Generic Ballot for Congress

[pbrower2a]

We are now less than a year away from deciding what sort of Congress we shall have in 2018. Nate Silver has some topical analysis.

Democrats have a marked edge in the Congressional ballot -- nearly 10% at times. That is huge. Are Re0publicans likely to reduce that margin significantly?


(Nate Silver, at 538.com)

Quote:The generic congressional ballot, even more than a year before a midterm, has historically been quite predictive of what will eventually occur in the following year. It was predictive in April, and it’s even more predictive now. You can see this phenomenon in the chart below. The chart shows the margin by which the presidential party leads on the generic ballot in an average of polls in October1 a year before the midterm compared with the national House margin in the midterm election. Every midterm cycle since 1938 is included, with the exception of 1942 and 1990, for which we don’t have polling at this point in the cycle.



The generic ballot polls a year from the election and the eventual House results are strongly correlated (+0.90). Importantly, past elections suggest that any big movement on the generic ballot from this point to the midterm tends to go against the president’s party.2 That movement explains why the Democrats lost ground in 2010 and 2014 in the generic ballot polls when they controlled the White House, while they maintained their lead in 2006 when Republicans held the White House. (With a similar set of data, I used the generic ballot to forecast Democratic problems early on in the 2010 cycle.)

Indeed, recent election outcomes show that Republicans should be worried about what the generic ballot is showing. The results in Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey were called perfectly by the generic ballot once we control for the partisan lean of each state. The special election results this year have also been in line with a big Democratic lead on the generic ballot.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...-from-now/

[pbrower2a]

Dem lead in generic ballot polls worries GOP

Republicans head into the holiday season with a daunting number hanging over their heads — 10.7 percent.

Democrats lead their Republican rivals by 10.7 percent on the generic congressional ballot, according to the most recent RealClearPolitics average of available polling data. That mark is the highest the RCP’s average has gone since just before the 2010 elections, where Republicans netted 63 House seats.

It’s a gloomy sign for Republicans, and one that dovetails with President Trump’s sagging approval rating to boost Democratic optimism about taking the House and raises questions about whether Republicans will be able to take advantage of Democratic weakness on the Senate map.

“It’s always stupid to make firm predictions in anything, whether it be politics or the Super Bowl. But it seems clear we are heading in a bad direction” said former Republican National Committee spokesman Doug Heye.

“What we’ve seen so far this year that the constant is massive Trump unpopularity, a growing unpopularity, and we are starting to see that electorally. Knowing there’s never going to be a Donald Trump pivot in any sense, what would tell us that anything in this midterm is different?”

Democrats are pointing to promising results from the off-year elections earlier this month as a promising sign for 2018.

A resounding win by the Democrat in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, as well as strong showings among suburban voters, topped the headlines. But there was more promise down the ballot in other states, too.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/361...orries-gop

[Kinser79]

Yes and Hillary was supposed to be a shoe in for President too. Again polls without methodology are meaningless.

[Warren Dew]

That, and the fact that on average the four labeled points skew Republican by 4 points. That would have the Republicans losing the popular House vote by about 4 points, which given the Democrats' concentration in highly blue districts, would still have Republicans barely hanging on to the House.

[David Horn]

(11-26-2017, 03:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That, and the fact that on average the four labeled points skew Republican by 4 points.  That would have the Republicans losing the popular House vote by about 4 points, which given the Democrats' concentration in highly blue districts, would still have Republicans barely hanging on to the House.

Then there's the issue of taxation without adequate representation.  Do you honestly think that the mostly BLUE urbanites will countenance greatly diminished representation while paying the lion's share of the nation's taxes?  Both disparities have been growing in the last few decades.  I'll wager that we aren't too far from the tipping point, where that issue will move to the center of the political stage.

[Eric the Green]

(11-27-2017, 11:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-26-2017, 03:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That, and the fact that on average the four labeled points skew Republican by 4 points.  That would have the Republicans losing the popular House vote by about 4 points, which given the Democrats' concentration in highly blue districts, would still have Republicans barely hanging on to the House.

Then there's the issue of taxation without adequate representation.  Do you honestly think that the mostly BLUE urbanites will countenance greatly diminished representation while paying the lion's share of the nation's taxes?  Both disparities have been growing in the last few decades.  I'll wager that we aren't too far from the tipping point, where that issue will move to the center of the political stage.

Even with Warren's estimate, that would be a 6 point lead, not 4 point. And there's no reason to think that Real Clear Politics, which skews conservative, would not reflect actual sentiment. But then, it's a long way to November 2018, and we're talking Americans here. Ughhh. So, no prediction can be certain.

The interesting thing about that issue of "concentration" was demonstrated by Virginia's results. If the blue districts really had that much concentration, the result would have been monstrously lopsided in favor of the Democratic candidate. What happened is that the rural red districts are so lopsided, that it takes huge numbers of votes from less-lopsided blue districts to offset it. The rural red districts are brim full of ill-informed, fear-based, prejudiced, fanatical voters who almost unanimously vote Republican. That fact is what rules our politics today. And they have more pull in the electoral college. Of course, in blue states, the blue districts are larger and sometimes more lopsided, and the state goes blue. But these true-blue states are not the majority of states today.

[Warren Dew]

(11-27-2017, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-27-2017, 11:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-26-2017, 03:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That, and the fact that on average the four labeled points skew Republican by 4 points.  That would have the Republicans losing the popular House vote by about 4 points, which given the Democrats' concentration in highly blue districts, would still have Republicans barely hanging on to the House.

Then there's the issue of taxation without adequate representation.  Do you honestly think that the mostly BLUE urbanites will countenance greatly diminished representation while paying the lion's share of the nation's taxes?  Both disparities have been growing in the last few decades.  I'll wager that we aren't too far from the tipping point, where that issue will move to the center of the political stage.

Even with Warren's estimate, that would be a 6 point lead, not 4 point.

The line is not at a 45 degree angle.  A 10.5 point margin on the poll corresponds to an 8 point margin in the actual voting, based on the line.  Add a 4 point Republican skew, and you get an end result of 4 points.

[pbrower2a]

(11-28-2017, 02:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-27-2017, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-27-2017, 11:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-26-2017, 03:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That, and the fact that on average the four labeled points skew Republican by 4 points.  That would have the Republicans losing the popular House vote by about 4 points, which given the Democrats' concentration in highly blue districts, would still have Republicans barely hanging on to the House.

Then there's the issue of taxation without adequate representation.  Do you honestly think that the mostly BLUE urbanites will countenance greatly diminished representation while paying the lion's share of the nation's taxes?  Both disparities have been growing in the last few decades.  I'll wager that we aren't too far from the tipping point, where that issue will move to the center of the political stage.

Even with Warren's estimate, that would be a 6 point lead, not 4 point.

The line is not at a 45 degree angle.  A 10.5 point margin on the poll corresponds to an 8 point margin in the actual voting, based on the line.  Add a 4 point Republican skew, and you get an end result of 4 points.

The slope is about 1/2, which is the tangent. A program that gets the arc tangent as an angle gives about a 27-degree angle.

With a margin of -10 in the generic ballot, the average result is that the White House's Party ends up with a 10-member detriment in the House of Representatives because members in districts more aligned with the other party than R+5 (if the President is a Republican) or D+5 (if the President is a Democrat) generally lose, and those in districts about R+5 with a Republican President or D+5 with a Democratic President have about a 50-50 chance of losing. Open seats are particularly vulnerable.

Gerrymandering still helps Republicans, but perhaps not enough this time. In normal conditions (this is a Crisis Era, so much is abnormal) the politicians in an R+5 to D+5 district are usually moderates, but Republicans have nominated (and gotten elected) stark ideologues  who are anything but moderate. Extremists tend to lose in "moderate" districts in wave elections.

This election portends a wave.

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac University Poll/December 5, 2017

Health care is the most important problem facing the country today, 18 percent of voters say, as 17 percent list the economy. Another 13 percent of voters list foreign policy, while 11 percent cite terrorism and 10 percent list race relations.

Voters say 55–32 percent that the Democratic Party can do a better job on health care.

Voters are closely divided on who does a better job on the economy, as 45 percent say the
Democratic Party and 43 percent say the Republican Party. Democrats are ahead on other issues:

56–34 percent that Democrats can do a better job “fighting for the working class;”

51–37 percent that Democrats can do a better job “representing your values.”

American voters say 50–36 percent, including 44–36 percent among independent voters that they would like the Democrats to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. Voters also say 51–37 percent, including 45–38
percent among independent voters, that they would like Democrats to win control of the U.S. Senate in 2018.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-det...aseID=2504

[Kinser79]

At least Quinnipiac polls post their methodology. Interestingly if you dig into their questions as to party affiliation you'll see Democrats comprise 33% of the questioned, Republicans 21%, with 38% saying Independent 8% went with "Other" (I imagine other could mean everything from Nazis, to Libertarians to Communists). As such this poll merely points out that Democrats think the Democratic Party is better.

Most interestingly the respondents seem to have come mostly from landline users. That of course means Boomers. So we can conclude from this poll that Democrat Boomers like the Democrat party.

Smells of fake poll to me.

[pbrower2a]

(12-07-2017, 11:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: At least Quinnipiac polls post their methodology.  Interestingly if you dig into their questions as to party affiliation you'll see Democrats comprise 33% of the questioned, Republicans 21%, with 38% saying Independent 8% went with "Other" (I imagine other could mean everything from Nazis, to Libertarians to Communists).  As such this poll merely points out that Democrats think the Democratic Party is better.

Most interestingly the respondents seem to have come mostly from landline users.  That of course means Boomers.  So we can conclude from this poll that Democrat Boomers like the Democrat party.

Smells of fake poll to me.

One must take gerrymandering into account in any prediction of the results of the 2018 election. This said, I find it hard to believe that all of the gain in support for Democrats will be in districts with overwhelming Democratic majorities. Large shifts typically take place among voters near the middle of the political spectrum.

Q is a highly-respected pollster. Question: what do you want to believe?

Sure, all sorts of crazy things are possible between now and November 2018, like a great change in the political culture to the benefit of President Trump and the GOP. You are as free to predict such as you are to believe that space aliens will soon land on the White House lawn.

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2017, 11:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-26-2017, 03:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: That, and the fact that on average the four labeled points skew Republican by 4 points.  That would have the Republicans losing the popular House vote by about 4 points, which given the Democrats' concentration in highly blue districts, would still have Republicans barely hanging on to the House.

Then there's the issue of taxation without adequate representation.  Do you honestly think that the mostly BLUE urbanites will countenance greatly diminished representation while paying the lion's share of the nation's taxes?   Both disparities have been growing in the last few decades.  I'll wager that we aren't too far from the tipping point, where that issue will move to the center of the political stage.

Add to this any perception that the Republicans are using changes in tax laws to reward supporters and punish opponents. This is not the GOP of the Gerald Ford - Bob Michel era anymore; this is a rigidly-disciplined cadre party intent on ruining the other side. Whether it can get away with such will either determine what sort of America meets the most dangerous phase of this Crisis Era. Corrupt, dictatorial regimes fared badly in the last Crisis Era. That observation includes Stalin's Soviet Union, which survived only because it could sacrifice far more cannon fodder than Nazi Germany.

[Eric the Green]

"Voters are closely divided on who does a better job on the economy, as 45 percent say the
Democratic Party and 43 percent say the Republican Party."

Obviously, American voters are as wrong on that as could be. The margin should be at least as strongly Democratic as on the other issues. When will people realize that trickle-down economics doesn't work? How many decades of failure does it take?

[pbrower2a]

Here may be a portent:

WASHINGTON ― Wisconsin Democrats scored a major upset victory Tuesday when they won a state Senate race in a district that Donald Trump easily carried in the 2016 presidential election.

Top Wisconsin Republicans ― including House Speaker Paul Ryan ― acknowledged it was a blow to their party, and it could mean bad news for the GOP in the 2018 midterm elections.

“I know this district fairly well. It’s not my district. It’s over in western Wisconsin. But typically, we’ve held this seat. And we lost this seat last night,” Ryan told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. “So yeah, I think we should pay attention to it.”

GOP Gov. Scott Walker, who is up for re-election in Wisconsin this year, called it a “wake-up call.”

Quote:Senate District 10 special election win by a Democrat is a wake up call for Republicans in Wisconsin.
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) January 17, 2018

Democrat Patty Schachtner, a county medical examiner, defeated her Republican opponent in state Senate District 10. Walker called a special election for the seat after the incumbent, Republican Sheila Harsdorf, gave it up to become his agriculture secretary.

Harsdorf first won the seat in 2000, and the district has been solidly Republican. In 2016, Harsdorf won re-election by 26 percentage points, and Trump beat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by 17 points. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney carried the district in 2012.

Tuesday’s win was the latest in a series of victories for Democrats since Trump’s inauguration. The party has flipped 34 state legislative seats nationwide, compared with just four pick-ups for the GOP. Democrats last year also recaptured the governor’s mansion in New Jersey and ― in 2017′s highest-profile race ― gained a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama.

In Wisconsin, Republicans had sensed that the District 10 seat was vulnerable and threw in a fair amount of money to boost the Republican candidate, Adam Jarchow. The conservative Americans for Prosperity spent at least $50,000 on ads, and the groups Wisconsin Alliance for Reform and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce combined to spend $80,000.

On the Democratic side, Greater Wisconsin spent $30,000, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee contributed $10,000.

Jessica Post, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee ― the group in charge of electing Democrats at the statehouse level ― said Schachtner’s win “perfectly encapsulates the local progressive movement” sweeping the country.

“An active community leader, Senator-elect Schachtner shared her lifelong connection to the district and connected with her future constituents about the issues they care about, from investing more in education to ensuring rural areas have access to quality health care and helping businesses grow to boost the local economy,” Post said in a statement.

Both Walker and Ryan are favored to win re-election, but Democrats are fighting to unseat them. There’s a crowded field in the Democratic primary to take on Walker. And in Ryan’s district, Democrats have been excited about the candidacy of populist ironworker Randy Bryce.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...mg00000009

[pbrower2a]

PA-18 is settled except for a possible recount, and it is ominous for Republicans nationwide. As I have seen on direct polling of the President in statewide polls, the biggest losses of support for Donald Trump are generally where he won by the largest margins Maybe some of these places are reverting to what they were in the (Bill) Clinton or even the Carter era. These are Senate polls, and they are relevant to the Presidency and to Congress.

Dem margins in Senate battlegrounds, per @ppppolls

#PAsen Casey (D, inc) 54% (+18) Barletta (R ) 36%
#WIsen Baldwin (D, inc) 51 (+12) Vukmir (R ) 39
#TNsen Bredesen (D) 46 (+5) Blackburn (R ) 41, open seat to replace Corker (R )
#NVsen Rosen (D) 44 (+5) Heller (R, inc) 39
#AZsen Sinema (D) 46 (+5) McSally (R ) 41%, open seat to replace Flake (R )

Republicans are not going to pick up Senate seats in at least two of the three states that President Trump won by the narrowest of margins with margins like those shown here. There just isn't enough time. I see nothing in this polling data on the other of the three closest "Trump states" of 2016 (Michigan), but I would expect Stabenow to do about as well as Baldwin or Casey.

The other three involve a Republican incumbent trying to hold onto a state that has been drifting D (Heller in Nevada) and two open seats. Arizona was close in 2016, suggesting that demographics could flip the state in statewide races including for the electoral votes in 2020 and any vote for the inevitable successor of Senator John McCain. In the other -- one need remember that moderate Democrats Al Gore and Jim Sasser did well in Tennessee when it had a reputation as a 'moderate' state.

These five polls do not say everything about the Senate, as Democrats are trying to hold onto Senate seats in states generally understood as Republican-leaning: Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio. But those five suggest a D wave, as all five have margins lying from just beyond the usual margin of error to seemingly decisive.

Republicans can hold the Senate

[pbrower2a]

Although this is a special election for a seat  on a state Supreme Court, the landslide win for a liberal in Wisconsin augurs badly for Republicans.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/poli...477978002/

Quote:MADISON - Rebecca Dallet trounced Michael Screnock on Tuesday for a seat on the state Supreme Court, shrinking the court's conservative majority and giving Democrats a jolt of energy heading into the fall election.

It marked the first time in 23 years that a liberal candidate who wasn't an incumbent won a seat on the high court.

“I attribute it to Wisconsin voters standing up to special interests," said Dallet, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. "I think they're ready to have fair and independent courts.

"I’m the candidate with the most experience, really standing up for the rights of Wisconsinites every day and I think people saw that and spoke out today and I’m quite excited by it, by the results.”

Dallet's sizable margin alarmed Republican Gov. Scott Walker enough that he posted a series of messages on Twitter warning he could be the victim of a "blue wave" this fall.

With 88% of wards reporting, Dallet led Screnock 56% to 44%, according to unofficial returns.

Statewide elections in Wisconsin are usually close, the most blatant exception being the 2008 Presidential race, which was an electoral blowout in the northeastern and Far Western USA.

There seems to be no scandal, and no panicking event.

[pbrower2a]

PublicPolicyPolling
‏Verified account @ppppolls
Apr 4

Final 12 point margin of victory for Democrats in Wisconsin last night is very similar to the 12-13 point lead we found for Tammy Baldwin against her Republican opponents a couple weeks ago

https://twitter.com/ppppolls

The GOP does not usually lose by large margins in statewide races in Wisconsin, so this is not a good pertent for Republicans in Wisconsin

[pbrower2a]

from the Cook Political Report:



House Overview
Risk Factors for 2018 GOP House Incumbents

David Wasserman
April 20, 2018
@Redistrict

Multiple indicators, including generic ballot polls , President Trump's approval ratings and recent special election results, point to midterm danger for Republicans. But without robust race-by-race polling, it's trickier to predict individual races six months out. Are Democrats the favorites to pick up the 23 seats they need for a majority? Yes, but it's still not certain which races will materialize for Democrats and which won't.

Our latest ratings point to 56 vulnerable GOP-held seats, versus six vulnerable Democratic seats. Of the 56 GOP seats at risk, 15 are open seats created by retirements. Even if Democrats were to pick up two-thirds of those seats, they would still need to hold all their own seats and defeat 13 Republican incumbents to reach the magic number of 218. Today, there are 18 GOP incumbents in our Toss Up column.
That Toss Up list is likely to grow as the cycle progresses. Out of the 65 GOP incumbents rated as less than "Solid," 49 were first elected in 2010 or after, meaning more than three quarters have never had to face this kind of political climate before. And, Democrats have a donor enthusiasm edge: in the first quarter of 2018, at least 43 sitting Republicans were out-raised by at least one Democratic opponent.
In 2010, House Democrats suffered a backlash against their votes for two polarizing pieces of legislation: cap and trade (which died in the Senate) and the Affordable Care Act (which passed). 2018 may be a mirror image: House Republicans must defend their votes for the AHCA (which polled far worse than Obamacare and died in the Senate) and the tax bill. A new Gallup poll found voters still disapprove of the tax bill, 52 percent to 39 percent, four months after passage.

Armed with fresh FEC data, we have created a table listing seven "risk factors" to gauge Republican incumbents' political health and readiness for a wave election. In the past, those incumbents with a high number of risk factors have typically been the ripest targets, while those with fewer risk factors could still be vulnerable but may be better able to withstand a hostile political environment.
The seven risk factors are:

1. Sits in a district with a Cook PVI score of R+5 or less Republican.
   
2. Sits in a district that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016.
   
3. Received 55 percent of the vote or less in the 2016 election (or a 2017 special election).
   
4. Voted in favor of the American Health Care Act in the May 4 roll call vote.
   
5. Voted in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the December 19 roll call vote.
   
6. Raised less money than at least one Democratic opponent in the first quarter of 2018.
   
7. Has a Democratic opponent with at least $200,000 in cash on hand as of March 31.
   

Only one incumbent, Rep. Steve Knight (CA-25), has all seven risk factors. Eight incumbents have six risk factors, 23 incumbents have five, 23 incumbents have four and 32 have three. This is not a hard and fast list, and over the next quarter, many incumbents will add or subtract factors based on their own and their opponents' progress.


Source.

Names are named at the link.

[Eric the Green]

Let's hope all the risk factors are potent factors in the 2018 election.

[Eric the Green]

CBS News Battleground Tracker shows the House is a toss-up in midterms, June 3 2018.