At what point do special elections and polls mean that we are not in an R-wave year?

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

So far people have been laughing at polls that show Fetterman looking at up to a 5-6% win after undecideds. But Democrats have come close in NE-01, MN-01, won in New York, came within 2% in NY-23, and are in range of winning a seat in Alaska for the first time in over 50 years. Meanwhile, GCB polls show Democrats ahead.


At what point does all of this mean that perhaps we might just be in a neutral or even d-leaning year?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Last night should have been it. If not that, then if Peltola succeeds in Alaska. If they refuse to admit it after that, they're just hacks who can't look past "historical precedent."

[Xing]

They suggest that the environment is not currently that of a red wave, but that could change before November.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

They suggest that the environment is not currently that of a red wave, but that could change before November.

It's been consistent after Dobbs. I don't see what would change it.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

tbf the Alaska result is just due to RCV, nearly 60% of people casted a ballot for a Republican

Also one could argue that some parts of the country are more susceptible to a red wave than others. The last 4 specials were all in yankee white areas with small range urban cores. However on the other hand you have less white districts like CA-22 and TX-31 which had lower turnout and Rs outperformed 2020. Granted, that was before Roe was "officially" overturned but still plenty of time after the leak that dominated media for a while.

The generic ballot numbers are more concerning though and I will give you that.

[wbrocks67]

They suggest that the environment is not currently that of a red wave, but that could change before November.

It's been consistent after Dobbs. I don't see what would change it.

I swear we're going to be in October and people still giving this "it could change" line. Yes, anything could change! But in July, right after Dobbs, you could argue okay maybe it's 50/50 that it could or could not change. We're nearly into Labor Day with ballots going out in weeks in places and things have not gotten better for Rs, so the "likelihood" that things will change for the better for them is getting slimmer every day

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I'd had a feeling for a while, but NY-19 solidified it. Things may still lean R slightly but absolutely not to the degree they did previously. Rs may take back the house, but not by a whole ton, and at this point I am confident in saying Dems will hold the senate with the VP tiebreaker.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

CA GOV Recall(September 2021) Newsom runs very close to Joe Bidens numbers(I think he got 62-38 but I can't remember)
NJ Gov(November 2021)- D+3-4(can't remember) Biden +16
VA Gov(November 2021)- R+2 vs Biden +10

[wbrocks67]

CA GOV Recall(September 2021) Newsom runs very close to Joe Bidens numbers(I think he got 62-38 but I can't remember)
NJ Gov(November 2021)- D+3-4(can't remember) Biden +16
VA Gov(November 2021)- R+2 vs Biden +10

The environment today was clearly different than it was a year ago. If those races were this year, Youngkin would not have won imo.

Also, the CA GOV is its own thing bc Newsom successfully made it a referendum on Trump and Elder.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

At what point does all of this mean that perhaps we might just be in a neutral or even d-leaning year?

I've been saying we're looking at a neutral or D-leaning year ever since the draft opinion in Dobbs was leaked.

Every piece of hard evidence we've gotten since Dobbs confirms that.

[pbrower2a]

In view of all the electoral weirdness that we have known, and the freakish Presidency of Donald Trump, quite possibly not until Election Night.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's a 303 map if we lose the H it's not because it's an R wave we lost H seats in a neutral cycle in 2020, it's a Neutral cycle unless Polls tell us otherwise stop with this R wave stuff

[Holmes]

tbf the Alaska result is just due to RCV, nearly 60% of people casted a ballot for a Republican

But this is a special case. There are two Republicans on the ballot and one Democrat, in a state where Democrats don't have a history of winning. Of course the line of thinking among indies and D-leaning voters will be "I think a Republican will probably win, so I'll vote for the acceptable one over the unacceptable one." This is what happened in the Senate primary but on steroids!

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I honestly feel a good chunk of folks still won't believe it until January 3 when the new congress is sworn in

[Progressive Pessimist]

They suggest that the environment is not currently that of a red wave, but that could change before November.

It's been consistent after Dobbs. I don't see what would change it.

I swear we're going to be in October and people still giving this "it could change" line. Yes, anything could change! But in July, right after Dobbs, you could argue okay maybe it's 50/50 that it could or could not change. We're nearly into Labor Day with ballots going out in weeks in places and things have not gotten better for Rs, so the "likelihood" that things will change for the better for them is getting slimmer every day

I agree that abortion will be in the headlines fairly often as long as the Dobbs decision exists, and Republican states pounce on the opportunities it presented them with. But I am still reserving caution for the environment changing based more upon economic factors. The way I see it, if both party's bases are animated to vote and turn out in relatively similar proportion, most elections will be decided by undecideds and factors like gas prices and inflation are possibly what they'll be voting based on more. Thankfully, as of right now, both issues seem to be on a positive trajectory and Biden and the Democrats seem to be benefiting. As long as they don't get worse, we definitely could see this environment carry on into November, or maybe even improve.

 It's just been so rare lately for the Democratic Party to have good luck that I think glass-half-empty perspective holding people like myself are a bit suspicious. Things are going a little too well.

CA GOV Recall(September 2021) Newsom runs very close to Joe Bidens numbers(I think he got 62-38 but I can't remember)
NJ Gov(November 2021)- D+3-4(can't remember) Biden +16
VA Gov(November 2021)- R+2 vs Biden +10

The environment today was clearly different than it was a year ago. If those races were this year, Youngkin would not have won imo.

Also, the CA GOV is its own thing bc Newsom successfully made it a referendum on Trump and Elder.

Youngkin (and Ciatarelli to an extent) really benefited last year from the elections being held at one of the worst times possible for the Democratic trifecta. Had the elections been held maybe three weeks earlier we probably would have seen McAuliffe win and Murphy perform better, albeit still garnering red wave chatter due to them probably being fairly meek margins for them.

[sg0508]

Already at that point and past it.  I said six months ago the Democrats would have a much better night than some predicted. Dobbs along with other GOP major missteps and some big democratic wins (IRA as an example) are now predicting it.

[Devils30]

There's nothing GOP leaning about NY-19, if anything its more consistent with the D+5 polls.

[MATTROSE94]

It is possible that the red wave will be mostly confined to states like Florida, Texas, Nevada, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Maine, Oregon, and New Mexico this year as opposed to a nationwide red wave.

Where I live in Monmouth County I think will be hit hard by the red wave as well, as most of the people I come in contact with have are either Italian, Irish, Hispanic, or Portuguese Americans who are extremely devout pro life Catholics and have been disproportionately impacted by the inflation problems this year. Most vocally support the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and place all the blame for the economic situation onto Joe Biden and the Democrats.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1562765026985115650

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1562765026985115650

Remember when Nate declared polling season was back and then NYT/Siena didn't do another poll for a month and a half+? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[DabbingSanta]

The polls are massively overestimating Democrat support, as they have for the past four election cycles.  Special elections are also not a great factor in predicting the midterms, as the turnout is usually far lower and the pro-abortion activists have been motivated by Roe v Wade being overturned.  That said, candidate quality this year is unusually bad for Republicans, and we have seen several races which are way closer than they should be simply because the GOP nominated more radical candidates.  However the fundamentals, poor economy and sh**t president, still suggest a red wave in November.

If you look at my Senate prediction, you will see that my forecast shows Republicans narrowly retaking the senate 51-49.  To make my predictions I am simply using the 538 polling average and adjusting based on past years state level polling errors.  We know that some states have more extreme errors, like Ohio and Florida, and that current polls showing Dems leading in these states should be treated with skepticism.  The 538 forecast is laughably wrong, a total joke, as they are too dependent on the polls and liberal pundits who seem to repeatedly forget how flawed the entire industry has become.  It is very possible I am being too conservative in my forecast, and the GOP picks up several senate seats.  Or maybe the national environment really did change after the SCOTUS decision? We shall see.  Either way, I would not trust the polls in giving you an accurate look at what's happening on the ground.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think it's less about how many but seeing greater diversity. All of NE-01, MN-01, NY-23, and NY-19 are remarkably similar demographically, politically, and in their urban-rural breakdown of Dems relying on some mid-sized college community vs lots of R rurals.

In order for me to feel more confident, we would need to have special elections in other types of seats.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The polls are massively overestimating Democrat support, as they have for the past four election cycles.  Special elections are also not a great factor in predicting the midterms, as the turnout is usually far lower and the pro-abortion activists have been motivated by Roe v Wade being overturned.  That said, candidate quality this year is unusually bad for Republicans, and we have seen several races which are way closer than they should be simply because the GOP nominated more radical candidates.  However the fundamentals, poor economy and sh**t president, still suggest a red wave in November.

If you look at my Senate prediction, you will see that my forecast shows Republicans narrowly retaking the senate 51-49.  To make my predictions I am simply using the 538 polling average and adjusting based on past years state level polling errors.  We know that some states have more extreme errors, like Ohio and Florida, and that current polls showing Dems leading in these states should be treated with skepticism.  The 538 forecast is laughably wrong, a total joke, as they are too dependent on the polls and liberal pundits who seem to repeatedly forget how flawed the entire industry has become.  It is very possible I am being too conservative in my forecast, and the GOP picks up several senate seats.  Or maybe the national environment really did change after the SCOTUS decision? We shall see.  Either way, I would not trust the polls in giving you an accurate look at what's happening on the ground.

While it def is fair to say polling generally underestimates Rs, I would argue in 2018 on net polling had a pretty neutral bias with Rs happening to outperform polls in a few high-profile races, but I attribute most of that to polling underestimating partisanship in places like IN and MO.

My strategy of adjusting polls tends to be just assuming all the "undecides" break for Rs rather than shifting the margin X points in Rs favor. Idk fully why but based on passed results polls are very good about getting the D vote share but not so much the R; in 2020 many of the polling averages actually got Biden's % eerily correct even as Trump greatly outperformed the margin.

While I def have my disagreements with the 538 model and think the Senate and House models don't line up very well, I actually think the model does a pretty good job at dealing with lopsided polls comapred to other models. Models are based on things that can be measured in objective quantities and a lot of the fundementals that logic would say favor Rs are things that are trickier to factor in. Still, a good example of where the model does way better than other models would be AZ, which they currently rate as 71% Kelly. Given that Kelly leads by 10%+ in polling, has a massive funraising advantage, in an incumbent, and recently outrun the top of the ticket, one might expect a model to output smtg like 90% Kelly. Most of the factors that keep Masters in the running are things based on past history which is impossible for a model to understand in the way we do.

I basically agree with your Senate forecast though. Kelly is currently polling aboce 50% and Fetterman has been getting quite close while CCM despite leading really hasn't gotten to that 50% mark (despite being the incumbent). GA is one of the few places where polling generally seems to hold up ok because of how polarized the electorate is by race. I anticipate an extremely close race

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The polls are massively overestimating Democrat support, as they have for the past four election cycles.  Special elections are also not a great factor in predicting the midterms, as the turnout is usually far lower and the pro-abortion activists have been motivated by Roe v Wade being overturned.  That said, candidate quality this year is unusually bad for Republicans, and we have seen several races which are way closer than they should be simply because the GOP nominated more radical candidates.  However the fundamentals, poor economy and sh**t president, still suggest a red wave in November.

If you look at my Senate prediction, you will see that my forecast shows Republicans narrowly retaking the senate 51-49.  To make my predictions I am simply using the 538 polling average and adjusting based on past years state level polling errors.  We know that some states have more extreme errors, like Ohio and Florida, and that current polls showing Dems leading in these states should be treated with skepticism.  The 538 forecast is laughably wrong, a total joke, as they are too dependent on the polls and liberal pundits who seem to repeatedly forget how flawed the entire industry has become.  It is very possible I am being too conservative in my forecast, and the GOP picks up several senate seats.  Or maybe the national environment really did change after the SCOTUS decision? We shall see.  Either way, I would not trust the polls in giving you an accurate look at what's happening on the ground.

Yeah the polls are massively overstating D's performance and  Trump is dragging down the R brand name

We won WI, NV, GA in 2020 the polls didn't overstate D support in the 303 map

It's not an R wave yr we lost H seats last time in a Neutral yr it's only an R wave if Rs crack the Blue wall which they haven't done since 2016 when they beat Hillary and Trump wasn't corrupted

[Schiff for Senate]

tbf the Alaska result is just due to RCV, nearly 60% of people casted a ballot for a Republican

Also one could argue that some parts of the country are more susceptible to a red wave than others. The last 4 specials were all in yankee white areas with small range urban cores. However on the other hand you have less white districts like CA-22 and TX-31 which had lower turnout and Rs outperformed 2020. Granted, that was before Roe was "officially" overturned but still plenty of time after the leak that dominated media for a while.

The generic ballot numbers are more concerning though and I will give you that.

There is an important distinction to be drawn between the Roe overturn being leaked and Roe actually being struck down.

In the former instance, it was still up in the air and it wasn't like it was confirmed. And it didn't have a tangible effect since until Roe actually got overturned, red states couldn't ban abortion. But right after the decision, literally dozens of GOP controlled states banned abortion, and have continued to move towards banning abortion.

THAT is when it starts mattering to the voters much more - when the abortion clinics are getting shut down, they literally have to travel out of state if they want to get an abortion, and they hear in the news about teenage or preteen girls having to go to a different state to get an abortion because abortion is banned even in cases of rape in their own states. THAT is when it hit home what SCOTUS had allowed, and what the Republicans were doing - literally banning abortion even for cases of rape and incest, and forcing pregnant 10-year-old girls to travel to different states to do so.

Sure, the leak that Roe would be getting overturned did probably have some effect, but at that point it was still a question mark that had no tangible effect. Once Roe actually did get overturned, that opened the floodgates, and the voters' eyes when it came to what the end of Roe actually meant in practice.