View Poll Results: What will be the result of the Midterms (vote twice!!)

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • GOP holds the House

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by less than 12 seats

    20 41.67%
  • Dems win the House by 12-25 seats

    12 25.00%
  • Dems win the House by 25-38 seats

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by 38+ seats

    1 2.08%
  • GOP gains 1 or more seats in the Senate (52-48 or more)

    29 60.42%
  • GOP holds the same number of seats in the Senate (51-49)

    7 14.58%
  • GOP loses seats but still holds the Senate (50-50 with Pence breaking tie)

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the Senate (49-51 or more)

    2 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 53 of 94 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,060 of 1870
  1. #1041
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    No way. History says you are very wrong.
    These are ahistorical times.

    (But I still expect the Dems to retake the House. If they cannot do that, they really ought to disband and let someone else try. This should be fish in a barrel for the reason you state).
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  2. #1042
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    No way. History says you are very wrong.
    In the 2016 election, Republicans won the national House popular vote 49-48. In that same election, despite winning the electoral college, Donald Trump lost the national popular vote by 2 points (48-46). So, the GOP House candidates ran 3 points better than Trump.

    Trump has been a controversial president (I don't think it is partisan to say that) and I hardly think it is unfounded to suggest that there are people who disapprove of his presidency who would still vote for a GOP rep in a congressional race. Conversely, I doubt there are many folks at all who approve of the Trump presidency who will vote for a democrat in their House race. Put simply -- if you like Trump, you probably really like the GOP. If you dislike Trump, it does not mean you hate the rest of the GOP (I have numerous GOP friends who fall into this category).

    So, if Trump gets to only a minus 6 or 7 on his approve/disapprove number, it could easily translate to the GOP being fairly close to break even in the national House popular vote. It is generally accepted that the Dems need to win the nationwide House vote by a couple points to take control of the House thanks to the Gerrymandering that has carved out extra GOP seats in many states. Finally, it is worth noting that presidential approval numbers are polls done of all American adults, not likely voters. As we all know, turnout and passion are a huge deal in mid-term elections and the GOP has a history of being better at turnout than Dems in mid-terms (partially owing to the older nature of the GOP base and the fact that older folks vote at a much much higher rate than young people).

    So, if Trump can get to minus-6 or 7, I think the GOP's chance of holding the House will be around 50%, maybe even higher.

    -Jason "according to 538, the GOP currently has a 25% chance to hold the House... if the Pres is 4 points more popular how can anyone think the GOP odds will not go up significantly?" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  3. #1043
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    These are ahistorical times.

    (But I still expect the Dems to retake the House. If they cannot do that, they really ought to disband and let someone else try. This should be fish in a barrel for the reason you state).
    Gerrymandering is powerful. As is tribalism.

    While I also expect the Democrats to retake the House, there is nothing certain anymore.

  4. #1044
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    The Ds need to flip 24 seats. 25 R seats are in districts won by Hillary. Look at the special election results of the past year.

    No...way.

  5. #1045
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    The Ds need to flip 24 seats. 25 R seats are in districts won by Hillary. Look at the special election results of the past year.

    No...way.
    The real question is how on earth did the Ds lose districts where Hillary won?

    Who are these people, and why would they vote D now if they didn't in 2016, even though they voted for Hillary?

  6. #1046
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    No way. History says you are very wrong.
    Keep in mind history also said that the blue wall would stand and that the electoral college was a negative for Rs in presidential elections. I agree that the Ds are favored, but I can't say "no way" to the Rs holding the House.

    We may be in a period of political realignment all across the West that will make election results slightly more volatile/unpredictable, especially if predictive models over-rely on results from the status quo of the previous 3 decades when the liberal-vs-conservative spectrum was more solidified. Now, we seemingly have competing spectrums such as nationalism-vs-globalism and populism-vs-establishment/experts/elites. While these spectrums or divisions have always existed, they are seemingly much stronger now. And to further complicate matters, the populist left and the populist right will have different ideas and solutions, with maybe an overlap on trade, military adventurism, and distrust of establishment media. (Look at the way The Young Turks [very influential on the populist left] talk about the mainstream media; it's sometimes indistinguishable from the way Rs talk about the mainstream media). All of this is to say that the political landscape is very complex right now and probably less predictable as a result.

  7. #1047
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Take for example NC-9.

    This is a district that, if it went blue, would signal a huge Democratic wave.

    But it's also a unique pick-up opportunity for Dems because the Democrats are challenging for an open seat rather than trying to take down an incumbent with all the inherent advantages built therein.

    The Dems are running a Duke'05 alum and--full disclosure, friend of mine--named Dan McCready. Dan's a veteran, an HBS alum, a business owner, a born again Christian that got baptized in the freaking Euphrates, a husband, and father of several kids. Running as a moderate, and has vowed not to vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain in her leadership role.

    He's running against a pastor and pro-Trump Republican, so the contrast is pretty easy to draw between the two.

    Dan's been out-fundraising the pro-Trump Republican--forgive me, I can't recall his name--and yet, Dan is down 5 points in the latest poll that came out from Nate Cohn at the NYTimes.

  8. #1048
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Nate Silver has a 25% chance of the Republicans holding the House. One out of four is not a small chance by any stretch. I could be wrong, but I think that happens like once every four times.

    That's just two coin flips in a row coming up heads.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  9. #1049
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Nate Silver has a 25% chance of the Republicans holding the House. One out of four is not a small chance by any stretch. I could be wrong, but I think that happens like once every four times.

    That's just two coin flips in a row coming up heads.
    The betting markets have it even closer. At the time of this post, Election Betting Odds have the Ds winning the House at 64%, and PredictIt is similar.

    Of course, that just may mean there's a great investment opportunity available. If one believes that the Ds have, say, a 95% chance at winning the House, then one should probably throw some money down on the markets.

  10. #1050
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Nate Silver says Hi!

    -jk

  11. #1051
    Quote Originally Posted by BandAlum83 View Post
    The real question is how on earth did the Ds lose districts where Hillary won?

    Who are these people, and why would they vote D now if they didn't in 2016, even though they voted for Hillary?
    Analytics don't determine outcomes.

  12. #1052
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Politico has a fairly dire assessment of GOP chances in the House:

    With a month to go until Election Day, there are now 209 seats either firmly or leaning in the Democratic column — only 9 shy of the 218 the party needs to wrest away control of the chamber.

    The ratings, which reflect extensive reporting on the state of the 23-seat GOP majority, evaluations of both parties’ strategies, historical trends and polling data, reveal Democratic candidates have grabbed the lead in a number of House seats — including some with long-time GOP incumbents. Republican outside groups have already started cutting off funding to some races where prospects had dimmed.

    The GOP still has a path to keep the House, but it would require either a near-sweep of the toss-up races or a significant change in the political environment in the final four weeks of the campaign.
    There are a ton of interesting little details about some individual races in the article. It is worth a read.

    -Jason "whew, I can't imagine being one of the GOP incumbents mentioned in the article where the GOP's pocketbook has pulled ads... that must sting" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  13. #1053
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Politico has a fairly dire assessment of GOP chances in the House:



    There are a ton of interesting little details about some individual races in the article. It is worth a read.

    -Jason "whew, I can't imagine being one of the GOP incumbents mentioned in the article where the GOP's pocketbook has pulled ads... that must sting" Evans
    I did note that the article assumes that the GOP's Kav rev-up/bump is temporary and will go away. Not sure what empirical data it relies upon for that.

    It is certainly fair to say that prior to the whole Kav thing, the Dems were poised for a big sweep. Whether that is still true or not remains to be seen.

    (I sure don't know)

    Edit to add: the polling I have seen suggests that the Kav nomination is not viewed favorably by a majority of Americans, especially amongst women. And suburban women is the demographic that seems to have turned hard against the GOP since the last election. So again, I have no idea what the long-term (i.e. four more week) impact of that nomination process will be but I do think it makes some pre-Kav hypotheses subject to retesting.
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 10-09-2018 at 09:13 AM.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  14. #1054
    I don't know that it matters, but my family has stopped answering all political surveys this election season. I do know that polls are becoming more and more unreliable. I imagine that if "opting out" leans more to one side more than the other it can lead to some pretty big miscalculations.

  15. #1055
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by BandAlum83 View Post
    The real question is how on earth did the Ds lose districts where Hillary won?

    Who are these people, and why would they vote D now if they didn't in 2016, even though they voted for Hillary?
    Gerrymandering plays a big part. There's a nice graphic somewhere online that explains it. But it is quite possible to win the popular vote at a state level but lose out at the district level if the districts are gerrymandered in a way to cram a high proportion of one side's votes into fewer districts.

    Somewhat smilar to how one could win the popular vote nationally but lose more states and thus lose an election. Only with the district level, it's a manufactured outcome where districts have been redesigned to favor one side over the other.

  16. #1056
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I don't know that it matters, but my family has stopped answering all political surveys this election season. I do know that polls are becoming more and more unreliable. I imagine that if "opting out" leans more to one side more than the other it can lead to some pretty big miscalculations.
    I do the same. And if they are trying to reach me by cell, I only answer that if I recognize the number so they miss me.

    Polling was more accurate in 2016 than the broadbrush suggests, but it is definitely an evolving social science as technology and personal preferences changes.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  17. #1057
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Gerrymandering plays a big part. There's a nice graphic somewhere online that explains it. But it is quite possible to win the popular vote at a state level but lose out at the district level if the districts are gerrymandered in a way to cram a high proportion of one side's votes into fewer districts.

    Somewhat smilar to how one could win the popular vote nationally but lose more states and thus lose an election.
    I'm pretty sure that we are talking district level not state level. It's a bit like NC going for Trump (R), but Cooper (D) for Governor, and then again an R majority for State Senate and House. Usually situations where the vote is split like that highlights a specific weakness in a candidate. McCrory just has too many issues. Republicans didn't respect him (look up the treatment the Legislature gave his wife on her puppy mill bill) and Democrats didn't like him and Independents didn't seem him as someone who could stand up as a moderate against more conservative Republicans.

  18. #1058
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I'm pretty sure that we are talking district level not state level. It's a bit like NC going for Trump (R), but Cooper (D) for Governor, and then again an R majority for State Senate and House. Usually situations where the vote is split like that highlights a specific weakness in a candidate. McCrory just has too many issues. Republicans didn't respect him (look up the treatment the Legislature gave his wife on her puppy mill bill) and Democrats didn't like him and Independents didn't seem him as someone who could stand up as a moderate against more conservative Republicans.
    The post I was responding to was how Clinton could win a state but so many GOPers could win House seats in those states. And I think gerrymandering is a part of that, as is possibly the fact that representation doesn't necessarily correspond to population base (see the national vote vs state votes). Same is true at a local level, where there are more counties with small populations than counties with big populations, and metro areas (with higher populations) tend to vote differently than rural areas.

  19. #1059
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I don't know that it matters, but my family has stopped answering all political surveys this election season. I do know that polls are becoming more and more unreliable. I imagine that if "opting out" leans more to one side more than the other it can lead to some pretty big miscalculations.
    Professional pollsters who are good at their job will correct for this phenomenon by ensuring that their poll has representative samples of all the various demographic groups and political leanings in a given sample area. So, for example, if GOPers are less willing to answer pollsters, the pollster will keep on making calls (or whatever method he/she is using to gather results) until the poll has found a proper percentage of GOP sympathizers. Another example -- if a pollster happens to have accidentally sampled 60% men in his poll (historically, about 53% of voters tend of be women), he will do something (there are many solutions to this, I'm not going to get into all of them) to get his sample more in line with the general population.

    Does that make sense? The bottom line is that polling science seems to be getting better, not worse, and makes me increasingly confident that the polls we see a few days before election day will prove predictive of the coming election.

    -Jason "I'm an amateur polling scientist... things have changed a ton since I got really into this back in the late 90s at CNN" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  20. #1060
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Does that make sense? The bottom line is that polling science seems to be getting better, not worse, and makes me increasingly confident that the polls we see a few days before election day will prove predictive of the coming election.

    -Jason "I'm an amateur polling scientist... things have changed a ton since I got really into this back in the late 90s at CNN" Evans
    Perfect sense, and it's been so long since I took statistics at State that I forget all the things you can do to correct a sample. Of I also forget that my opinion isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. /sad face

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2018
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-10-2018, 12:23 AM
  2. 2017-2018 team vs 2018-2019 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •