2020 US presidential election if you only knew the House results!

[Tekken_Guy]

How would you have thought the 2020 presidential election went if you only knew the House results?

[Pres Mike]

I really don't know

[Skill and Chance]

Georgia looks "good enough" for Biden at the congressional level with the McBath blowout in GA-06  and GA-07 swinging left of 2018. 

AZ is too close to call.  The Dem hold in AZ-01 was narrower than 2016, the margin in AZ-09 was barely higher than 2016, and they didn't flip AZ-06 (which would unambiguously confirm that Phoenix swung enough).

NC looks like it could be enough even though we know it wasn't.  Dems actually won the statewide House vote, but one of the safe Dem seats was uncontested. 

PA and WI definitely do not look like "enough" for Biden.

MI and MN would look scary for Biden with the MN-07 blowout flip and how close MN-02 and MI-11 are.  MI-08 suggests Biden's still in the game though. 

[GregTheGreat657]

Trump wins, and trends continue. Oddly enough GA zooms to the left, but everywhere else votes pretty much the same as 2016

[Skill and Chance]

Trump wins, and trends continue. Oddly enough GA zooms to the left, but everywhere else votes pretty much the same as 2016

Given the GA results and the NC house PV statewide, I would be a little surprised Trump actually won NC.

[Sir Mohamed]

Tbh, this:

[Chips]

Trump wins 293-245. Maine's 2nd is the true oddball here but I actually think Golden's rather strong margin of victory could've pushed Biden over the top there, presumably with ranked-choice voting. Nebraska's 2nd I would've assumed still flipped as well as Arizona. Michigan I think would've been the closest state but given that not much truly changed, I think it might've narrowly stuck with Trump.

[Vosem]

I expected Trump to run about 3 points behind house Republicans, so I think I would've largely gotten the map right. Sticking to this rule, I would've only gotten NC wrong, projecting it for Biden, but I think  I would've hesitated and called GA for Trump if it was R+2 in the House on an inelasticity theory. So I would've gotten two states wrong.

I might have called WI for Trump too -- not sure of it -- but certainly not AZ or PA, which clearly voted D. So a map like this:

NC is the biggest one that's surprising in light of the House results.

[Skill and Chance]

I expected Trump to run about 3 points behind house Republicans, so I think I would've largely gotten the map right. Sticking to this rule, I would've only gotten NC wrong, projecting it for Biden, but I think  I would've hesitated and called GA for Trump if it was R+2 in the House on an inelasticity theory. So I would've gotten two states wrong.

I might have called WI for Trump too -- not sure of it -- but certainly not AZ or PA, which clearly voted D. So a map like this:

NC is the biggest one that's surprising in light of the House results.

Hmmm... NC did have an uncontested safe Dem seat and with that it was still only a plurality D win statewide.  That's hardly a slam dunk in the presidential race, sounds 50/50 to me. 

[Tekken_Guy]

I expected Trump to run about 3 points behind house Republicans, so I think I would've largely gotten the map right. Sticking to this rule, I would've only gotten NC wrong, projecting it for Biden, but I think  I would've hesitated and called GA for Trump if it was R+2 in the House on an inelasticity theory. So I would've gotten two states wrong.

I might have called WI for Trump too -- not sure of it -- but certainly not AZ or PA, which clearly voted D. So a map like this:

NC is the biggest one that's surprising in light of the House results.

Hmmm... NC did have an uncontested safe Dem seat and with that it was still only a plurality D win statewide.  That's hardly a slam dunk in the presidential race, sounds 50/50 to me. 

Dems only won the PV in NC by about 20,000 votes and a Republican in NC-12 would have gotten over 100k votes.

[Pericles]

Didn't most swing districts swing left from 2016?

[Skill and Chance]

Didn't most swing districts swing left from 2016?

Yes, but not uniformly and not necessarily in the places that mattered.  PA-08 being drastically closer than 2016 looks very bad for Biden.  Lamb barely winning PA-17 also casts doubt on the statewide result in PA.

[sting in the rafters]

Trump win because I'd wrongly assume there were more Cartwright-Trump voters than Fitzpatrick-Biden.

[Schiff for Senate]

Collin Peterson's loss in MN07 was a long time coming, and the two suburban Democrats made it, so for starters I would definitely think MN goes blue. WI I might think stayed red because of the result in WI03, PA I wouldn't be sure, and MI I wouldn't be 100% sure, but I'd ultimately think it flipped, given the polling. IA and OH obviously stated red, as did FL. GA probably flipped because of the results in the suburbs. NC would be a tossup. AZ would be a tossup as well. NE02 I'd also consider a tossup, since Bacon won by a decent amount but would outperform Trump for obvious reasons, and the level of overperformance might be hard to ascertain in advance. ME02 probably went red, only because of how much it supported Trump by in 2016, though I'd think the race was kind of close there given Golden's results. So the map I'd envision, I think, is:



I'd be optimistic about Biden winning, though, since he would just need to win one of PA, NC and AZ while Trump would need all three of them to win.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The fact that Democrats managed to keep the House at all would suggest to me that Biden very barely won too because I would assume that the House and national popular vote aligned.

[politicallefty]

Looking at just the overall seat tally for the House, I would've assumed Trump won. A double digit seat loss when a double digit seat gain was expected? I would've assumed something went hideously wrong (which it nearly did).

[Pericles]

Looking at just the overall seat tally for the House, I would've assumed Trump won. A double digit seat loss when a double digit seat gain was expected? I would've assumed something went hideously wrong (which it nearly did).

The double digit seat gain expectations were in hindsight always stupid. Why would Democrats do better than a D+8.6% year, and do better in almost every swing district despite not doing better nationwide? A lot of favorable assumptions seem to have been made for Democrats. Even if the polls had been perfectly accurate, Democrats would have only gained 3 seats on 2018.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Looking at just the overall seat tally for the House, I would've assumed Trump won. A double digit seat loss when a double digit seat gain was expected? I would've assumed something went hideously wrong (which it nearly did).

The double digit seat gain expectations were in hindsight always stupid. Why would Democrats do better than a D+8.6% year, and do better in almost every swing district despite not doing better nationwide? A lot of favorable assumptions seem to have been made for Democrats. Even if the polls had been perfectly accurate, Democrats would have only gained 3 seats on 2018.

Well they did make 20+ seat gains in 2008 despite 2006 already being a +8 year though 2008 was also a double digit year for house Dems and many on here thought 2020 would be another 2008