2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Unelectable Bystander]

This is a typical midterm, Dems will lose big time, the only question is when do the polls move in the GOP favor like they did for 2014.

Before this Spring I would have agreed with this, but things have changed.  A typical midterm features high motivation by the party out of power and lower motivation by the party in power.  The overturning of Roe v Wade, by all indications, is amping up Democratic energy to a competitive level.  This is not to say that the normal midterm advantage for the out party has been wiped out; that is unlikely.  But it's fair to say that it looks like the advantage will be considerably reduced from a typical midterm.

I agree with the idea that D turnout will be higher than it otherwise would have been before Dobbs, but the way these polls are measuring it is straight up stupid. Sentences like “72% of Dems are more likely to vote while only 30% of R’s are more likely to vote after the decision” are extremely misleading. For example, if those every single one of those 72% of Dems was planning on not voting, then yes it’s huge. If all 72% were already voting, then it’s absolutely meaningless. We should be getting 2x2 tables of voting intention before decision and voting intention after decision by party in order to measure anything.

If I had to guess, I’d say 70-80% of those “more likely to vote” Dems were always going to vote, and 90+% of the “more likely to vote” R’s were always going to vote, so that’ll give D’s some comparative turnout boost. But there’s a lot more R’s in the no effect category and many will be voting

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's not even Labor Day yet and we still have to vote LETS BE CLEAR THESE ARENT EXIT Polls AND THESE ARE PRE ELECTION POLLS Biden IS STILL LEADS TRUMP 44/41 ALL THESE DOOMERS ARE OUT NOW, I told you so and we haven't voted yet, in 2010/14 I still held out hope that we would win and Rs had a GB lead in 2010 the whole summer and the GCB has bounced around IN 2022, Rs held the GCB lead in 2010 because Obamacare was unpopular we lost 60 seats and 10% unemployment

It's a 303 map with wave insurance we will net WI, PA Sen and keep our incumbentts that gives us 51 Senate then we have GA like LA it's a runoff then for the H we look at fL and NC which are the first Senate races up and then PA and NH we know the spill and it then goes to OH, that's why I don't make R nut maps what if Fried, Demings, Beasley and Ryan come in for us D's based on Blk and Brown vote Rs are gonna get 1/3% if they get 6/12 like DeWine might get it's curtains for us but they are gonna get 1/3%, this is the Blk vote and the Rs lose the Latino vote too

[wbrocks67]

Hoping that this NYT/Siena national poll eventually has a GCB in it... assuming they're just reporting different poll results each day to milk it for all its worth

[UncleSam]

This is a typical midterm, Dems will lose big time, the only question is when do the polls move in the GOP favor like they did for 2014.

Before this Spring I would have agreed with this, but things have changed.  A typical midterm features high motivation by the party out of power and lower motivation by the party in power.  The overturning of Roe v Wade, by all indications, is amping up Democratic energy to a competitive level.  This is not to say that the normal midterm advantage for the out party has been wiped out; that is unlikely.  But it's fair to say that it looks like the advantage will be considerably reduced from a typical midterm.

I agree with the idea that D turnout will be higher than it otherwise would have been before Dobbs, but the way these polls are measuring it is straight up stupid. Sentences like “72% of Dems are more likely to vote while only 30% of R’s are more likely to vote after the decision” are extremely misleading. For example, if those every single one of those 72% of Dems was planning on not voting, then yes it’s huge. If all 72% were already voting, then it’s absolutely meaningless. We should be getting 2x2 tables of voting intention before decision and voting intention after decision by party in order to measure anything.

If I had to guess, I’d say 70-80% of those “more likely to vote” Dems were always going to vote, and 90+% of the “more likely to vote” R’s were always going to vote, so that’ll give D’s some comparative turnout boost. But there’s a lot more R’s in the no effect category and many will be voting

Great points, and one addendum: ‘more likely’ =\= ‘likely’ (to vote). Someone could have been certain not to vote before Dobbs, and now maybe just considering bothering.

We really need polls of voting intention per- and post-Dobbs, as you mention. What we have thus far has been useless.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Election is 150 days from now it's not OVER FOR DS, eventhough everytime Rs get a lead which is infrequently users like to declare it's over in 2010/2014 the Rs lead the whole time on GCB

Because it was 10% unemployment and Obamacare was unpopular

The GCB goes back and forth between very pro R bias Rassy polls 49/40 and You Gov polls  the last You Gov had it 43/40 pro D the Fox polls already declared the H going R so of course Rassy have Rs plus 9 on GCB

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The polls were correct in 306 except the MOE but I'm Red states they had McGrath within 4 and Harrison and Cunningham winning, did they wrongly predict Hickenlooper or Mark Kelly to lose no they didn't and Progressive Moderate thinks Mark Kelly is DOA, wrong his is leading Masters 47/41

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GCB is 35/34 tied so all this Doom.and Gloom isn't necessary


https://twitter.com/PollTrackerUSA?t=TBOKeNd7YPei_NlqPCCACQ&s=09

[Devils30]

Hoping that this NYT/Siena national poll eventually has a GCB in it... assuming they're just reporting different poll results each day to milk it for all its worth

It has a GCB and is 41-40 D. I do think just like the hypothetical Biden Trump matchup that Ds margin with Hispanics probably understated and a bit exaggerated with white college.

[wbrocks67]

NYT/Siena has RV at D+1, 41-40, while in LV, it's R+1, 44-43.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/upshot/poll-2022-midterms-congress.html?smid=tw-share


Morning Consult/Politico has D+4, 46-42.

https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2022/07/12125609/2207038_crosstabs_POLITICO_Adults_v2_07-13-22_SH.pdf

[wbrocks67]

YouGov/Economist has D+3 today, 43-40

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/sdsvy1azjc/econTabReport.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=website_survey

[Brittain33]

What is the change for Morning Consult/Politico?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

What is the change for Morning Consult/Politico?

Emerson and Rassy do R phone based polls whereas You Gov and Morning Consult do On line polls that's the H effect in both polls, since Fox already declared Rs gaining the H it's not news worthy Rassy has it R plus 8

[wbrocks67]

What is the change for Morning Consult/Politico?

Looks like last one was D+3, 45-42 on 6/24-25

[wbrocks67]

New Yahoo News/YouGov

Adults - D+5, 37-32
RV - D+4, 43-39

https://www.scribd.com/document/582412021/Yahoo-News-Survey-20220708#fullscreen&from_embed

[Matty]

Fwiw, nate Cohn says the undecided in the nyt poll are very anti Biden and working class

Only 23% approve of Biden

[Devils30]

Not like Biden’s approval in the poll overall was much higher

[Cyrusman]

Fwiw, nate Cohn says the undecided in the nyt poll are very anti Biden and working class

Only 23% approve of Biden

If that is true that is great news for Republicans.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://twitter.com/SienaResearch?t=qGxZE-g0HfOCHyyssV6Q4w&s=09

I don't know if anyone posted but Siena has a tied race 41/40 for control of Congress

[UncleSam]

Fwiw, nate Cohn says the undecided in the nyt poll are very anti Biden and working class

Only 23% approve of Biden

If that is true that is great news for Republicans.

Idk, ‘working class’ is a big group, it kinda sounds more like Nate Cohn is trying to cover his ass because he thinks Rs will do better than conventional polling would suggest once again.

[wbrocks67]

Yikes, Vega only raised <$250K in Q2. Spanberger has $4.9M COH, she has $246k.

https://twitter.com/CATargetAlt/status/1548037238092468224

[ProgressiveModerate]

Money won't be the problem for Dems. It's how they will use it.

It's hard to analyze money though because while in some cases it may be genuine enthusiasm, that enthusiasm could just be coming from already very reliable voters or a few very wealthy folks. It may also be genuine enthusiasm on teh ground that causes them to get very solid turnout though. We just don't know.

These House Dems have the money to really run get out a message that will affect how their constituents see them optically, and many will have to make choices about how closely they want to tie themselves to Biden, how much they want to reference Trump, and how progressive or moderate they wish to be. In hindsight, I'm sure a lot of us will say many didn't spend their money well, but as of now it's hard to say what the best use is.

I also wonder if for some of these Rs, the lack of money is a good thing in the sense if they had tons of money, they may use it on stuff that ends up causing them more problems for them cause by spending money and taking a stand about who they are, they may either tie themselves too close to or not enough with Trump. Someone like Majewski is prolly better unknown and just seen as a generic R rather than making ads himself.

[UncleSam]

Money won't be the problem for Dems. It's how they will use it.

It's hard to analyze money though because while in some cases it may be genuine enthusiasm, that enthusiasm could just be coming from already very reliable voters or a few very wealthy folks. It may also be genuine enthusiasm on teh ground that causes them to get very solid turnout though. We just don't know.

These House Dems have the money to really run get out a message that will affect how their constituents see them optically, and many will have to make choices about how closely they want to tie themselves to Biden, how much they want to reference Trump, and how progressive or moderate they wish to be. In hindsight, I'm sure a lot of us will say many didn't spend their money well, but as of now it's hard to say what the best use is.

I also wonder if for some of these Rs, the lack of money is a good thing in the sense if they had tons of money, they may use it on stuff that ends up causing them more problems for them cause by spending money and taking a stand about who they are, they may either tie themselves too close to or not enough with Trump. Someone like Majewski is prolly better unknown and just seen as a generic R rather than making ads himself.

I wouldn’t over-analyze it. More money is pretty much always a good thing in politics. However, there are rapid diminishing returns to a large campaign warchest.

Basically, 95% of the impact of fundraising for political candidates comes from the first ~1 million (for house) and ~5 million (for senate), dependent on the state / district of course (some are more and some less expensive so adjust those numbers accordingly). That first bit of money allows a candidate to build a dedicated team, run ads, and campaign consistently. Further spending past that has logistically diminishing returns.

For example, a 17 to 6 M advantage for Warnock in GA is not really something I think will shift the race much / at all - Warnock can run some extra ads, put up some extra flyers, but probably will get only a minimal extra boost from it that would only matter in the closest of races. Comparatively, Spanbergers’ opponent only having 250k to her 5M is a pretty big advantage, as that seriously crippled her opponents’ ability to campaign and get their message out.

So ya, don’t obsess on fundraising, but I wouldn’t overanalyze it either.

[wbrocks67]

Some PA #s

PA-01
Fitzpatrick (R) - $407K raised, $1.03M COH
Ehasz (D) - $166K raised, $147K COH

PA-06
Houlahan (D) - $679K raised, $5.57M COH
Ciarrocchi (R) - $118K raised, $194K COH

PA-07:
Wild (D) - $891K raised, $3.1M COH
Scheller (R) - $415K raised, $1.19M COH

PA-08:
Cartwright (D) - $826K raised, $2.73M COH
Bognet (R) - $516K raised, $580K COH

PA-17:
Delizio (D) - $420K raised, $348K COH
Shaffer (R) - $701K raised, $937K COH (loaned campaign at least $500K in June)

[wbrocks67]

Fox has GCB at R+3, 44-41.

They had it at R+3 in June as well, 47-44.

https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-say-economy-bad-expect-get-worse?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&mibextid=CqRI5M&fs=e&s=cl

[Devils30]

Fox has GCB at R+3, 44-41.

They had it at R+3 in June as well, 47-44.

https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-say-economy-bad-expect-get-worse?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&mibextid=CqRI5M&fs=e&s=cl

The sample is a little high on "abortion should be illegal" at 46% based on national polls in the past but Fox is a solid pollster.