1872299002