2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Skill and Chance]

Holy sh*t it's 1894! This pollster has had problems in the past, but when they are wrong, they almost always err on the side of overestimating Dems. 

R+10 would be the biggest Republican win in the House popular vote since 1928, which was R+14.8.  Both 1994 and 2010 were R+6.8 and 1946, the post-New Deal R record, was R+8.5.

[Mr.Phips]

Holy sh*t it's 1894! This pollster has had problems in the past, but when they are wrong, they almost always err on the side of overestimating Dems. 

R+10 would be the biggest Republican win in the House popular vote since 1928, which was R+14.8.  Both 1994 and 2010 were R+6.8 and 1946, the post-New Deal R record, was R+8.5.

If it’s 1894 then who is William Jennings Bryan in 2024?

[Senator Incitatus]

Disaster poll. The only saving grace for Democrats at this point may be gerrymandering CA and NY as much as possible. This poll would be something like a 60-70 seat gain for Republicans regardless. This is the "Pascrell in danger" scenario.

This would likely be more like R+50.  Something like that would pretty much relegate the Democratic Party to the minor party Republicans were from 1932-1938.

Pascrell's seat is only D+13, is overloaded with white Hispanics, and he's not a particularly popular incumbent. Still waiting to see how Ciattarelli did there overall, but several large towns trended strongly R in both 2020 and 2021. It feels like the exact sort of place where you'd have even stronger swings than nationwide.

(His seat being competitive is a personal obsession of mine, which is why I used his name, but is a very realistic option for the last domino to fall in an absolute tidal wave. Of course, redistricting may take it off the table in even the craziest scenario.)

[kwabbit]

Disaster poll. The only saving grace for Democrats at this point may be gerrymandering CA and NY as much as possible. This poll would be something like a 60-70 seat gain for Republicans regardless. This is the "Pascrell in danger" scenario.

This would likely be more like R+50.  Something like that would pretty much relegate the Democratic Party to the minor party Republicans were from 1932-1938.

Pascrell's seat is only D+13, is overloaded with white Hispanics, and he's not a particularly popular incumbent. Still waiting to see how Ciattarelli did there overall, but several large towns trended strongly R in both 2020 and 2021. It feels like the exact sort of place where you'd have even stronger swings than nationwide.

(His seat being competitive is a personal obsession of mine, which is why I used his name, but is a very realistic option for the last domino to fall in an absolute tidal wave. Of course, redistricting may take it off the table in even the craziest scenario.)

I don't think there's any way Pascrell goes down. Pallone's district is less strongly D, only +16 for Biden versus +26 in Pascrell's. Pascrell would be seat 300 or something for Rs I feel like. Pallone might be 260ish.

[wbrocks67]

I don't get when pollsters do this - if we're talking 882 RVs for 8 states, that means the sample size is like 110 for each state. That's a terrible sample.

[Matty]

I don't get when pollsters do this - if we're talking 882 RVs for 8 states, that means the sample size is like 110 for each state. That's a terrible sample.

while true, it jives with the larger national sample.

a +10 gop result would be a nightmare for dems in purple area

[MT Treasurer]

JFC. If it's true, it's not Red Wave anymore. It's Red Tsunami.

I really only would have expected numbers this bad for Democrats in the alternate timeline in which they packed the Court, added Puerto Rico and D.C., went full FDR/New Deal (including on social issues), etc. The fact that it’s gotten to this point without such escalating aggression on the part of this trifecta and without any major war/recession is again (just like in 2018) very telling and seems to suggest a more underlying dynamic of our era in which the midterm penalty has (for some reasons) become particularly harsh. This is yet another midterm election in which most observers underestimated the extent of the backlash or turnabout since the last election, the degree to which supposed "polarization" would insulate the incumbent's party against far-reaching losses, and the likelihood of the incumbent's party defying historical patterns. This pattern has repeated itself again and again, and every time a new president is elected, we are quick to believe that "things will be different" this time (I admittedly thought the same about 2018 before the 2017 elections). Unless an incumbent president figures out how to successfully run against the other party in a midterm election (a carefully targeted combination of fear and anger is always a better turnout motivator than asking voters to "reward" you or trying to lower voters' expectations), I don’t expect an 'anomalous' midterm election any time soon.

I don’t think 2022 will be another 1894 by any means, but it doesn’t even have to be another 2010 for Democrats to lose the Senate/House rather decisively.

[lfromnj]

Disaster poll. The only saving grace for Democrats at this point may be gerrymandering CA and NY as much as possible. This poll would be something like a 60-70 seat gain for Republicans regardless. This is the "Pascrell in danger" scenario.

This would likely be more like R+50.  Something like that would pretty much relegate the Democratic Party to the minor party Republicans were from 1932-1938.

Pascrell's seat is only D+13, is overloaded with white Hispanics, and he's not a particularly popular incumbent. Still waiting to see how Ciattarelli did there overall, but several large towns trended strongly R in both 2020 and 2021. It feels like the exact sort of place where you'd have even stronger swings than nationwide.

(His seat being competitive is a personal obsession of mine, which is why I used his name, but is a very realistic option for the last domino to fall in an absolute tidal wave. Of course, redistricting may take it off the table in even the craziest scenario.)

Murphy actually did better than Biden in the town of Patterson

[Skill and Chance]

BTW is 2/3rds structurally out of reach for R's in the House or not?

There's a plausible scenario where Senate R's could get there (2022 midterm blowout, then D's barely hold onto the presidency in 2024 because Trump while R's win everything competitive downballot, then another midterm blowout in 2026).

[Frodo]

It all comes down to inflation and the lingering presence of COVID.  That same poll shows a solid majority of Americans approving the infrastructure bill and Build Back Better, so it isn't the policies of the Biden administration administration and Democratic Congress that they have an issue with.  

[UncleSam]

BTW is 2/3rds structurally out of reach for R's in the House or not?

There's a plausible scenario where Senate R's could get there (2022 midterm blowout, then D's barely hold onto the presidency in 2024 because Trump while R's win everything competitive downballot, then another midterm blowout in 2026).

In the scenario you are describing I don't think such a majority would be 'structurally' out of reach, but that's a pretty outlandish scenario. I think ~250-260 is likely the realistic seat ceiling in the current politcal climate for Rs (D ceiling is about the same though maybe slightly higher).

2/3 would require 290 seats, which is far enough out that I'd call it 'impossible'. It'd probably require Rs winning every district that Biden won by less than 10, more or less, which would be a crazy swing. I don't think every race downballot is suddenly going to become Mcauliffe vs. Youngkin.

[Mr.Phips]

BTW is 2/3rds structurally out of reach for R's in the House or not?

There's a plausible scenario where Senate R's could get there (2022 midterm blowout, then D's barely hold onto the presidency in 2024 because Trump while R's win everything competitive downballot, then another midterm blowout in 2026).

In the scenario you are describing I don't think such a majority would be 'structurally' out of reach, but that's a pretty outlandish scenario. I think ~250-260 is likely the realistic seat ceiling in the current politcal climate for Rs (D ceiling is about the same though maybe slightly higher).

2/3 would require 290 seats, which is far enough out that I'd call it 'impossible'. It'd probably require Rs winning every district that Biden won by less than 10, more or less, which would be a crazy swing. I don't think every race downballot is suddenly going to become Mcauliffe vs. Youngkin.

To get to 290, Republicans would pretty much need to win every district Biden won by 20 or less.  Winning everything he won by 10 or less in only gets them to high 240s.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/kirk_bado/status/1458458123488931850

A star Republican congressional candidate in Texas was accused last month by her estranged husband in court documents of “cruel and aggressive conduct” toward his 14-year-old daughter, including verbal abuse and pinching the child to stop her from crying.

What is it with Republicans and recruiting candidates with domestic abuse allegations this cycle?

[Skill and Chance]

BTW is 2/3rds structurally out of reach for R's in the House or not?

There's a plausible scenario where Senate R's could get there (2022 midterm blowout, then D's barely hold onto the presidency in 2024 because Trump while R's win everything competitive downballot, then another midterm blowout in 2026).

In the scenario you are describing I don't think such a majority would be 'structurally' out of reach, but that's a pretty outlandish scenario. I think ~250-260 is likely the realistic seat ceiling in the current politcal climate for Rs (D ceiling is about the same though maybe slightly higher).

2/3 would require 290 seats, which is far enough out that I'd call it 'impossible'. It'd probably require Rs winning every district that Biden won by less than 10, more or less, which would be a crazy swing. I don't think every race downballot is suddenly going to become Mcauliffe vs. Youngkin.

To get to 290, Republicans would pretty much need to win every district Biden won by 20 or less.  Winning everything he won by 10 or less in only gets them to high 240s.

OK, so it's a much harder lift than the Senate (there are only 15 states that voted left of VA in 2020 and R's already hold one senate seat among them).

[wbrocks67]

I don't get when pollsters do this - if we're talking 882 RVs for 8 states, that means the sample size is like 110 for each state. That's a terrible sample.

while true, it jives with the larger national sample.

a +10 gop result would be a nightmare for dems in purple area

of course, but yeah I just get mad bc its just bad journalism lol.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

These polls are Hackish and other polls show higher leads for Biden and certainly aren't state by state on par with them

Why are we tied in WI, leading by 4 in AZ Sen and only poll in pA show us leading by nine

NV CCM is up by 46/41, it's only meaningful if they did state by state SEN POLLS which they chose not to do and it's a yr before the Election anyways

[Hindsight was 2020]

The fact that voters are set to punish democrats worse in 2022 than Republicans faced in 2018 says a lot about the Democratic parties incompetence, how polarization is ultimately is a one way street, and what a hellhole we have become

[MT Treasurer]

BTW is 2/3rds structurally out of reach for R's in the House or not?

There's a plausible scenario where Senate R's could get there (2022 midterm blowout, then D's barely hold onto the presidency in 2024 because Trump while R's win everything competitive downballot, then another midterm blowout in 2026).

In the scenario you are describing I don't think such a majority would be 'structurally' out of reach, but that's a pretty outlandish scenario. I think ~250-260 is likely the realistic seat ceiling in the current politcal climate for Rs (D ceiling is about the same though maybe slightly higher).

2/3 would require 290 seats, which is far enough out that I'd call it 'impossible'. It'd probably require Rs winning every district that Biden won by less than 10, more or less, which would be a crazy swing. I don't think every race downballot is suddenly going to become Mcauliffe vs. Youngkin.

To get to 290, Republicans would pretty much need to win every district Biden won by 20 or less.  Winning everything he won by 10 or less in only gets them to high 240s.

OK, so it's a much harder lift than the Senate (there are only 15 states that voted left of VA in 2020 and R's already hold one senate seat among them).

Which one? ME voted to the right of VA.

[😥]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1460300339593154560?t=gwpdoqwkTt9j-Wq6w3...

She is definitely a strong candidate. No better than Tossup for Dems here

[zorkpolitics]

In both VA and NJ there was a 13 percentage shift from Biden in 2020 to the Governor races in 2021.  A 13% shift nationwide in 2022 from 2020 would net the GOP 51 seats for a total of over  270 seats.

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1460602565297676296?t=GJP2Xk38yjFJ1XBa...

[SnowLabrador]

Asymmetric polarization will be the end of this country, I swear.

[MT Treasurer]

We’re basically at the point where even a series of Republican recruitment failures, flawed Republican campaigns, and very aggressive Democratic redistricting decisions/gerrymanders would result in a 54R-46D Senate as well as a healthy GOP majority in the House. This one increasingly looks like it’s set in stone.

[kwabbit]

Asymmetric polarization will be the end of this country, I swear.

Is polarization that asymmetric? This gets repeated extremely often on this forum but as far as I can tell it’s just another excuse when Democrats aren’t winning. Democrats won the House vote by 8 in 2018, was that asymmetric polarization from the Republicans harming them? No, it was just the environment shifting. Trump’s approval rating at this point in his presidency was 37%. It’s not that Democrats are being weak by not being partisan enough, it’s that a year into a presidents term is when the base is naturally least involved. That problem affected Trump, but I would wager in January 2024 whoever the Democratic nominee is will have plenty of intra party support.

[kwabbit]

We’re basically at the point where even a series of Republican recruitment failures, flawed Republican campaigns, and very aggressive Democratic redistricting decisions/gerrymanders would result in a 54R-46D Senate as well as a healthy GOP majority in the House. This one increasingly looks like it’s set in stone.

I think Republicans could blow swingy moderate New Hampshire with Bolduc, but besides that I agree wholeheartedly.