Last week, I asked if the GOP will get a needed bump out of Kavanaugh and answered that it appeared they would, at least in the contest for control of the U.S. Senate. I also declared that President Trump and the Republican Party are losing the Midwest because that’s the one Trump-friendly region of the country that moves away from the president when things get polarized over workers’ vs. corporate interests. Overall, however, the increased polarization resulting from Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court has greatly benefitted the Republicans’ bid to keep Mitch McConnell in his position as Senate Majority Leader. The Supreme Court also lent a hand last week by doing nothing about the mass disenfranchisement of Native Americans under North Dakota’s new election law that prevents anyone who has a P.O. Box rather than a residential street address from voting, possibly (and dishonorably) crippling Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s chances of winning reelection.
A consistent theme in my analysis of the Kavanaugh issue was that it would have a divergent effect, making Democratic control of the House more likely while making a takeover of the Senate harder than ever. Nate Silver openly cops to the fact that he was initially dubious of this prediction:
At first, I was a little skeptical of the narrative that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process could send the House and Senate moving in opposite directions. Usually in politics, a rising tide lifts all boats — so whichever party benefited from the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation would expect to see its fortunes improve in both its best states and districts and its worst ones.
But a House-Senate split is exactly what we’re seeing in the FiveThirtyEight forecast. Democratic prospects in the Senate are increasingly dire, having fallen to about 1 in 5. Indeed, it’s been hard to find any good news for Democrats in Senate polling lately. In the House, by contrast, their opportunity is holding up relatively well. In fact, Democrats’ chance of taking the House has ticked back upward to about 4 in 5, having improved slightly from around 3 in 4 immediately after Kavanaugh was confirmed. And while district-by-district House polling has been all over the place lately, Democrats’ position has improved slightly on the generic congressional ballot.
I’m not obsessive about clicking on the latest polls, but I do check in at least once a day, and the results for the Democrats lately are probably worse than Silver suggests. Today, a highly rated Emerson College poll has Nevada Senator Dean Heller, who is widely considered the most vulnerable Republican incumbent, leading Democratic challenger Jacky Rosen by seven points. Beto O’Rourke is trailing Ted Cruz by nine points. An Ipsos poll over the weekend had Senator Bill Nelson losing to Florida Governor Rick Scott by two, and one of theirs from last week had Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill trailing by one and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s once substantial lead reduced down to a single point. The Siena College/New York Times polls have been bearish on Democratic candidates in both the Senate and House, and they’re showing the Senate races in Tennessee and Texas slipping away. There was even a poll over the weekend that had Minnesota Senator Tina Smith’s lead at a mere three points.
If these polls are accurate and they hold up, the Democrats are going to lose seats in the Senate and possibly get washed out. Silver says his numbers show a converse effect in the House races and I don’t doubt that. But I’m seeing a lot of Republican strength lately in areas where I thought the Democrats had at least pulled even if not ahead.
Some examples include Virginia’s 2nd District, New Jersey’s 3rd District, Minnesota’s 8th District, New York’s 1st District, Florida’s 27th District, Washington’s 8th District, and Pennsylvania’s 1st and 16th Districts. Some previously encouraging polling out of Illinois looks newly discouraging, too.
What I am definitely not seeing is strong movement in the Democrats’ position in this post-Kavanaugh environment. I can find you some examples of where I think the controversy has helped the Democrats, but the overall picture is bleak. It doesn’t look like a wave that is cresting but more like one that is petering out.
It could be that previous polling was always too optimistic and that things would inevitably get closer as the election approached and the Republicans’ traditional advantage with likely midterm voters took effect. It could also be that things are actually just as bad as they ever have been for the GOP but that the likely voter models used by many polling outfits are too reliant on voter behavior from previous cycles. They may be discounting too many Democratic voters’ likelihood of showing up.
That seems like grasping at straws to me, though, and I’m here to raise the alarm. With only a few weeks left before Election Day, the Democrats are not where they hoped to be.
This is both depressing and worrying. What could Democrats do nationally to turn the pendulum back in the up direction? IMO, I think we need a single voice of one or more prominent Democrats, elected or not, who could motivate the Democrats and the so-called independents. I’ve no idea who that person or persons should be.
Maybe a series of 3 ads blanketing the media. Get some pac monies behind the effort. You’ve no idea how many Kemp ads are on my local cable networks. Every channel almost. And, I’m afeared his voter suppression is gonna work! When you make voting difficult it tamps down on the enthusiasm.
This is too pessimistic (imagine me saying that to you). As Silver makes clear, the trend is towards the Rs in the Senate, but towards Ds in the House, were the win Dem win probability is as high as it has ever been.
Just to give an example…you list PA-1 as a place where there have been recent disappointing polls numbers, but in fact the most recent NY Times poll is the first to show Wallace ahead.
Winning the Senate in this round was always going to be a super long shot, given the number of D incumbents in very red states.
I still think we win the House, but at thing stand today, at closer to the thirty seat margin than the much higher margin that looked likely in early September.
As of this morning, 538 gives Ds 85% chance of winning the House, with an estimated gain of 40 seats.
I understand and appreciate (as always) your determination to give honest analysis, even if it is negative. But let’s anticipate a bit the spin the day after we win 35 seats in the House while the Senate remains 51R-49D. “Split decision” the media will be tempted to say. “Massive victory in the Senate, which everyone said we were going to lose” Trump will tweet. We don’t want that. We need to pre-spin the Senate results so that it’s clear that simply maintaining the status quo is a huge victory–which it is. Two years ago it would have been easy to imagine us neck-and-neck, or behind, in Ohio, PA, Wisconsin. I’m frankly amazed that McCaskill is still competitive in MO…I expected her to be a goner.
We could lose:
McCaskill
Heitkamp
Nelson
Manchin
Donnelly
And we could fail to pick up a seat in Nevada or even Arizona, let alone Texas or Tennessee.
You’re complacent if you think we’re looking at status quo in the Senate. The movement is all in the wrong direction right now.
And right on time, Nate Cohn backs up exactly what I wrote yesterday.
It’s counter-intuitive that ramming through a very unpopular nominee would substantially aid Repub fortunes, even in Red states. But that Nelson is losing to the banality-of-evil Skeletor tells you all you need to know. That ain’t no wave. The brain of the American self-proclaimed “independent” is as ruined as your average Repub extremist. And the rural/exurban ladies are unshakeable.
It’s all waiting for Gotterdamerung now.
Trump’s Gallup numbers are getting better, too.
Maybe a result of all the Trump-fluffing GOP ads on TV?
I’m somewhat skeptical that polls show “Supreme Court has greatly benefited the Republicans’ bid to keep Mitch McConnell in his position as Senate Majority Leader. ” or whether the Kavanaugh hearings just accelerated the “coming home” effect of Republicans.
Polls do show that Democrats REMAIN more excited to vote than Republicans, but the for sure the GOP engagement has lifted.
In the meantime, I don’t know what to do with this analysis. No one is taking a blue wave for granted, and 8 months ago we were talking about how the Senate was no where near in play and we would be lucky to lose only one seat or stay even. If that is the starting point, then what the Dems have actually done is successfully kept the blue wave level of activism in play, raised absolutely ungodly amounts of money, and showed they could fight during the hearings.
What else are we supposed to do? I’m donating to small, close races, calling on behalf of House candidates, etc etc. The most recent takes from the Nate Silvers, David Wasserman, Larry Sabato, and every other neutral and respectable prognosticator still thinks we are in the 25-35 seat gain range and I would also point out that after a week and a half of bad polls we are now getting some more (non-Senate) info that IS positive.
Just my two cents, but for me this perspective is so depressing I can’t take it seriously.
I wish I could figure out how this rating system works. I couldn’t agree more with what you said.
Thanks, I actually wanted to follow up on my own comment to say that Democrats are LITERALLY invested in this campaign to a degree that has never been seen before for a midterm.
People are putting up tons of money, and you think they will just walk away after that!? Or, is it actually more likely that they are going to follow through and what we are actually seeing is that Trump didn’t make an ass out of himself and his numbers improved (which they always do when he is not in the news).
That seems to be close to where I am. Always expected that the Senate flipping was a non-starter. D’s will have a great night if they just keep the status quo. Would not be surprised to see a bit of a net loss there. The map was always horrible, so not much seems to have changed. The House looks good still. No one should take that for granted. Turnout is going to be crucial. One thing I will be interested in is turnout for the midterms. Much higher than 2014 might be cause for optimism for those hoping for a better than expected outcome (Dems gaining more than 25-35 seats and flipping house, and breaking even in Senate but not netting enough seats flipping the Senate). The sort of somewhat higher turnout we seem to be expecting – and we get the sort of outcomes Sabato and others have been projecting all along.
And the polls had Trump losing, too, remember? I’m getting tired; no matter where I turn, whether to blogs or MSNBC, all I’m hearing lately is that the Democrats are doomed, doomed, doomed, falling into some trap laid by the wily GOP, or something. It depresses, not motivates, and it’s different from simply being realistic.
True, but Mitch McConnell has been whipping the dems for years and years now.
I don’t know if the wave is cresting at all.
What it seems to me is that people are overanalyzing short-term poll changes at the expense of long-term trends.
If we assume a +10D generic result, an MOE +/-3 would mean that you could reasonably get +16 and +4 results with the same underlying numbers. This assumes that MOEs are normally distributed, which I’m not sure they are.
It doesn’t matter how unpopular Kavanaugh is or was. If you want conservative policies you realize they are not achievable through democratic means which means you have to accept horrible people, subverting democracy, and allying yourself with hostile foreign powers.
So at this point you swallow hard, vote GOP, and gear up to claim the house was only lost through Chinese meddling and ramp up for court challenges, brooks brother riots, and actual violence over lost house seats.
The mind of the conservative. And it even seems right. Damn!
Here in Northern Illinois it looks Roskam is in the fight of his life and the betting is for him to lose and at least one other Suburban Republican Congressman.
Partly this is driven by incumbent (R) Governor’s numbers being lower than whale shit. Despite challenger Pritzer (D) still being under 50%, he leads Rauner by 20 points! Downstate not much change. The action is all in Chicago and the collar counties. Weak (R)’s and strong (D) challengers and chaos at the top of the ticket. (R) strategy seems to be to just shout MADIGAN! as loud and rapidly as possible. Only the deeply faithful care at all about Speaker Madigan being old and powerful (and possibly corrupt but around here that goes without saying, if you are in IL politics and are successful, it’s give that you are corrupt).
Both Senators already (D) so no change there. I do think that IL is going against the rest of the Midwest, however. It’s Rauner (aka Ruiner) and Roskam (aka Rosscum), personally for the most part.
As you know, I do not have a great deal of belief in either polls or pollsters. I do, however listen up when they say things that I have been saying here for months.
Typical of my take since I wrote my “Go West, Young Man” series about what I was seeing, hearing and feeling on a week-long car trip through TrumpLand, the eastern states edition thereof, I have been uneasy with the widely media-promoted idea of a “Blue wave” that was going to be the beginning of the end for Trumpdom.
Why?
Because when I made a similar trip before the 2016 election, there was fire in the air!!! Pro-Trump fire, everywhere I turned, specially on the radio talk shows. Thus my many predictions that trump would win then. His voters..no matter how misguided they might have been…were at the very least engaged.
Emotionally!!!
But this summer?
“Meh,” all over the airwaves.
However, since the foofaraw over Kavanaugh?
It sounds to me like the Trumpish voters may well once again be engaged…fanned to a brighter flame by the Kavanaugh investigation and the Trumpist forces’ intelligent use of it to reignite their followers.
Meanwhile, back at the Dem ranch?
Complaints about losing that match, basically. And…a concomitantly depressive state of mind.
Angry voters go the the polls.
Depressed ones?
Not so much.
Add to that the vast number of Americans who are so through with the media flap wars that they have essentially tuned out completely? Something that I saw in the same general neighborhood as early as late June/early July?
And here we jolly well are.
Aren’t we.
Headed for November and praying for rain.
In the middle of a Trumpist desert.
Sigh…
AG
I am not good at predicting any of this. I simply get depressed.
I am reminded of that great policy initiative of Chuck and Nancy. I’m sure you recall it — “The Better Deal”. Great, too bad it was so tiny and long forgotten. . By which I mean if you want people to sit up and take some notice you had better make some noise, say like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’ve heard it said she is totally out of it,off her rocker and such. But I sure do like her attitude. She has already promised to take it to the dem die hards. Says she is going to square up with them on Medicare and will make some of them mad if they are trying to deliver pay days for Wall Street donors.
Oh well, I think you have to grab folks attention and you only do that when you have something to say. Maybe that is a page from Trumps playbook. It sure doesn’t seem like Chuck and Nancy, especially when your appeal is to paygo. You have to be ready to make a few mistakes, maybe even a bunch of them. Break a few balls here and there. Shit Manchin even voted for the asshole and is still in trouble.
Chuck dampened turnout by fast tracking more facist monsters into the judiciary.
I sick to death of the back-biting by, on, about liberls/progressives. By reading liberal blogs, I could easily be self-loathing if I took any of this crap to heart. But, Democrats are not successful because there is too much nitpicking by the liberal bloggers about how we do this wrong; we do that wrong; and we do this and that wrong. Try writing about our positive attributes once in while. Pat us on the back when we work to get Democrats elected, especially when we are successful. I think I will give up blogs between now and the election just to get away from the constant negative writings about what dopes Democrats/liberals/progressives are.
This is too pessimistic a read on the polls.
Nelson has led in FL in 7 of the last 8 polls.
Manchin looks solidly ahead with no real danger.
Donnelly was allegedly vulnerable, and hardly anybody is even talking about his race at this point. Ditto Tester.
We all knew that McCaskill was in for a very tough race, but the polls show an even split, with every poll (except a single R-leaning outlier) showing the race within 2-3 points.
We also knew that Heitkamp was in a very tough position, and she is likely to lose, though ND is sparsely polled, and this is what the polls showed in 2012 before her surprise victory.
Sinema is holding up pretty well in AZ and is favored to take a seat, which would at least make up for Heitkamp.
The one Senate race that is really disappointing is NV, where Rosen ought to be further ahead of Heller after his ACA nonsense and has seemingly been losing ground. I don’t know how to explain that, and it should be a Dem flip, so if it isn’t I will agree that that’s disappointing.
But the chance of Dems getting “wiped out” in the Senate — which I might define as losing 3 or more seats — is ~19% per Silver’s model.
Meanwhile, on the House side, the generic ballot has shown a clear upward tick since Kavanaugh was confirmed. And Silver’s model shows a mean gain of 37 seats, with more upside than downside.
Anymore, I just assume anything under +3 for the Democrat means it’s too close to call.
While Strongman Trump has made overt racism Great Again, there are still a whole lot of silent racists who only express their racism in the voting booth, where no one can see it.
I have been tracking the Senate races to see where to donate. As of today morning (10/16/18), here is Fivethirtyeight’s handicaps:
Indiana Donnelly 7/9
Florida Nelson 5/8
Tennessee Bredesen 2/9
Nevada Rosen 2/5
North Dakota Heitkamp 1/3
Missouri McCaskill 4/7
Not sure why Bredesen is still so far behind.
I thought he had a good chance.
I doubt the “wave” was going to win the Senate for Dems unless they could win in TX or Tenn, which was always the wildest of wild-shots.
Basically Dems’ chances of winning the Senate depended on picking up 2 in NV and AZ, plus not losing any seats in Red states.
Well Heitkamp is potentially losing ND, which would not shock anybody. She barely managed to win in 2012 and that is a conservative GOP state.
Without her, then the best Dems could do is 1 seat pickup – unless they managed to win some DEEP red states like Tennessee and Texas. Well, there might have been some polling that showed their candidates closely behind. But, did anybody even think that a “Blue Wave” would win Texas or Tennessee?
Right now Democrats have an 80% chance of winning the House, and that has increased rather than decreased since the Kavanaugh hearings.
If Heller wins Nevada that will be an upset. Nobody can tell what will happen there.
But, it’s been clear all along that Democrats would need a miracle to win the Senate. The pickup in Alabama seemed to make that barely possible, but you would need to win some deep red states to pull it off.
Or win every close state, while holding all your own seats.
In 2020 by contrast, Republicans will be defending vulnerable senate seats in CO, IA, ME, AZ, NC as well as a bunch of safe seats. Democrats will probably need to net 2 of these to win control over the Senate, and possibly 1. They will be defending AL as well.
But, the House is pretty predictable. Democrats will win enough there, but probably not in the 35-40 seat range that was being predicted earlier. If there is any movement to Republicans, it will be in a few deep red states where they instinctively rally to Trump everytime he says or does something offensive or outrageous.
But, that is not going to get them the House. If they hold the Senate it will be because the electoral map favored them.
If CO Cory Gardiner were running this year, he’d be in trouble. So would Joni Ernst in IA. Sue Collins in ME will have 2 years to defend her vote for Kavanaugh which won’t be fun. Jon Kyl in AZ won’t be running so that’s an open seat.
This race is where it has always been. Dems hold about an 8% lead on the generic ballot, while having a large field of potentially close races where they could pick up seats. Charlie Cook has essentially called the House races for the Democrats.
It’s possible that the Trump voters will all turn out at 80% like they did in 2016 without Trump on the ballot, and the Dems fail to turn out, so all the polling will be wrong, but that’s not very likely.
The thing you need to remember is 538 is right, and you are not. It doesn’t matter who “you” happens to be. That doesn’t mean 538’s polls are what’s going to happen they regularly point out how polls could be off, but they are the best for a reason.
Just to cheer you up:
IL-06:
Sean Casten raised just shy of $2.7 million, nearly double Peter Roskam’s $1.4 million haul. Meanwhile, Casten has widened his lead in recent polling to 5 points, the Cook Political Report moved IL-06 to its “Lean Democrat” column, and rumors abound that national Republicans are considering cutting Roskam off.
IL-12:
Brendan Kelly raised more than $1.1 million, twice as much as Mike Bost, who raised only $552k. Kelly’s Q3 total is the most amount of money EVER raised by a candidate for Congress in IL-12, and he has now outraised the incumbent Bost in all five quarters he has been in the race. Kelly is also safely within the margin of error in polling, trailing Bost by 1 point in three straight polls.
IL-13:
Betsy Dirksen Londrigan raised nearly $1.7 million in Q3 from over 10,000 individual contributions. That’s roughly $1 million more than Rodney Davis, who raised only $700k, and has now had his cash on hand advantage virtually erased. Recent polling shows Londrigan trails by just 1 point, making it one of the closest races in the country.
IL-14:
Lauren Underwood raised more than $2 million, more than 4 times Randy Hultgren’s total of $455k. This is the third consecutive filing period Underwood has out-raised her Republican incumbent opponent, and she now has an approximately $600k cash on hand advantage heading into the final stretch.
Roskam is the political heir of the notorious Henry Hyde (Hyde amendment).
Dirksen is an old and respected Republican name, but the family connection is uncertain. Betsy believes that Senator Everett Dirksen was a distant cousin but is unsure. The name will undetectably pick up votes from old-timers anyway. Like having the maiden name of Eisenhower in Kansas.