2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[wbrocks67]

Lisa Scheller (PA-07) dumping another $700K of her own money into the race. As if the insane money the GOP has dumped into it for her hasn't been enough...

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1584725382502051840

[kwabbit]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

I mean, if we're going by the early vote data then Christy Smith should be Lean D, lol. (That's the only thing that makes me question the whole "triaging" thing - it's still early but it's D+13 in the early vote so far, the biggest out of all the competitive CA races)

I don't think Garcia vs. Smith was necessarily triaged either. Money probably makes less of a difference in that House race among all possible competitive races. The TV market is extremely expensive and the candidates are running against each other for the third time. The Dems were paying a lot of money for comparatively little viewership by people who already have more of a hardened opinion of the candidates. They would get more bang for their buck defending Axne, Craig, Luria and all of the non major-metro incumbents who would make up a possible Democratic majority. Probably the same reason that Malinowski lost some money, given how expensive the NYC market is.

[Devils30]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

I mean, if we're going by the early vote data then Christy Smith should be Lean D, lol. (That's the only thing that makes me question the whole "triaging" thing - it's still early but it's D+13 in the early vote so far, the biggest out of all the competitive CA races)

I don't think Garcia vs. Smith was necessarily triaged either. Money probably makes less of a difference in that House race among all possible competitive races. The TV market is extremely expensive and the candidates are running against each other for the third time. The Dems were paying a lot of money for comparatively little viewership by people who already have more of a hardened opinion of the candidates. They would get more bang for their buck defending Axne, Craig, Luria and all of the non major-metro incumbents who would make up a possible Democratic majority. Probably the same reason that Malinowski lost some money, given how expensive the NYC market is.

https://twitter.com/vanceulrich/status/1585023835598118912?s=46&t=8UDBrtuE1yQSHe1s0CfJKw

Triage my ass

[kwabbit]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

I mean, if we're going by the early vote data then Christy Smith should be Lean D, lol. (That's the only thing that makes me question the whole "triaging" thing - it's still early but it's D+13 in the early vote so far, the biggest out of all the competitive CA races)

I don't think Garcia vs. Smith was necessarily triaged either. Money probably makes less of a difference in that House race among all possible competitive races. The TV market is extremely expensive and the candidates are running against each other for the third time. The Dems were paying a lot of money for comparatively little viewership by people who already have more of a hardened opinion of the candidates. They would get more bang for their buck defending Axne, Craig, Luria and all of the non major-metro incumbents who would make up a possible Democratic majority. Probably the same reason that Malinowski lost some money, given how expensive the NYC market is.

https://twitter.com/vanceulrich/status/1585023835598118912?s=46&t=8UDBrtuE1yQSHe1s0CfJKw

Triage my ass

I literally said it wasn't triaged.

[Devils30]

I’m referring to the NYT article today saying Rs are winning CA-27

[SnowLabrador]

I’m referring to the NYT article today saying Rs are winning CA-27

Why the hell did we nominate Christy Smith again?

[Unelectable Bystander]

VA-10 gets moved right but KS-03 gets moved left? Blue district Democrats are struggling but NC-01 is moved to the left? A lot of this doesn't really make sense.

So magically the Dems are gaining where they did well this summer (KS-3, Alaska) and not being downgraded in NY-19 but the bottom is falling out in NY-17, Oregon and educated districts like Levin in CA? Polling firms are clearly having issues again and this time they might be missing everyone all around.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. If the bottom was falling out in bluer areas, then NY-19 should've been downgraded, and I wouldn't expect a suburban district like KS-3 to get upgraded bluer, while a generally more bluer area (like CA-49) gets downgraded lower.

Kind of like how I feel about CT. Clearly the bottom is not falling out for Lamont or Blumenthal, most polls have them up by double digits. But somehow the bottom is falling out for.... Hayes in CT-05? An incumbent who hasn't really had any issues before? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Congressional races are still somewhat local and the campaigning matters. Kansas looks good for the Democrats this year and Davids is a good campaigner.

I think Levin is being downgraded in part because early vote data looks good for the GOP in OC and SD county.

I mean, if we're going by the early vote data then Christy Smith should be Lean D, lol. (That's the only thing that makes me question the whole "triaging" thing - it's still early but it's D+13 in the early vote so far, the biggest out of all the competitive CA races)

I don't think Garcia vs. Smith was necessarily triaged either. Money probably makes less of a difference in that House race among all possible competitive races. The TV market is extremely expensive and the candidates are running against each other for the third time. The Dems were paying a lot of money for comparatively little viewership by people who already have more of a hardened opinion of the candidates. They would get more bang for their buck defending Axne, Craig, Luria and all of the non major-metro incumbents who would make up a possible Democratic majority. Probably the same reason that Malinowski lost some money, given how expensive the NYC market is.

https://twitter.com/vanceulrich/status/1585023835598118912?s=46&t=8UDBrtuE1yQSHe1s0CfJKw

Triage my ass

No comment on the triage discussion, which has taken its course, but I will add context to this. The margin two years ago at this time was something like 58-30. It might not necessarily be good for Garcia, but it is unequivocally not good for Smith. This pattern is common throughout SoCal.

Before anybody accuses that of being hackish, I have stated earlier what I think looks good for both parties (Michigan and Georgia in particular look like bloodbaths for R’s). This is not one of those places.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Don't forget that one category of triage is patients who are in good enough shape that they don't need any immediate help.  Triage doesn't necessarily mean they're giving up on the race.

[wbrocks67]

Also re: NJ-07 - I saw RRH post something about how DCCC took money from NJ-07 to put it in NY-17. I don't see the evidence of that - From the article on NJ-07, it didn't seem like DCCC ever had any money scheduled in that district to begin with. I could be wrong though.

[TwinGeeks99]

Also re: NJ-07 - I saw RRH post something about how DCCC took money from NJ-07 to put it in NY-17. I don't see the evidence of that - From the article on NJ-07, it didn't seem like DCCC ever had any money scheduled in that district to begin with. I could be wrong though.

I mean, wasn't the district drawn as a balance between throwing Malinowski under the bus to shore up Gottheimer and Sherrill yet keeping the district winnable in blue waves?

[Roll Roons]

https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1585228777344598016?cxt=HHwWgIDQlZLL7v8rAAAA

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1585228777344598016?cxt=HHwWgIDQlZLL7v8rAAAA

It collaborates that they will pick up about 20-25 seats, 25 if they are very lucky. When did Dems get to 218 in 18?

[wbrocks67]

Morning Consult/POLITICO has D+5 this week, 47-42. It was D+1 last week, 45-44.

https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2022/10/25151347/2210148_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2_10-26-22_SH.pdf

[Ferguson97]

Morning Consult/POLITICO has D+5 this week, 47-42. It was D+1 last week, 45-44.

https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2022/10/25151347/2210148_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2_10-26-22_SH.pdf

I'm sure this shift will get just as much media coverage as last week's Republican shift

[Ferguson97]

Morning Consult/POLITICO has D+5 this week, 47-42. It was D+1 last week, 45-44.

https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2022/10/25151347/2210148_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2_10-26-22_SH.pdf

FYI, Morning Consult/Politico's poll around this time in 2018 was D+8... which is exactly what the final result ended up being.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Morning Consult/POLITICO has D+5 this week, 47-42. It was D+1 last week, 45-44.

https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2022/10/25151347/2210148_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2_10-26-22_SH.pdf

I'm sure this shift will get just as much media coverage as last week's Republican shift

The 4 republican hacks of Wasserman, Sabato, Cohn, and Silver must not be privy to this very high quality polling

[MT Treasurer]

You know it’s a bad cycle for Democrats when Morning Consult is the best they got.

[philly09]

https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1585276656410845185

[wbrocks67]

Quite a shift in YouGov/Economist this week, too.

RV: D+4 (46-42) - was D+1 last week
LV: D+4 (49-45) - was R+1 last week

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/sp4h6s0adp/econTabReport.pdf

[philly09]

https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1585261022490787840

[It’s so Joever]

https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1585261022490787840

You saw my map, turnout is higher...in GOP areas. Unless you think that coalitions flipped overnight and now Detroit is the most Republican part of Michigan, I don't see any good evidence for these claims. And his logic is still using very flawed specials, but the specials overperformances were all still low turnout relative to the midterms in areas where Dems can be expected to do better among high propensity voters. I have heard zero arguments against this. The ONLY possible argument would be Peltola, but even then she had HUGE crossover support and still does.

[soundchaser]

You know it’s a bad cycle for Democrats when Morning Consult is the best they got.

Is there a pollster you actually think is trustworthy this cycle?

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

You know it’s a bad cycle for Democrats when Morning Consult is the best they got.

Is there a pollster you actually think is trustworthy this cycle?

Rasmussen and Trafalgar.

[Brittain33]

There is such a disconnect between news stories, campaign committee spending, and Twitter cons on the one hand and independent polling on the other. I’m trying to pre-doom so I won’t be crushed if Republicans win the Senate but the evidence keeps confounding me. At least I understand why cons like Byron York are declaring a Republican victory.

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1585261022490787840

You saw my map, turnout is higher...in GOP areas. Unless you think that coalitions flipped overnight and now Detroit is the most Republican part of Michigan, I don't see any good evidence for these claims. And his logic is still using very flawed specials, but the specials overperformances were all still low turnout relative to the midterms in areas where Dems can be expected to do better among high propensity voters. I have heard zero arguments against this. The ONLY possible argument would be Peltola, but even then she had HUGE crossover support and still does.

I have a hard time squaring this information. On one hand, he’s not wrong in certain states like Michigan and Georgia that numbers look good for democrats based on modeled partisanship. On the other hand, the map above and other target smart graphics make it clear that rural turnout is up and white turnout is up in these same states (yes, even in Georgia, at the expense of Hispanics/Asians). I will note that those are two states without partisan registration, so it’s possible that their model is garbage and way too democrat-friendly. This can’t explain it entirely though.