2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Dr. Arch]

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1139388687047749632

Wait until people remember the tax cut, that will goose the R's numbers.

So far, the 2020 electorate's mood is about the same as it was in 2017 heading into 2018. If this holds, Republicans are in considerable trouble.

[smoltchanov]

do we have a consensus on how much Ds will need to win the house PV by to keep control of the lower chamber?

My guess: +7 will, probably, be enough...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, the GOP are in danger of losing the Senate as well, no matter how good that poll came out on Ernst, in this environment,  Collins, Ernst are vulnerable as well.

[politicallefty]

Looking at past midterms in relation to the next presidential election, I think Democrats need about a 3% win nationally to retain the majority. After a midterm (particularly a wave) election, even when the House popular vote margin massively contracts or even votes for the minority party, it doesn't tend to shift the size of the majority by much. If I had to guess, it's a result of the new majority winning a lot of low-hanging fruit that the other party doesn't seriously contest in the next election (i.e. the presidential year). For example (bold for the majority party, italics for minority in the next House):

1972: D+5.6% (R+12)
1974: D+16.8% (D+49)
1976: D+13.6% (D+1)

1980: D+2.6% (R+34)
1982: D+11.8% (D+26)
1984: D+5.1% (R+16)

1992: D+5.0% (R+9)
1994: R+6.8% (R+54)
1996: D+0.0% (D+2)

2004: R+2.6% (R+3)
2006: D+8.0% (D+31)
2008: D+10.6% (D+21)

2010: R+6.8% (R+63)
2012: D+1.2% (D+8)

2014: R+5.7% (R+13)
2016: R+1.1% (D+6)

2018: D+8.6% (D+41)
2020: ??

I probably could've shortened this just by saying that gains tend to be very limited in presidential years, apart from landslides. Even then, they mostly pale compared to midterm waves. If it weren't for the horrendously gerrymandered maps of some states, I think it'd be possible for the Democratic Majority to survive even a loss of the popular vote.

[Nyvin]

do we have a consensus on how much Ds will need to win the house PV by to keep control of the lower chamber?

My guess: +7 will, probably, be enough...

I doubt it'd need to be that high, not all of the districts are going to follow the national vote the same way.   As example I fully expect suburban districts like CO-6, IL-6, CA-49, VA-10, and MN-3 are all probably gone for the GOP forever regardless of national trends.   

[smoltchanov]

do we have a consensus on how much Ds will need to win the house PV by to keep control of the lower chamber?

My guess: +7 will, probably, be enough...

I doubt it'd need to be that high, not all of the districts are going to follow the national vote the same way.   As example I fully expect suburban districts like CO-6, IL-6, CA-49, VA-10, and MN-3 are all probably gone for the GOP forever regardless of national trends.   

May be. We will see in 16,5 month...

[Pollster]

How can someone be a progressive, and a lobbyist?

Many progressive organizations (Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, labor unions) hire lobbyists and/or retain lobbying firms for the same reasons that oil companies, the NRA, and pharma do. Less attention is paid to this, though, because progressive organizations tend to spend significantly more on grassroots organizing and elections than on legislative lobbying.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

do we have a consensus on how much Ds will need to win the house PV by to keep control of the lower chamber?

My guess: +7 will, probably, be enough...

WHAT? F*** no.

The GOP won the PV for the House in 2016 by a point and they still lost 6 seats.

[Pericles]

Dems won the tipping-point seat in 2018 by 4.26% (MN-07), so Dems needed a popular vote win of just over 4 points to get the majority in 2018. Given that in swing seats Democrats will now have the incumbency advantage instead of running against strong Republican incumbents, they likely won't need to win by as much as 4 points. Given the gerrymandered maps I think a popular vote of 2 or 3 points will be necessary. However, 2008 is an interesting example as in 2006 Democrats needed a popular vote win of 3% to flip the House, then in 2008 they actually had an advantage and could lose the popular vote and still win the majority (though this is based on a uniform swing from them winning a big landslide).

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Dems won the tipping-point seat in 2018 by 4.26% (MN-07), so Dems needed a popular vote win of just over 4 points to get the majority in 2018. Given that in swing seats Democrats will now have the incumbency advantage instead of running against strong Republican incumbents, they likely won't need to win by as much as 4 points. Given the gerrymandered maps I think a popular vote of 2 or 3 points will be necessary. However, 2008 is an interesting example as in 2006 Democrats needed a popular vote win of 3% to flip the House, then in 2008 they actually had an advantage and could lose the popular vote and still win the majority (though this is based on a uniform swing from them winning a big landslide).

I think Democrats would have even gained a seat in a tied National Popular Vote for the US House in 2008.

[Gracile]

Former Rep. Darrell Issa (R) is possibly considering a run in CA-50 if Hunter (R) resigns or decides not to seek reelection:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/449625-issa-eyes-return-to-congress

[Oryxslayer]

Former Rep. Darrell Issa (R) is possibly considering a run in CA-50 if Hunter (R) resigns or decides not to seek reelection:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/449625-issa-eyes-return-to-congress

This was rumored as well in 2018 and in 2017 when he was looking at retirement, I think its obvious he will throw his hat into the ring. The rumors are being kept alive precisely because he wants to clear the field, with perhaps only one other significant republican on the blanket primary ticket with him.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The Democrats have a 9-point lead in enthusiasm for 2020 according to the new AP poll.

79-70%

[Politician]

RRH with updates Senate ratings: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2019/06/29/rrh-elections-june-2019-senate-rankings/

[smoltchanov]

RRH with updates Senate ratings: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2019/06/29/rrh-elections-june-2019-senate-rankings/

Too early, but i wouldn't say they are very much "off-mark". May be - somewhat too optimistic about Republican chances in New Mexico, and (may be) Montana, but generally - my own list of competitive Senate elections is similar.

[Gracile]

RRH with updates Senate ratings: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2019/06/29/rrh-elections-june-2019-senate-rankings/

They are way too bullish about Colorado.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

RRH with updates Senate ratings: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2019/06/29/rrh-elections-june-2019-senate-rankings/

They are way too bullish about Colorado.

Not if you factor in the incumbency strength of moderate image TM Cory Gardner. His centrist hero powers will gain hundreds of thousands of never Trump soccer moms in Adams, Arapahoe, and Jefferson counties. In fact he will be so strong that his coattails will allow the flip of baby blue NM and the survival of McSally by 17 points.

[smoltchanov]

RRH with updates Senate ratings: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2019/06/29/rrh-elections-june-2019-senate-rankings/

They are way too bullish about Colorado.

May be this too..

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

RRH with updates Senate ratings: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2019/06/29/rrh-elections-june-2019-senate-rankings/

They're surprisingly not bad, with the exception of Colorado. I expected them to rate Michigan as a tossup and Alabama as likely R.

New Mexico should be Safe D. The Republicans don't have a bench and it would take a massive scandal to derail BRL.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1144970113503944704

[MarkD]

For the recent posters who think that Colorado is being called wrongly, they are only saying that the race is a toss-up, which is the same rating given by Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato (according to Wikipedia).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Still Likely R, but at least its better that Dems have a candidate than not, and looks better than dispatching Collins or Ernst

[InheritTheWind]

For the recent posters who think that Colorado is being called wrongly, they are only saying that the race is a toss-up, which is the same rating given by Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato (according to Wikipedia).

I mean, I can think all of them are wrong too, no?

[Gracile]

For the recent posters who think that Colorado is being called wrongly, they are only saying that the race is a toss-up, which is the same rating given by Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato (according to Wikipedia).

To be fair, I think even the pundits are underselling Gardner's vulnerability. He's certainly not Doug Jones-level gone, but I think it is fair to say that a Republican senator running for re-election in a D-trending Clinton state during a presidential year is the underdog. It's laughable that so many prognosticators seriously think Gardner is a force to be reckoned with because of his 2014 win when in reality it was a fluke. A poorly run Democratic campaign + heavily Republican year nationwide + low turnout together creates a narrow, perfect storm win. Two of those three elements are flat-out not going to happen in 2020 (heavy R year + low turnout), and it's debatable how much his opponent's strength (a very subjective quality) will matter when the fundamentals of the state are too difficult to overcome.

I say this race starts off as Lean D.

[wesmoorenerd]

State Auditor Eugene DePasquale is officially IN for PA-10

Arguably the best House recruit of the cycle for the Dems so far. Onto the endorsement signature he goes!