Anyone else feeling so confused by this cycle?

[It’s so Joever]

I’ve never felt this uncertain on an election before. Even when I was wrong, at least I had some belief, but I don’t know what to believe in anymore. Every sign has been all over the place, it’s like if there were a dartboard, and the guy throwing the darts had such bad aim he hit everything but the target.

I have so many conflicting feelings, indicators are whacky, and with no faith in polls at this point there really isn’t much to think. Will it be an R megawave, will it be close to 2020, will Jeb Bush win every district? Anything seems possible and equally impossible at this point. I want to make predictions but I don’t know at this point.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Many users don't even read my post but I am gonna say it again most of us live in metros of suburbs around Metros that vote D there are 150 Females 55 percent vote D 45 R and 100 M Minority 85 percent vote D there are 100 white men and most of them 60 percent vote R that leaves 65/60 M vote D's that's a 303 map that we won in 2020 the rest is wave insurance this isn't a white male vote it's everybody votes EDay

The rural vote R which is the minority the Rs that live in suburbs around cities are clearly the minority everyone is clustered around Dallas, Miami, Chi, LA, SD, SF, DTW, NY, Phi, NJ and DC and Blt most of the other states are rural the R vote there you have it Secular American

The Rs offer nothing they offered stimulus checks last time but D's are offering Stimulus programs

There is no such thing anymore as a landslide midterm for outparty

[Xing]

Honestly, 2020 felt harder to predict for me. While this year could end up better than expected for Democrats, I don’t think the range of outcomes is nearly as large as it seemed for 2020. I’m guessing the GCB will be between R+4 and EVEN, though I could be wrong.

[wbrocks67]

I think we're in unchartered territory, and I think a lot of the punditry of "well it's a D in power so the Rs will have a red wave" is such antiquated thinking.

2016 was truly a turning point for politics. Especially with the turbo charged turnout we have seen since. When you combine that with shifting coalitions (college+ whites, who are highest to turn out midterms historically now voting more D than ever), on top of the SC decision, it truly changes the entire game.

I've said this before in other threads, but I think the biggest thing that pundits are missing is that historically, with turnout, the party in power has usually lost bc their side just doesn't turn out. That's pretty much the gist, the party out of power gets mad and upset and turns out. That calculus is just not happening this year. If anything, the D side can almost claim that mantle just as much as Rs given the SC decision. I think that's why you see now the GCB at parity, and the special elections have borne that out.

[MT Treasurer]

That’s funny — I actually remember 2014 feeling like a "very uncertain" midterm election to many as well. At this point in 2014, the consensus was that (a) Democrats still had a very good chance of holding the Senate (with much discussion about how Republicans like Tom Cotton of AR were "blowing" their races*), (b) there was no way Republicans were going to gain governorships (with a "banner year" for Democrats considered a more likely outcome than a GOP wave in the gubernatorial races), and (c) the GCB average was actually very close/basically a tie.

*e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/08/the-gop-is-worried-cotton-falls-flat-on-campaign-trail

[Spectator]

That’s funny — I actually remember 2014 feeling like a "very uncertain" midterm election to many as well. At this point in 2014, the consensus was that (a) Democrats still had a very good chance of holding the Senate (with much discussion about how Republicans like Tom Cotton of AR were "blowing" their races*), (b) there was no way Republicans were going to gain governorships (with a "banner year" for Democrats considered a more likely outcome than a GOP wave in the gubernatorial races), and (c) the GCB average was actually very close/basically a tie.

*e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/08/the-gop-is-worried-cotton-falls-flat-on-campaign-trail

I think most people acknowledged Arkansas as a likely flip that year before end of summer. It was pretty obvious at the time he and Landrieu were DOA.

What makes this year tricky is that if the Dem incumbents do as well as Mark Pryor did relative to Obama 2012, they win.

[Pericles]

Honestly, 2020 felt harder to predict for me. While this year could end up better than expected for Democrats, I don’t think the range of outcomes is nearly as large as it seemed for 2020. I’m guessing the GCB will be between R+4 and EVEN, though I could be wrong.

2020 was a mindf**k, a comfortable Democratic win even if it was a bit less than 8 points made complete sense and then the polls were somehow way more wrong than they were in 2016.

[Spectator]

Honestly, 2020 felt harder to predict for me. While this year could end up better than expected for Democrats, I don’t think the range of outcomes is nearly as large as it seemed for 2020. I’m guessing the GCB will be between R+4 and EVEN, though I could be wrong.

2020 was a mindf**k, a comfortable Democratic win even if it was a bit less than 8 points made complete sense and then the polls were somehow way more wrong than they were in 2016.

I wouldn’t call 2020 a comfortable Dem win by any stretch. Biden only narrowly flipped five states by less than 3% each (3 of those states by less than 1%). And Democrats were widely expected to expand the majority in the House, not lose seats. The Senate was also a clear underperformance up until the Georgia runoffs, with Maine and North Carolina being relatively unexpected GOP wins. MT and IA were arguably seen as tossups by many too, even if in hindsight it was obvious they were too red.

[Pericles]

Honestly, 2020 felt harder to predict for me. While this year could end up better than expected for Democrats, I don’t think the range of outcomes is nearly as large as it seemed for 2020. I’m guessing the GCB will be between R+4 and EVEN, though I could be wrong.

2020 was a mindf**k, a comfortable Democratic win even if it was a bit less than 8 points made complete sense and then the polls were somehow way more wrong than they were in 2016.

I wouldn’t call 2020 a comfortable Dem win by any stretch. Biden only narrowly flipped five states by less than 3% each (3 of those states by less than 1%). And Democrats were widely expected to expand the majority in the House, not lose seats. The Senate was also a clear underperformance up until the Georgia runoffs, with Maine and North Carolina being relatively unexpected GOP wins. MT and IA were arguably seen as tossups by many too, even if in hindsight it was obvious they were too red.

No I mean that it did not feel like Biden was going to scrape home by a 0.6% margin, though somehow winning the Georgia runoff afterwards was a miracle.

[MT Treasurer]

That’s funny — I actually remember 2014 feeling like a "very uncertain" midterm election to many as well. At this point in 2014, the consensus was that (a) Democrats still had a very good chance of holding the Senate (with much discussion about how Republicans like Tom Cotton of AR were "blowing" their races*), (b) there was no way Republicans were going to gain governorships (with a "banner year" for Democrats considered a more likely outcome than a GOP wave in the gubernatorial races), and (c) the GCB average was actually very close/basically a tie.

*e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/08/the-gop-is-worried-cotton-falls-flat-on-campaign-trail

I think most people acknowledged Arkansas as a likely flip that year before end of summer. It was pretty obvious at the time he and Landrieu were DOA.

What makes this year tricky is that if the Dem incumbents do as well as Mark Pryor did relative to Obama 2012, they win.

Well, the point is that it wasn’t obvious to most observers/pundits even in August 2014. It was also a fairly late-breaking GOP year in general, which could (emphasis on "could") be true for this cycle as well.

I certainly agree with your second point, but I think Tillis 2014 might be a better analogy than Cotton 2014 (flawed swing state Republican buoyed by the environment/Obama disapproval rather than any notable strengths of his own). The only problem with this is the number of swing states Democrats have to defend this year — assuming Republicans hold WI/NC/OH (they might as well disband if they don’t) and Democrats hold NH/CO (they might as well disband if they don’t), Democrats need a similar underperformance in three of AZ, NV, GA, and PA to win the majority. Doable, but not particularly easy. I’d also argue that Laxalt and even Masters are stronger candidates than Tillis was in 2014.

Worth noting, however, that Republicans actually had some room for error in 2014 and many paths to 51. This year, they really can’t afford to lose much else after PA.

If I had to pick two Senate races which will decide it, I’d say AZ and NV.

[Spectator]

I agree with AZ and NV being the deciding Senate races. But I don’t see Laxalt as a particularly strong challenger. More just generic. He looks superior compared to the others clowns running in swing states.

I disagree that it was obvious to anyone with any decent level of analysis that Arkansas was legitimately competitive at this point in 2014. I followed the Senate pretty close in 2014 and always considered Landrieu and Pryor DOA the minute Obama won re-election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The reason why it's confusing is we have a Housing crisis a war in Ukraine and a Recession, Biden hasn't been above 50 since last September during the Cali recall and that was when we lost the Afghanistan war when Biden was about to hit 50 Russia invaded Ukraine

Newsom won that recall but he has been insufficient since that recall, Homeless crisis, Larry Elder said Newsom would be insufficient if he won again, he was right. TMac lost the VA Gov race by 2 because Biden was underwater

There are 150M  females in this country and 150 M men Atlas tend do believe it's a male country, no it's not
 These female voters, white female swing back and forth between Rs and D's they like Biden economy but they have anxiety over the Ukraine war, why, because we have that awesome NATO FORCE and we can't fight in that war and Biden pulled out of Afghanistan and let Taliban take over

These same females voted against Hillary in 2016 and voted Trump, but if this was the 2008 Hillary she would have won

This was the problem with Bill Clinton's he defeated Serbia with no Putin but didn't get Bin Laden that was part of the issue why Bush W won over Gore, Bush W put issue why Clinton didn't get Bin Laden,  Kerry lost because Edwards didn't have natl security Clark or Gephardt would have filled that but on Daily is so many liberal white males wanted Edwards, I wasn't fascinated by Edwards I said Gephardt and Bush W closed the white female gap too, Biden opened it up again in 20

[Devils30]

There is a lot of uncertainty and unlike 2014, there are no sitting ducks in red states like Pryor and Landrieu. The Dems actually beat Obama's 2012 share in a bunch of these red state pickups.

[here2view]

I feel (and I'd be interested in seeing if this is actually true) that there a fewer polls than there were at this point in 2018.

[wbrocks67]

I feel (and I'd be interested in seeing if this is actually true) that there a fewer polls than there were at this point in 2018.

100%. Some of these races have been lucky to get 1 poll in the past 2 months.

[Senator Incitatus]

I feel (and I'd be interested in seeing if this is actually true) that there a fewer polls than there were at this point in 2018.

Also clearly less trust in polling we do have (which is both from lower quality outlets and subject to another cycle’s worth of error).

[MillennialModerate]

Senate is very hard but the House and Governors are very predictable this go around

House: GOP almost certainly won’t have less than 225 and won’t have more than 245
Senate: Ohio is GOP, Wisconsin is GOP, PA is Dem, NH is Dem, GA is Tilt GOP, AZ is GOP.
Governor: Wisconsin is GOP, Michigan is Tilt Dem, PA is hopefully Dem..

[Minnesota Mike]

I feel (and I'd be interested in seeing if this is actually true) that there a fewer polls than there were at this point in 2018.

100%. Some of these races have been lucky to get 1 poll in the past 2 months.

We are supposed to get a Marquette Wisconsin poll sometime this week so we have got that going for us.

[Minnesota Mike]

Of course we won't know until election day but things seem to be going pretty much as I expected. Sticking with my prediction from months ago of only PA flipping in the Senate and the Republicans taking the House by a narrow margin.

[Orser67]

After 1998 and 2002 (and even to some extent the relatively mild 2006 elections), I think we were conditioned to assume that mid-terms weren't necessarily terrible for the president's party, which contributed to some of the shock of the 2010 mid-terms. Now, after 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, we're conditioned to assume that mid-terms tend to see huge losses for the president's party. So the possibility of a neutral-ish mid-term feels weird to me as well, especially with Biden's approval ratings so low.

Obviously there's still a strong chance that the mid-terms go poorly for Democrats. But if they don't, I think this will be the first mid-term at least since WW2 wherein the president's party does fairly well despite poor approval ratings. If that does happen, I think one key narrative will be that Roe v. Wade, combined with lingering disapproval of Trump, made the election more of a referendum on Republicans than on Democrats.

[It’s so Joever]

That’s funny — I actually remember 2014 feeling like a "very uncertain" midterm election to many as well. At this point in 2014, the consensus was that (a) Democrats still had a very good chance of holding the Senate (with much discussion about how Republicans like Tom Cotton of AR were "blowing" their races*), (b) there was no way Republicans were going to gain governorships (with a "banner year" for Democrats considered a more likely outcome than a GOP wave in the gubernatorial races), and (c) the GCB average was actually very close/basically a tie.

*e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/08/the-gop-is-worried-cotton-falls-flat-on-campaign-trail

Fair enough, maybe it will be a gop wave like 2014.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That’s funny — I actually remember 2014 feeling like a "very uncertain" midterm election to many as well. At this point in 2014, the consensus was that (a) Democrats still had a very good chance of holding the Senate (with much discussion about how Republicans like Tom Cotton of AR were "blowing" their races*), (b) there was no way Republicans were going to gain governorships (with a "banner year" for Democrats considered a more likely outcome than a GOP wave in the gubernatorial races), and (c) the GCB average was actually very close/basically a tie.

*e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/08/the-gop-is-worried-cotton-falls-flat-on-campaign-trail

Fair enough, maybe it will be a gop wave like 2014.

That's apples and oranges comparing 2014 to now there is no $ wave in the Sek we are ahead in all the swing states we don't know about 5he H, users don't know what a range is 235 R H to 210 R seats and51/60 D Senate seats the odds is a 230RH and 52/48 D S but we can get 218DH and 55 Senate seats

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is a tough cycle but Approvals LIE how can Biden be at 41 and OH, NC and FL are competetive, we must remain optimistic until we get exit polls these polls are showing a 304 map anyways the rest is wave Insurance

I would make my map a 3o4 map like I had early in if I felt that it would, but I am donating to Ryan I can't make OH, FL and NC Lean R and there are 15 Blk and 26 percent Arab or Latino and white female vote

We're gonna have Provisional ballots, like last time, these are late breaking D ballot counted

[Crumpets]

will Jeb Bush win every district?

[Pollster]

A big part of the reason this midterm feels so strange is that the out-of-power party typically reinvents itself (in some stylistic/rhetorical way at least) and breaks away from the brand that lost the last Presidential election, whereas in this cycle's case they have doubled down on it. I can't remember the last time that happened.