2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Ebsy]

I'm genuinely asking this:

What is the GCB lead that the Dems need to give them a House majority?

If I recall correctly, the threshold is 7%, isn't it? Because if so, that's exactly where the RCP Average is at....

Look above, Nate Silver has it at 5.7%. It’s dropped from the original 7 due to a number of factors.

Am I missing something? Nate has it at 8.1%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

Not the polling margin, but what Democrats need to win by.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm genuinely asking this:

What is the GCB lead that the Dems need to give them a House majority?

If I recall correctly, the threshold is 7%, isn't it? Because if so, that's exactly where the RCP Average is at....

Look above, Nate Silver has it at 5.7%. It’s dropped from the original 7 due to a number of factors.

Am I missing something? Nate has it at 8.1%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

5.7 required to flip, 8.1 is the current gap.

[Person Man]

I'm genuinely asking this:

What is the GCB lead that the Dems need to give them a House majority?

If I recall correctly, the threshold is 7%, isn't it? Because if so, that's exactly where the RCP Average is at....

Look above, Nate Silver has it at 5.7%. It’s dropped from the original 7 due to a number of factors.

Am I missing something? Nate has it at 8.1%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

Yeah. Down from 8.5%. Maybe it could get to 7.6 or 7.7% because these type of polls appear to tighten in the last hours of the campaign.

The classic projection has it at 8.8%. That's a padding of 3.1%. About the margin of error.

[Aurelio21]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You act like Republicans are operating in good faith here. Democrats already offered the Trump administration funds for more border security and Trump said no.

No, I do not think a moment that there is good faith in this publicity stunt. The "caravan" is a mere symbol, and must be fought on this level.

They offered this to him. But not the public/publicly enough. OK, this is not trivial, yet none of them has tried to overplay him. Instead the media / the Dems seemingly say the "caravan" does not exist. How can you convince the average retiree in the gated community that Mr Trump is fearmongering, as the sublimated fears of degradation become real via the totem "caravan"?

I know that this is a publicity stunt for deflecting the failed policies like the tax rise for the middle class(Real estate cost not-deductible anymore).
If only the local candidates and DNC would have a unified strategy by offering a better more dominant solution.
Instead, e g Team Beto falls for the bastard moves of a "Project Veritas" (sic) and let this phony O'Keefe steal them the right way and narrative of him (better Border Patrol and humanitarian solution) by misleading editing / slander video taping.

Back to the main question: 5.7 is the breaking point, as posted while I have been writing this. Yet there is no hope lost, if enough people out-pray Michael Pence, there will be sunshine on the east coast ;-)

[Pollster]

The D+7 conventional wisdom also does not take into account the strength of candidates recruited in districts like KY-6, WV-3, ME-2, NM-2, WA-3, KS-2, etc.

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

The D+7 conventional wisdom also does not take into account the strength of candidates recruited in districts like KY-6, WV-3, ME-2, NM-2, WA-3, KS-2, etc.

Or the strength of Republican INCUMBENTS in districts like NY-24, NY-21, CA-21, TX-23, etc.

[DataGuy]

The RCP generic ballot average is D+7.0, but remember that in past congressional elections, the party currently controlling the House has a tendency to be underestimated. That has held true in 7 of 8 congressional elections since 2002 and in 4 of 4 midterms since then.

The average underestimation has been 2.1%, so if the Democrats are standing at +7.0 in the polling average and they need +5.7 to take the House, it's possible this could end up being much closer than anyone thought. Even in quintessential wave years like 2006 and 2010 that featured massive enthusiasm gaps, the polls generally overestimated the wave. This year, the polls are closer and the enthusiasm gap is much smaller.

[Devout Centrist]

The RCP generic ballot average is D+7.0, but remember that in past congressional elections, the party currently controlling the House has a tendency to be underestimated. That has held true in 7 of 8 congressional elections since 2002 and in 4 of 4 midterms since then.

The average underestimation has been 2.1%, so if the Democrats are standing at +7.0 in the polling average and they need +5.7 to take the House, it's possible this could end up being much closer than anyone thought. Even in quintessential wave years like 2006 and 2010 that featured massive enthusiasm gaps, the polls generally overestimated the wave. This year, the polls are closer and the enthusiasm gap is much smaller.

As I pointed out in your other thread, this is reductive and misleading. The margin among competitive districts is far more predictive of House control rather than the final popular vote. Indeed, Democrats could win the House popular vote by 10...but that doesn't matter if it's only driven by high turnout in safely Democratic districts.

[Hydera]

The RCP generic ballot average is D+7.0, but remember that in past congressional elections, the party currently controlling the House has a tendency to be underestimated. That has held true in 7 of 8 congressional elections since 2002 and in 4 of 4 midterms since then.

The average underestimation has been 2.1%, so if the Democrats are standing at +7.0 in the polling average and they need +5.7 to take the House, it's possible this could end up being much closer than anyone thought. Even in quintessential wave years like 2006 and 2010 that featured massive enthusiasm gaps, the polls generally overestimated the wave. This year, the polls are closer and the enthusiasm gap is much smaller.

Regardless if the democrats win the PV yet republicans still win more seats i hope republicans if they get smug or not, think about unfair a country has became south africa-ized in its political system where a dominant minority controls politics.

[DataGuy]

The RCP generic ballot average is D+7.0, but remember that in past congressional elections, the party currently controlling the House has a tendency to be underestimated. That has held true in 7 of 8 congressional elections since 2002 and in 4 of 4 midterms since then.

The average underestimation has been 2.1%, so if the Democrats are standing at +7.0 in the polling average and they need +5.7 to take the House, it's possible this could end up being much closer than anyone thought. Even in quintessential wave years like 2006 and 2010 that featured massive enthusiasm gaps, the polls generally overestimated the wave. This year, the polls are closer and the enthusiasm gap is much smaller.

As I pointed out in your other thread, this is reductive and misleading. The margin among competitive districts is far more predictive of House control rather than the final popular vote. Indeed, Democrats could win the House popular vote by 10...but that doesn't matter if it's only driven by high turnout in safely Democratic districts.

So, what's your point? If you're worried that Democrats could still lose the House despite winning the popular vote by 10, you should be even more worried if they're standing at only +7 combined with the history of waves being overestimated. In fact, I agree with you that their popular vote margin may not be as meaningful as it appears, since many Democrats are running unopposed and that artificially inflates their vote counts.

But it's really not that hard. Respected data models show that Democrats need to win the overall NPV by 5-7 points to take the House, and those models factor in the artificial effects of unopposed incumbents. Right now, it's probably hovering right in that 5-7 point area. There's nothing misleading about it. And history shows quite simply that the incumbent House parties usually don't lose the NPV quite as badly as the polls said they would. All I'm saying is that it could be close.

For one, the narrow enthusiasm gap this year is certainly not typical of past wave years.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos/Reuters weekly, week ending Nov. 4, 408 LV

D: 50 (+1)
R: 40 (-3)

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?

They offered it during the DACA debate. It was fairly well reported. Democrats are always going to lose the immigration debate with Trump's base. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants then any previous administration and yet look what they still say about him?

[Person Man]

The RCP generic ballot average is D+7.0, but remember that in past congressional elections, the party currently controlling the House has a tendency to be underestimated. That has held true in 7 of 8 congressional elections since 2002 and in 4 of 4 midterms since then.

The average underestimation has been 2.1%, so if the Democrats are standing at +7.0 in the polling average and they need +5.7 to take the House, it's possible this could end up being much closer than anyone thought. Even in quintessential wave years like 2006 and 2010 that featured massive enthusiasm gaps, the polls generally overestimated the wave. This year, the polls are closer and the enthusiasm gap is much smaller.

As I pointed out in your other thread, this is reductive and misleading. The margin among competitive districts is far more predictive of House control rather than the final popular vote. Indeed, Democrats could win the House popular vote by 10...but that doesn't matter if it's only driven by high turnout in safely Democratic districts.

So, what's your point? If you're worried that Democrats could still lose the House despite winning the popular vote by 10, you should be even more worried if they're standing at only +7 combined with the history of waves being overestimated. In fact, I agree with you that their popular vote margin may not be as meaningful as it appears, since many Democrats are running unopposed and that artificially inflates their vote counts.

But it's really not that hard. Respected data models show that Democrats need to win the overall NPV by 5-7 points to take the House, and those models factor in the artificial effects of unopposed incumbents. Right now, it's probably hovering right in that 5-7 point area. There's nothing misleading about it. And history shows quite simply that the incumbent House parties usually don't lose the NPV quite as badly as the polls said they would. All I'm saying is that it could be close.

For one, the narrow enthusiasm gap this year is certainly not typical of past wave years.

The last midterm went the other way. You're 2 for 4 when it comes to the performance of the leader and 3 for 4 when it comes to the power of incumbency.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ipsos/Reuters weekly, week ending Nov. 4, 408 LV

D: 50 (+1)
R: 40 (-3)

Red wave imminent.

[libertpaulian]

Ipsos/Reuters weekly, week ending Nov. 4, 408 LV

D: 50 (+1)
R: 40 (-3)

This is the pollster that's been typically bearish on Democrats this year, right?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos/Reuters weekly, week ending Nov. 4, 408 LV

D: 50 (+1)
R: 40 (-3)

This is the pollster that's been typically bearish on Democrats this year, right?

Perhaps somewhat bearish, but on the whole they've been really bouncy. 

[Adam Griffin]

Ipsos/Reuters is like one of the worst pollsters, so don't get too excited.

[Gass3268]

Ipsos/Reuters is like one of the worst pollsters, so don't get too excited.

Agreed, but remember when they had it R+1 over the summer and every paper and news organization ran with it?

[DataGuy]

The RCP generic ballot average is D+7.0, but remember that in past congressional elections, the party currently controlling the House has a tendency to be underestimated. That has held true in 7 of 8 congressional elections since 2002 and in 4 of 4 midterms since then.

The average underestimation has been 2.1%, so if the Democrats are standing at +7.0 in the polling average and they need +5.7 to take the House, it's possible this could end up being much closer than anyone thought. Even in quintessential wave years like 2006 and 2010 that featured massive enthusiasm gaps, the polls generally overestimated the wave. This year, the polls are closer and the enthusiasm gap is much smaller.

As I pointed out in your other thread, this is reductive and misleading. The margin among competitive districts is far more predictive of House control rather than the final popular vote. Indeed, Democrats could win the House popular vote by 10...but that doesn't matter if it's only driven by high turnout in safely Democratic districts.

So, what's your point? If you're worried that Democrats could still lose the House despite winning the popular vote by 10, you should be even more worried if they're standing at only +7 combined with the history of waves being overestimated. In fact, I agree with you that their popular vote margin may not be as meaningful as it appears, since many Democrats are running unopposed and that artificially inflates their vote counts.

But it's really not that hard. Respected data models show that Democrats need to win the overall NPV by 5-7 points to take the House, and those models factor in the artificial effects of unopposed incumbents. Right now, it's probably hovering right in that 5-7 point area. There's nothing misleading about it. And history shows quite simply that the incumbent House parties usually don't lose the NPV quite as badly as the polls said they would. All I'm saying is that it could be close.

For one, the narrow enthusiasm gap this year is certainly not typical of past wave years.

The last midterm went the other way. You're 2 for 4 when it comes to the performance of the leader and 3 for 4 when it comes to the power of incumbency.

I define the "incumbent party" as the party that controls the House on Election Day. In examining the history of the GCB compared to the final results, using that definition of incumbency results in a very clear correlation of overperformance compared to defining "incumbency" as controlling the White House. Everyone thinks of midterms as being about the White House, but in reality whoever controls the House of Representatives has a much stronger connection with GCB overperformance than who controls the White House.

That pattern has held in 100% of the last 4 midterm election (and 7 of the 8 most recent congressional elections overall, the only exception being 2012), which is as far back as I can find RCP generic ballot data. Here are the facts on the 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 midterms.

In 2002, Republicans controlled the House on Election Day. The RCP average was R+1.7, but the final margin was R+4.8. The Republicans, the incumbent House party, overperformed the GCB by 3.1%

In 2006, Republicans controlled the House on Election Day. The RCP average was D+11.5, but the final margin was D+8.0. The Republicans, the incumbent House party, overperformed the GCB by 3.5%

In 2010, Democrats controlled the House on Election Day. The RCP average was R+9.4, but the final margin was R+6.8. The Democrats, the incumbent House party, overperformed the GCB by 2.6%.

In 2014, Republicans controlled the House on Election Day. The RCP average was R+2.4, but the final margin was R+5.7. The Republicans, the incumbent House party, overperformed the GCP by 3.3%.

The past doesn't always predict the future, but there is a clear pattern here and I will be anxious to see if it holds up on Tuesday.

[new_patomic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuuny how in the Hofiod world “average Americans” are reactionary bigots like him

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Someone explain to me why people have been begging for high quality polling for weeks, only to whine and unskew when such quality polling confirms that the House isn't happening for Ds.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Ipsos/Reuters weekly, week ending Nov. 4, 408 LV

D: 50 (+1)
R: 40 (-3)

This is the pollster that's been typically bearish on Democrats this year, right?

Perhaps somewhat bearish, but on the whole they've been really bouncy. 

Wow, it's almost like all of the movement in the polls is just noise and these are all going to cancel each other out.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Fuuny how in the Hofiod world “average Americans” are reactionary bigots like him

Hofoid is the only user I have ever muted on this forum, and my experience here has been so much better for it.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Ipsos/Reuters weekly, week ending Nov. 4, 408 LV

D: 50 (+1)
R: 40 (-3)

This is the pollster that's been typically bearish on Democrats this year, right?

Perhaps somewhat bearish, but on the whole they've been really bouncy. 

Wow, it's almost like all of the movement in the polls is just noise and these are all going to cancel each other out.

Ipsos is a low quality pollster, I recently learned. It's not gonna balance out NBC nor will it balance out ABC.