How is the generic House vote redder than the Presidential?

[riverwalk7]

Despite there being only 2 Harris/Republican seats and around a dozen Trump/Democratic seats, it seems like Trump will finish around +1.5 in the popular vote, while the generic Congressional vote seems to be finishing around R +3.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Republicans did really, really well in Safe R seats in the House (and to a lesser extent in Safe D seats).

[Spectator]

Dem candidates in legitimate competitive districts were, as a rule of thumb, stronger than their R counterparts. I don't think anyone can really dispute this on the whole. Obviously there's some exceptions, but for every Don Bacon, there's three Jared Golden's and MGPs and Don Davis's.

[lfromnj]

Also what’s the uncontested skew ?

[หมูเด้ง]

That means that Democrats don’t need the NPV to flip the house

[Arizona Iced Tea]

GOP distribution in the house has weakened significantly. It doesn't matter for Trump since 1 vote in AOC's district offsets 1 vote in Poughkeepsie statewide, but when it comes to key seats for house control the party that has an advantage with college whites is in better position for winning more seats generally, since their geographic distribution is much better.

[wbrocks67]

That means that Democrats don’t need the NPV to flip the house

Yeah if anything, the last two elections showed that Dems can lose the PV by over 2% or nearly 3% and still have a really solid shot at winning the House given their coalition.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

That means that Democrats don’t need the NPV to flip the house

Yeah if anything, the last two elections showed that Dems can lose the PV by over 2% or nearly 3% and still have a really solid shot at winning the House given their coalition.

And some egregious dem gerrymanders in states like Illinois 

[Compuzled_One]

Because they're less controversial than Trump, I'd assume.

[vbfox]

You can have a 50+ point shift in Nancy Pelosi's district or D.C., and you'd still end up with a nearly tied house but redder house vote.

[CentristRepublican]

That means that Democrats don’t need the NPV to flip the house

Yeah if anything, the last two elections showed that Dems can lose the PV by over 2% or nearly 3% and still have a really solid shot at winning the House given their coalition.

And some egregious dem gerrymanders in states like Illinois 

IL seems to be doing very heavy lifting against TX, TN, GA and NC

[Ljube]

That means that Democrats don’t need the NPV to flip the house

No, they don't need it.

The traditional roles have been reversed, and it is Republicans now who need strong popular vote victories to win the House.

[lfromnj]

You can have a 50+ point shift in Nancy Pelosi's district or D.C., and you'd still end up with a nearly tied house but redder house vote.

Actually that’s another factor. DC isn’t a house district but it nets Kamala 300k votes or roughly 0.2 percent which house dems don’t have .