2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Virginiá]

This was inevitable, from the moment everyone realized COVID actually wasn't going to fade away after vaccines were rolled out, and society would still have major residual problems from the pandemic.

Practically every midterm is a wave against the party in power, and because Democrats have the structural disadvantages they have, it's worse for them even if they manage to get only a modestly unfavorable midterm.

On top of that, Biden's approval ratings actually went down faster than Obama's did during the same period. I don't know why everyone thought just because he had a very modest honeymoon period that somehow that was a signal that it would endure long past Biden's first year.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

So it begins!

.
Biden is leading by 4bpts in OH and it's not beginning the Election as I have said many times is a yr not last Tuesday

[SnowLabrador]

Voters have ridiculously short memories, what the F**K is wrong with this country?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Voters have ridiculously short memories, what the F**K is wrong with this country?

Rs keep taxes low, the Spending bills and infrastructure hasn't been passed, there has been zero impact yet on voters, but the Rs have won the H of Rep just like Reagan because they don't raise taxes

Biden is leading by 4 in tipping pt WI that's all that matter, abd we still won 304 state NJ Youngkin promised not to raise taxes because D's kept control of Legislative

[Mr.Phips]

This was inevitable, from the moment everyone realized COVID actually wasn't going to fade away after vaccines were rolled out, and society would still have major residual problems from the pandemic.

Practically every midterm is a wave against the party in power, and because Democrats have the structural disadvantages they have, it's worse for them even if they manage to get only a modestly unfavorable midterm.

On top of that, Biden's approval ratings actually went down faster than Obama's did during the same period. I don't know why everyone thought just because he had a very modest honeymoon period that somehow that was a signal that it would endure long past Biden's first year.

Dems need to realize that just winning the Presidency is destroying the party.  Each successive midterm wave during a Dem Presidency has brought the party to lower point in state legislative and house seats than the last.  1994 brought Dems lower than at any point since 1946, then 2010 brought Dems lower than 1994 and 2014 brought Dems lower than 2010.   What use is the presidency if you can’t win anything else?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This was inevitable, from the moment everyone realized COVID actually wasn't going to fade away after vaccines were rolled out, and society would still have major residual problems from the pandemic.

Practically every midterm is a wave against the party in power, and because Democrats have the structural disadvantages they have, it's worse for them even if they manage to get only a modestly unfavorable midterm.

On top of that, Biden's approval ratings actually went down faster than Obama's did during the same period. I don't know why everyone thought just because he had a very modest honeymoon period that somehow that was a signal that it would endure long past Biden's first year.

Dems need to realize that just winning the Presidency is destroying the party.  Each successive midterm wave during a Dem Presidency has brought the party to lower point in state legislative and house seats than the last.  1994 brought Dems lower than at any point since 1946, then 2010 brought Dems lower than 1994 and 2014 brought Dems lower than 2010.   What use is the presidency if you can’t win anything else?

Yeah, have you forgotten Biden passed 1400 checks and vaccines in arms, when Trump was in office, Trump only gave vaccines to Hospital Doctors, and the stimulus would have been 600 not 1400 because Johnson and Mcconnell lost the GA races, because they only wanted 600 not 2K checks

It's a shame that they won't pass another round because Biden Approvals would shoot up, but he isn't a Socialist like Booker or Bernie or To Khanna whom want another 1400

Ah you spent your 2K that's why you don't remember Biden passing it

[kwabbit]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

[Mr.Phips]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

You think Dems would actually lose 63 House seats when they only hold 222?

[Virginiá]

Dems need to realize that just winning the Presidency is destroying the party.  Each successive midterm wave during a Dem Presidency has brought the party to lower point in state legislative and house seats than the last.  1994 brought Dems lower than at any point since 1946, then 2010 brought Dems lower than 1994 and 2014 brought Dems lower than 2010.   What use is the presidency if you can’t win anything else?

True, but as I posted elsewhere, Dems don't really have a whole lot of prospects anywhere else as it is. It's not 12 years ago where Democrats had a majority in the Indiana House and controlled state legislatures in the deep south. Most of the country now votes the same way up and down the ballot. Don't get me wrong, there are places Democrats could take control or improve in 2022 (MI, AZ, MN, NH, a few others) if Trump was still president, but it's not a very big list. We came real close to SD-GOV in 2018, but that is practically the best Democrats can now hope for in many conservative states they used to win more often via split ticket voting. We can't even win states like Iowa and Ohio now, despite Democrats having a much higher floor there. Almost winning is still losing.

Not that I don't agree that Democrats need to do better at the state level, but it's not clear what more they can do right now.

[Mr.Phips]

Dems need to realize that just winning the Presidency is destroying the party.  Each successive midterm wave during a Dem Presidency has brought the party to lower point in state legislative and house seats than the last.  1994 brought Dems lower than at any point since 1946, then 2010 brought Dems lower than 1994 and 2014 brought Dems lower than 2010.   What use is the presidency if you can’t win anything else?

True, but as I posted elsewhere, Dems don't really have a whole lot of prospects anywhere else as it is. It's not 12 years ago where Democrats had a majority in the Indiana House and controlled state legislatures in the deep south. Most of the country now votes the same way up and down the ballot. Don't get me wrong, there are places Democrats could take control or improve in 2022 (MI, AZ, MN, NH, a few others) if Trump was still president, but it's not a very big list. We came real close to SD-GOV in 2018, but that is practically the best Democrats can now hope for in many conservative states they used to win more often via split ticket voting. Almost winning is still losing.

Not that I don't agree that Democrats need to do better at the state level, but it's not clear what they can do right now.

But it’s the fact that Dems could still drop from their already weak position in state legislatures that should concern them.

[kwabbit]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

You think Dems would actually lose 63 House seats when they only hold 222?

Of course not, but I could Republicans getting to 250 seats which would be higher than either 2010 or 2014. There was so much incredibly low hanging fruit in 2010 that’s not the case in our polarized environment now. I could see Golden losing by 15 pts but besides that there aren’t too many massive Dem over performers that could fall prey to a wave environment.

[Mr.Phips]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

You think Dems would actually lose 63 House seats when they only hold 222?

Of course not, but I could Republicans getting to 250 seats which would be higher than either 2010 or 2014. There was so much incredibly low hanging fruit in 2010 that’s not the case in our polarized environment now. I could see Golden losing by 15 pts but besides that there aren’t too many massive Dem over performers that could fall prey to a wave environment.

I’m guessing right now it would be around what 2014 was (247 seats).

[It's not just that you are a crook senator]

Indiana 1st is definitely flippable, it has been silently trending republican

[kwabbit]

Indiana 1st is definitely flippable, it has been silently trending republican

Which is why it was so boneheaded for Republicans to not change it at all. They could have shifted it 5 pts to the right with minimal line changes. Simply taking a few of the counties to the South of Lake and ceding Michigan City would’ve changed the partisan composition meaningfully.

[lfromnj]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

You think Dems would actually lose 63 House seats when they only hold 222?

I mean the obvious similarity would be dems at 193 house seats. R+29.

[Mr.Phips]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

You think Dems would actually lose 63 House seats when they only hold 222?

I mean the obvious similarity would be dems at 193 house seats. R+29.

Yeah I think that’s a pretty likely result.

[lfromnj]

Indiana 1st is definitely flippable, it has been silently trending republican

Which is why it was so boneheaded for Republicans to not change it at all. They could have shifted it 5 pts to the right with minimal line changes. Simply taking a few of the counties to the South of Lake and ceding Michigan City would’ve changed the partisan composition meaningfully.

Yeah this would have 0 controversy. It was what the 2000 district was.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Indiana 1st is definitely flippable, it has been silently trending republican

Which is why it was so boneheaded for Republicans to not change it at all. They could have shifted it 5 pts to the right with minimal line changes. Simply taking a few of the counties to the South of Lake and ceding Michigan City would’ve changed the partisan composition meaningfully.

Yeah this would have 0 controversy. It was what the 2000 district was.

Lake+Porter+Jasper+Newton+Benton+as much as La Porte as was needed is a district Rs could have drawn, that would put the seat in contention if 2022 is an R wave. But Rs just weren't interested.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/1456626112491032581?t=BU8NRkb5a0sQzgmopwt...

Her home is a few miles out of the district.


She got screwed by the commision deciding to let the voice of a candidate from Pueblo say it was racist to not let her face Boebert.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden’s not been a bad president but it seems like he might receive a shellacking even greater than 2010 at this rate. I kind of feel bad for him.

You think Dems would actually lose 63 House seats when they only hold 222?

I mean the obvious similarity would be dems at 193 house seats. R+29.

Yeah I think that’s a pretty likely result.

DOOMER like the Election is gonna happen this month, it's a freaking yr from now

[DabbingSanta]

2022 Senate outlook:

December update.  There hasn't been much polling, so adjusting last forecast solely based on 2021 election results.

[SnowLabrador]

I think it'll be either 54 or 55 Republicans in the Senate come 2023. That hinges on Colorado. That would mean the tipping-point state is the one Democrats lose by the largest margin, which I think is Arizona.

[2016]

I think it'll be either 54 or 55 Republicans in the Senate come 2023. That hinges on Colorado. That would mean the tipping-point state is the one Democrats lose by the largest margin, which I think is Arizona.

I think it will be like this:


I don't see Democrats losing Nevada or Colorado. Even in the 2010 Wave they managed to hold those States.

[progressive85]

I think it'll be either 54 or 55 Republicans in the Senate come 2023. That hinges on Colorado. That would mean the tipping-point state is the one Democrats lose by the largest margin, which I think is Arizona.

I feel that PA, WI, and NC are all R holds... AZ (Kelly), NV (Cortez Masto), GA (Warnock), and NH (Hassan) are all four likely pickups for the Reds with Mark Kelly seeming to me like the one that would survive the most.  What else is there?  This is the 2016 class, the one that came in with Cheeto the first time, so that was a red year... in fact come to think of it, every year since 2014 has been a red year for the Senate.  Even when Ds gain in the Senate, they lose other states.

[BigSerg]

GG 70-80 seats
https://twitter.com/PollTrackerUSA/status/1457412028872761349?s=20