2022 Generic Ballot / Recruitment / Fundraising / Ratings Megathread

[Spectator]

The point is to scare these Democrats so they make more incumbent friendly demands before redistricting. Fairly obvious.  A lot of those upstate seats were relatively close in 2014 and its not like upstate has trended D since 2012. I guess NY04 is to scare Rice but in reality you can just precinct trade between NY01/NY02 so it would be extremely foolish for D's to be scared in Long Island. Meanwhile on upstate I would say on average the number of Dem seats would go up with a more aggressive map but 3 sinks is probably what's needed to placate incumbents.

You can get four pretty solidly blue seats Upstate. Rochester, Buffalo, Albany, and Syracuse/Ithaca.

[Spectator]

Initial DSCC target list:

The DSCC investment initially will focus on Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. More states and funding could be added in later phases.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-launch-30-million-field-organizing-program-keep-senate-control-n1279758

Iowa is notably not on the list, but I suspect it may be added if Grassley retires.

Drop Ohio and this a fine list, Democrats should not spend a cent in Ohio. If the DSCC spends in Iowa, they are officially the most stupid campaign organization in existence.

They really shouldn't bother in Florida either. Knowing where not to spend is probably even more valuable than figuring out where to spend these days. I'd rather have fewer, but likelier to be won targets, than the party spreading itself too thin.

Yep, Democrats spent a lot of money chasing wild geese in dark red states like Iowa, Montana, South Carolina, Alaska, Kansas, and Kentucky in 2020, and that was not the wisest move.

[Spectator]

Surprised no one has mentioned it, but California Assemblyman Rudy Salas (D) announced against Valadao today. He’s the best possible challenger in this seat.

[Spectator]

Given that Rasmussen is terrible, they should still be giving results of like R+5 in a neutral environment. Not only is their GCB close but it keeps narrowing.

There was a point where I think reality was truly R +6 or 7 and November couldn’t come fast enough, but at this point we need time for a change of course. 52-54 dems would not be out of the question which is enough for extremist legislation

If it’s any consolation, polls in the individual races are almost definitely overestimating Dems in places like Arizona and Pennsylvania and Ohio. I still ultimately expect Democrats to win those races, but by small margins (except for Ohio because Democrats obviously aren’t flipping a Trump+8 state this year).

[Spectator]

Given that Rasmussen is terrible, they should still be giving results of like R+5 in a neutral environment. Not only is their GCB close but it keeps narrowing.

There was a point where I think reality was truly R +6 or 7 and November couldn’t come fast enough, but at this point we need time for a change of course. 52-54 dems would not be out of the question which is enough for extremist legislation

If it’s any consolation, polls in the individual races are almost definitely overestimating Dems in places like Arizona and Pennsylvania and Ohio. I still ultimately expect Democrats to win those races, but by small margins (except for Ohio because Democrats obviously aren’t flipping a Trump+8 state this year).

Ohio definitely. The Dems could have a great night and hold GA, NV, AZ, pick up PA, WI, NC while even gaining 5 House seats AND still lose Ohio by 4%. Ohio is a red state, I expect Biden +2 seats to stay blue long before Ohio flips.

Ohio flips before NC or a net gain in the House

All three have about zero chance of happening as it is, so that’s like splitting hairs

[Spectator]

I think a small shift toward the Democrats is plausible, but it’s too soon to be concluding that Democrats are now in good shape. I think left-leaning voters becoming somewhat more engaged was inevitable, thus why I never bought WA-SEN being competitive, and I do think there’s an upper limit to how well Republicans can do and that they’ll surely leave at least a few competitive races on the table, but the fundamentals are still really bad for Democrats. The Republican Party hasn’t been popular in its own right in quite some time, but that hasn’t stopped them from being quite successful, since their strategy has always been to paint the Democrats and the left as “dangerous.”

An argument could be made the fundamentals are bad for both parties.

How do you figure? The Republicans’ problem is they nominated garbage candidates in most of their high profile competitive races except for in Nevada (governor and Senate). Not an issue with fundamentals, just their unhinged primary voters.

(I know a lot of people on this board mock “candidate quality” but it really does matter. Otherwise you wouldn’t see a Democrat Governor of Kansas/Louisiana/Kentucky or a Democrat Senator from West Virginia, or a Republican Governor of Maryland/Massachusetts/Vermont and a Republican Senator from Maine)

[Spectator]

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think Mandela Barnes is a strong candidate either. He’s taken positions or done photo ops in the past (like with Ilhan Omar, or coming out for Green New Deal) to the point where I don’t think he’ll be able to take advantage of Johnson’s own weaknesses, and he himself can be portrayed as out of touch with the median voter

[Spectator]

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think Mandela Barnes is a strong candidate either. He’s taken positions or done photo ops in the past (like with Ilhan Omar, or coming out for Green New Deal) to the point where I don’t think he’ll be able to take advantage of Johnson’s own weaknesses, and he himself can be portrayed as out of touch with the median voter

This talking point really has no basis in reality. Tammy Baldwin is just as liberal as Barnes is, and she won by double digits in 2018. Not just that, but Ron Johnson is much farther right than Barnes is left, so you can't really make the accusation that Barnes is 'extreme' without mentioning that Johnson is just as much the other way, if not more.

The guy uses gender pronouns in his Twitter bio lol. He’s a walking caricature of everything Republicans accuse Democrats of.

I’d still vote for him, sure. Doesn’t mean I think he’ll win.

[Spectator]

Michigan being higher than CO is.... certainly something

Agreed. For what it's worth, I think Joe O'Dea has serious Youngkin potential this November.

Lol

[Spectator]

https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1562412514293473280

I checked 538 to see what the conventional wisdom on these things is... they have Ryan as a narrow underdog in NY-18 (a Biden +8 district!!) and Molinaro with nearly a 70% chance of winning in NY-19.

538 thinks they’re smarter than they are

[Spectator]

There’s a difference between complacency and polls being off. Biden was not complacent in 2020.

[Spectator]

Sabato shifting AZ and PA Senate from Tossup to Lean D: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/senate-rating-changes-arizona-pennsylvania-to-leans-democratic/

I think Arizona is pre-mature. For some reason I don’t trust the polls there.

[Spectator]

A collection of internal Democratic polls conducted in August in a dozen battleground seats, which were reviewed by POLITICO, showed Democratic candidates running, on average, more than 6 percentage points above Biden’s favorability rating in those districts. On the higher end of the spectrum were Wild and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/06/gop-inside-track-to-house-majority-dems-00054821

And I got mocked for saying Susan Wild was a strong incumbent!

She’s not.

[Spectator]

A collection of internal Democratic polls conducted in August in a dozen battleground seats, which were reviewed by POLITICO, showed Democratic candidates running, on average, more than 6 percentage points above Biden’s favorability rating in those districts. On the higher end of the spectrum were Wild and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/06/gop-inside-track-to-house-majority-dems-00054821

And I got mocked for saying Susan Wild was a strong incumbent!

She’s not.

She's outrunning Biden by the most among many battleground Dems, so how is she not? Where's the proof she's not?

Her foot in mouth disease. We’ll see in November when she loses even while Shapiro and Fetterman win!

[Spectator]

A collection of internal Democratic polls conducted in August in a dozen battleground seats, which were reviewed by POLITICO, showed Democratic candidates running, on average, more than 6 percentage points above Biden’s favorability rating in those districts. On the higher end of the spectrum were Wild and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/06/gop-inside-track-to-house-majority-dems-00054821

And I got mocked for saying Susan Wild was a strong incumbent!

She’s not.

She's outrunning Biden by the most among many battleground Dems, so how is she not? Where's the proof she's not?

middle aged white woman = weak candidate, according to the atlas experts

Funny, Scheller is also a middle aged white woman. I have Peltola and Kaptur winning Trump districts too in my November prediction so nice try.

[Spectator]

A collection of internal Democratic polls conducted in August in a dozen battleground seats, which were reviewed by POLITICO, showed Democratic candidates running, on average, more than 6 percentage points above Biden’s favorability rating in those districts. On the higher end of the spectrum were Wild and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/06/gop-inside-track-to-house-majority-dems-00054821

And I got mocked for saying Susan Wild was a strong incumbent!

She’s not.

She's outrunning Biden by the most among many battleground Dems, so how is she not? Where's the proof she's not?

middle aged white woman = weak candidate, according to the atlas experts

Funny, Scheller is also a middle aged white woman. I have Peltola and Kaptur winning Trump districts too in my November prediction so nice try.

famous white woman mary peltola

Touché, you got me there.

[Spectator]

Three millions of dollars being poured into Ohio in a race that Vance was never in any serious risk of losing is stunning.

[Spectator]

Three millions of dollars being poured into Ohio in a race that Vance was never in any serious risk of losing is stunning.

Apparently the SLF has a different evaluation of the race than you do.

I’m old enough to remember both parties throwing money at states like Iowa and South Carolina in 2020 when many here (correctly) pointed out that both were Safe R the whole time.

[Spectator]

The basics are still bad for Democrats: President Joe Biden’s (D) approval rating, perhaps the best catch-all of the political environment, is still stuck in the low 40s, albeit after having improved from the 30s in polling averages a month and a half ago.

He's literally at 44% in the 538 RV/LV average, but sure okay

Are we splitting hairs over calling 44% “low 40s” now? lol

[Spectator]

What even is generic ballot? Is it for Senate or House? I disapprove of Biden, but not strongly, and am voting Dem for Senate and GOP for House. Can imagine there aren’t many like me who aren’t a fan of Biden but then see some of these GOP candidates and are like 👀

[Spectator]

There was ample polling evidence during the campaign supporting the idea that Bush could win big. It wasn’t a consensus and it wasn’t the case in the final weeks, and some polls turned out to be duds, but data was there. [...]

Red California, Illinois, and Washington were unlikely in 2000 but not nearly as unthinkable as they are now.

This is off-topic, but since I also discussed this with another user recently, I’d again note that it cannot be overstated how close the Bush campaign came to blowing a solid lead/utter EC rout in the final 2-3 weeks of the 2000 campaign-

https://youtu.be/Cmu_2TWgTXc

We’re very used to Republicans making up ground as we get closer to the election or undecideds breaking heavily Republican, and usually at least one of those things does happen, but 2000 was a truly remarkable exception to that pattern.

Obama 2008 and 2012 seem to be the other exceptions. Other than that, Republicans have overperfored every cycle vs. expectations, except maybe in 2010. I think 2010 was more of a dud for the GOP at the Senate and gubernatorial level compared to the narrative of GOP winning 60 House seats or whatever.

[Spectator]

There was ample polling evidence during the campaign supporting the idea that Bush could win big. It wasn’t a consensus and it wasn’t the case in the final weeks, and some polls turned out to be duds, but data was there. [...]

Red California, Illinois, and Washington were unlikely in 2000 but not nearly as unthinkable as they are now.

This is off-topic, but since I also discussed this with another user recently, I’d again note that it cannot be overstated how close the Bush campaign came to blowing a solid lead/utter EC rout in the final 2-3 weeks of the 2000 campaign-

https://youtu.be/Cmu_2TWgTXc

We’re very used to Republicans making up ground as we get closer to the election or undecideds breaking heavily Republican, and usually at least one of those things does happen, but 2000 was a truly remarkable exception to that pattern.

Obama 2008 and 2012 seem to be the other exceptions. Other than that, Republicans have overperfored every cycle vs. expectations, except maybe in 2010. I think 2010 was more of a dud for the GOP at the Senate and gubernatorial level compared to the narrative of GOP winning 60 House seats or whatever.

It appears as if there are more exceptions than instances but I guess since 2014, this has been the case. Although you could say that Democrats were lazy in the senate in 2018.

Aside from Florida, Democrats did as well in the Senate as you could possibly have expected them to in 2018.