2020 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread v2

[Oryxslayer]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/30/1941431/-Even-if-Republicans-run-the-table-that-won-t-be-enough-to-take-back-the-House-our-new-ratings-show

Daily Kos came out with House ratings. For the most part, they actually seem pretty reasonable, though I might move IA-01, CA-21 and CA-48 (especially if they include FL-26, NJ-07 and TX-07) to tossup.

Would also move TX 24 to tossup, its a carbon copy of GA 7th(+23 Romney to +6.5 Trump and solid margins in 2018 statewide races)

The primary matters there IMO, though even with Valenzuela it's still a toss-up (would be far more of a problem if she was a Berniecrat rather than a Warrencrat)

Valenzuela is a pretty compelling candidate in her own right and she has some pretty big endorsements behind her in addition to Warren (namely EMILY's List), so I wouldn't underestimate her. That said, this district should be one of the easier Texas districts to flip based not only on its 2016 trend but because Beto O'Rourke won it and several other statewide Democrats won or came close to winning it.

The problem here isn't the candidates - they are both good recruits in different ways. The problem is that the primary is getting heated in a way that may carry over to the general.

[Gracile]

Apparently the DCCC of MI-03 has an internal poll where Generic D is ahead of Generic R by 2 points:

https://twitter.com/kirk_bado/status/1255676773511168002

[Gracile]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/30/1941431/-Even-if-Republicans-run-the-table-that-won-t-be-enough-to-take-back-the-House-our-new-ratings-show

Daily Kos came out with House ratings. For the most part, they actually seem pretty reasonable, though I might move IA-01, CA-21 and CA-48 (especially if they include FL-26, NJ-07 and TX-07) to tossup.

Would also move TX 24 to tossup, its a carbon copy of GA 7th(+23 Romney to +6.5 Trump and solid margins in 2018 statewide races)

The primary matters there IMO, though even with Valenzuela it's still a toss-up (would be far more of a problem if she was a Berniecrat rather than a Warrencrat)

Valenzuela is a pretty compelling candidate in her own right and she has some pretty big endorsements behind her in addition to Warren (namely EMILY's List), so I wouldn't underestimate her. That said, this district should be one of the easier Texas districts to flip based not only on its 2016 trend but because Beto O'Rourke won it and several other statewide Democrats won or came close to winning it.

The problem here isn't the candidates - they are both good recruits in different ways. The problem is that the primary is getting heated in a way that may carry over to the general.

This kind of stuff is really overblown. TX-07 had a relatively heated primary/run-off in 2018 and clearly it didn't make a difference as far as picking up the seat. Really there have been tons of primaries where two opponents haven't seen eye-to-eye/attacked each other and it doesn't make much of a difference.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1255264363654656000?s=20

Interesting that AL/GA/TX/ are not on the list.

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

AZ, CO, GA, KS, ME, MT, NC and SC,are obviously targeted since Harrison looks like Tim Scott

[Virginiá]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

To be fair, we would need more like 61 - 63 to pass anything major. First the filibuster-proof majority, and then up to a extra votes to deal with R-state Democrats who are afraid of voting on anything major.

But it's all moot anyway. Biden is an institutionalist and so he's not going to support Senate Democrats changing the filibuster rules. I'd be very surprised if he did push for that, because let's be honest, this is a guy who is still talking about somehow cutting deals with Mitch McConnell and about how he'll consider everyone for his cabinet, including Republicans.

Until the party moves on from people like that, nothing major is going to change. After all, Biden said it himself.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

Republicans are also spending big in Iowa so there must be something both parties see there.

[Beet]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

To be fair, we would need more like 61 - 63 to pass anything major. First the filibuster-proof majority, and then up to a extra votes to deal with R-state Democrats who are afraid of voting on anything major.

But it's all moot anyway. Biden is an institutionalist and so he's not going to support Senate Democrats changing the filibuster rules. I'd be very surprised if he did push for that, because let's be honest, this is a guy who is still talking about somehow cutting deals with Mitch McConnell and about how he'll consider everyone for his cabinet, including Republicans.

Until the party moves on from people like that, nothing major is going to change. After all, Biden said it himself.

Indeed. We are not in an era where major change is going to be effected by legislation, at least by one Party. The ACA was a fluke. In the future, partisan policy change will happen via executive action that is ratified by friendly courts. Congress increasingly becomes irrelevant. The point of getting 51 seats in the Senate is so you can push through (or block) court nominations. Ditching the filibuster might make things a bit easier, but not much. One party would still need to control the federal trifecta and herd its Senators.

Now, this is a bad development. The centralization of policymaking in the executive pushes the U.S. closer to the dictatorial model of government, Article 48 Weimar style. But it is inevitable, as the only alternative is policy paralysis and the latter is not going to hold.

Damn the founders for being so conservative. The only other alternative is bipartisanship.

[Politician]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

You meant to say shouldn't, right?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1255264363654656000?s=20

Interesting that AL/GA/TX/ are not on the list.

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

Honestly, we have a better chance of flipping IA than GA-S or TX this Senate cycle.  I also wonder if there has been some internal polling showing that Reynolds' disastrous handling of COVID-19 has done some real damage the Republican brand in Iowa.  

Plus, Ernst has always been a paper tiger coasting on state trends.  She only got elected in the first place because of a combination of Bernard Belushi's incompetence and the fact that 2014 was a major Republican wave year.  She's the sort of incumbent who could easily get swept out in a wave if she's caught asleep at the wheel and despite the IA-3 thing, Greenfield has been doing respectably for a wave insurance candidate.  Even if the election had been held in 2016 (a fairly Republican year in its own right, but nothing like 2010 or 2014), I think there'd be like a 45% chance Ernst would lose assuming Democrats ran a stronger candidate than Benjamin Button.

That all being said, I'd rather see the money spent in Montana, North Carolina, and especially Maine.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1255264363654656000?s=20

Interesting that AL/GA/TX/ are not on the list.

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

Honestly, we have a better chance of flipping IA than GA-S or TX this Senate cycle.  I also wonder if there has been some internal polling showing that Reynolds' disastrous handling of COVID-19 has done some real damage the Republican brand in Iowa.  

Plus, Ernst has always been a paper tiger coasting on state trends.  She only got elected in the first place because of a combination of Bernard Belushi's incompetence and the fact that 2014 was a major Republican wave year.  She's the sort of incumbent who could easily get swept out in a wave if she's caught asleep at the wheel and despite the IA-3 thing, Greenfield has been doing respectably for a wave insurance candidate.  Even if the election had been held in 2016 (a fairly Republican year in its own right, but nothing like 2010 or 2014), I think there'd be like a 45% chance Ernst would lose assuming Democrats ran a stronger candidate than Benjamin Button.

That all being said, I'd rather see the money spent in Montana, North Carolina, and especially Maine.

I don’t know where people get off thinking Iowa is still more likely to flip than Georgia after all the evidence we have to the contrary

[Xing]

I don’t have a problem with Democrats spending a bit in IA as wave insurance, but it shouldn’t be instead of GA/GA-S, especially given the way GA has been trending.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1255264363654656000?s=20

Interesting that AL/GA/TX/ are not on the list.

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

Honestly, we have a better chance of flipping IA than GA-S or TX this Senate cycle.  I also wonder if there has been some internal polling showing that Reynolds' disastrous handling of COVID-19 has done some real damage the Republican brand in Iowa.  

Plus, Ernst has always been a paper tiger coasting on state trends.  She only got elected in the first place because of a combination of Bernard Belushi's incompetence and the fact that 2014 was a major Republican wave year.  She's the sort of incumbent who could easily get swept out in a wave if she's caught asleep at the wheel and despite the IA-3 thing, Greenfield has been doing respectably for a wave insurance candidate.  Even if the election had been held in 2016 (a fairly Republican year in its own right, but nothing like 2010 or 2014), I think there'd be like a 45% chance Ernst would lose assuming Democrats ran a stronger candidate than Benjamin Button.

That all being said, I'd rather see the money spent in Montana, North Carolina, and especially Maine.

I don’t know where people get off thinking Iowa is still more likely to flip than Georgia after all the evidence we have to the contrary

Our leading candidate in the GA special is a random some dude pastor from Savannah who ran over his wife’s foot with his car during an argument.  The race will also likely end up in a December run-off.  Iowa is a long-shot, but not impossible.  Warnock may well come far closer than Greenfield - or not - but he has a much harder ceiling than she does.

I don’t have a problem with Democrats spending a bit in IA as wave insurance, but it shouldn’t be instead of GA/GA-S, especially given the way GA has been trending.

I agree about spending against Perdue, but spending on the GA special is just flushing money down the drain.

[Orser67]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

To be fair, we would need more like 61 - 63 to pass anything major. First the filibuster-proof majority, and then up to a extra votes to deal with R-state Democrats who are afraid of voting on anything major.

But it's all moot anyway. Biden is an institutionalist and so he's not going to support Senate Democrats changing the filibuster rules. I'd be very surprised if he did push for that, because let's be honest, this is a guy who is still talking about somehow cutting deals with Mitch McConnell and about how he'll consider everyone for his cabinet, including Republicans.

Until the party moves on from people like that, nothing major is going to change. After all, Biden said it himself.

Indeed. We are not in an era where major change is going to be effected by legislation, at least by one Party. The ACA was a fluke. In the future, partisan policy change will happen via executive action that is ratified by friendly courts. Congress increasingly becomes irrelevant. The point of getting 51 seats in the Senate is so you can push through (or block) court nominations. Ditching the filibuster might make things a bit easier, but not much. One party would still need to control the federal trifecta and herd its Senators.

Now, this is a bad development. The centralization of policymaking in the executive pushes the U.S. closer to the dictatorial model of government, Article 48 Weimar style. But it is inevitable, as the only alternative is policy paralysis and the latter is not going to hold.

Damn the founders for being so conservative. The only other alternative is bipartisanship.

The amount of pessimism on the Democratic side is insane. Have you people never heard of reconciliation? The GOP just passed a major tax law with a 52-seat majority.

Medicare For All might be a pipe dream, but Democrats will be well positioned to pass a couple major laws with reconciliation, especially if they can get a 51st seat and not have to rely on Manchin.

[Pericles]

Because the dscc is run by morons that's why! They should spend a cent on IA and go all in on GA, GA-S and TX. What, do they want to have a useless 51-52 seat majority that cant pass any legislation?

To be fair, we would need more like 61 - 63 to pass anything major. First the filibuster-proof majority, and then up to a extra votes to deal with R-state Democrats who are afraid of voting on anything major.

But it's all moot anyway. Biden is an institutionalist and so he's not going to support Senate Democrats changing the filibuster rules. I'd be very surprised if he did push for that, because let's be honest, this is a guy who is still talking about somehow cutting deals with Mitch McConnell and about how he'll consider everyone for his cabinet, including Republicans.

Until the party moves on from people like that, nothing major is going to change. After all, Biden said it himself.

Indeed. We are not in an era where major change is going to be effected by legislation, at least by one Party. The ACA was a fluke. In the future, partisan policy change will happen via executive action that is ratified by friendly courts. Congress increasingly becomes irrelevant. The point of getting 51 seats in the Senate is so you can push through (or block) court nominations. Ditching the filibuster might make things a bit easier, but not much. One party would still need to control the federal trifecta and herd its Senators.

Now, this is a bad development. The centralization of policymaking in the executive pushes the U.S. closer to the dictatorial model of government, Article 48 Weimar style. But it is inevitable, as the only alternative is policy paralysis and the latter is not going to hold.

Damn the founders for being so conservative. The only other alternative is bipartisanship.

The amount of pessimism on the Democratic side is insane. Have you people never heard of reconciliation? The GOP just passed a major tax law with a 52-seat majority.

Medicare For All might be a pipe dream, but Democrats will be well positioned to pass a couple major laws with reconciliation, especially if they can get a 51st seat and not have to rely on Manchin.

Plus the Supreme Court and cabinet are filibuster-proof. So if RBG and Breyer retire a Democratic Senate is needed to fill those seats and can do so, and if say Clarence Thomas' seat becomes vacant then Democrats need the Senate to get a big win out of that. And I still think the filibuster will be further weakened or even eliminated in the coming years.

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1257389417548955648

[Pericles]

So far 2020 is looking like 2008 at the congressional level (with 2018 being 2006 of course), rather than a reversion to a more neutral environment like 2012 and 2016 were. This could change, but Democrats have been polling at blue wave levels basically since Trump took office so it doesn't seem likely to change.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

So far 2020 is looking like 2008 at the congressional level (with 2018 being 2006 of course), rather than a reversion to a more neutral environment like 2012 and 2016 were. This could change, but Democrats have been polling at blue wave levels basically since Trump took office so it doesn't seem likely to change.

im old enough to remember when impeachment was supposed to doom democrats

[Farmlands]

So far 2020 is looking like 2008 at the congressional level (with 2018 being 2006 of course), rather than a reversion to a more neutral environment like 2012 and 2016 were. This could change, but Democrats have been polling at blue wave levels basically since Trump took office so it doesn't seem likely to change.

im old enough to remember when impeachment was supposed to doom democrats

To be fair, I was one of those people, but as soon as the Ukraine stuff came out, I changed my mind. I still maintain this was the best course of action, because impeaching Trump over the Russia scandal would've just looked like a re-litigation of the 2016 election and backfired.

[windjammer]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1255264363654656000?s=20

Interesting that AL/GA/TX/ are not on the list.

I guess they are waiting for the primaries to happen?

I mean obviously Doug Jones is going to lose (Biden would need to win the popular by 15 points, not happening lol) but I don't expect democrats to triage an incumbent running for reelection.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

So far 2020 is looking like 2008 at the congressional level (with 2018 being 2006 of course), rather than a reversion to a more neutral environment like 2012 and 2016 were. This could change, but Democrats have been polling at blue wave levels basically since Trump took office so it doesn't seem likely to change.

Dems won the House PV by 11 points in 2008, that is insane. I think that the Dems will net 10-15 house seats in 2020.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/1255264363654656000?s=20
Interesting that AL/GA/TX/ are not on the list.

I guess they are waiting for the primaries to happen?

I mean obviously Doug Jones is going to lose (Biden would need to win the popular by 15 points, not happening lol) but I don't expect democrats to triage an incumbent running for reelection.

They should have learnt to do this after Heitkamp, Blanche etc.

[Pollster]

NM-02 is quietly having one of the most explosive primaries of the cycle.

[wbrocks67]

YouGov

GCB D+8

Dems 46, Reps 38

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/4qtpeqbqm8/econTabReport.pdf

YouGov once again D+8

Dems 47, Reps 39

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/5yope37lqh/econTabReport.pdf

[Gracile]

Monmouth has the GCB at D+10 (52-42), in the same poll that shows Biden up by 7 or 9:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_050620/

This fits in with the recent trend of the House PV tracking the Presidential PV with a few points added to the party that holds the House.