In 2012 the RCP average of the generic congressional ballot was R +0.2. The actual result was D +1.2. Due to reasons that don’t need to be gone over for the one billionth time this resulted in 234 R seats to 201 D.
Today’s RCP average of the generic congressional ballot is D +4.0.
Looking at the Cook Partisan Voting Index giving the Democrats every dem leaning district, every even district, and splitting the R +1 districts results in a 234 R -201 D split.
However, if you give the dems all dem leaners, all even, all R +1, R +2, and split the R +3 districts, you get a 212 R - 223 D split (or thereabouts).
Now that I see the thread title on the elections page I’ve noticed that it looks much more spammy than the dumb joke I intended. Please don’t close this thread as spam. It’s a real thread.
While it seems that most of the pundits and politicians have long-since given up on the Dems flipping the House, and you probably should too, I suppose just about anything is possible, if very unlikely. One clarification: is the first column in your tabular mode supposed to correlate with what the polling average is, or the actual election results?
Dems taking the house might cause me to rethink my position on a deity.
It would be great but I think winning a lot of state houses in 2020 is going to be required. That or going proportional representative by state. The latter would have me believing in a whole pantheon.
Possible. About the only think really required would be an unusually massive turnout among everybody who is not a knuckle-walking troglodyte. Mr Trump is doing his level best to make that come about, and promises to do more.
I think many “independents” will use their vote for Hillary as an excuse to vote for GOP Congresscritters. The Predictwise estimate for Democratic House control has fallen steadily and is down to 11%.
I’m limiting my hope to the Senate where, if I’m reading correctly, the split would be 50-50 if elections were held today. That assumes Ross wins NC and McGinty wins PA, two Democrats in very close races.
It could happen. It’s probably a 10%-15% likelihood scenario.
Does it matter? If Republicans hold at least 40 Senate seats, does taking the House help the Dems at all? Or does it hurt them by giving them more responsibility for the inevitable continued deadlock?
The implied probability in this market is around 25% right now. Full disclosure, I bought 30 shares of Dem house control at $0.13 when I started this thread.
Well, control gives the Dems the ability to confirm justices, and if the Repub’s are real dicks, the Dems will remove the filibuster for SCOTUS also (which leads me to think they won’t be real dicks - Hillary will be able to get Garland in (if he doesn’t get approved lame duck), and should be able to move 3 or 4 clicks left without too much trouble).
Can’t they just change the rules with a simple majority? By this point any hope of collegiality and bipartisanship seems long gone, so we might as well go back to requiring the talking filibuster or even more.
Yes, that’s what I was saying when I wrote “Getting 50 Senators means they can . . . change the rules and even appoint justices.”
And that happens internally within the Senate, obviously. It doesn’t require the House. So my question is: What do they get from winning the House assuming they have 50-55 Senate seats?
That question is so uncharacteristic of you, Richard, that I hesitate to answer. Then they have the House? And the Senate and the President. I remember being told that was a good thing.
I think I don’t get what you mean. If they can change the rules with 50-55, then they can eliminate the need for 60 votes except for talking filibusters, right? If so, and they control the House, then they can easily pass minimum wage, a public option for health care, tax reform, immigration reform, etc., right? So getting the House would be a huge deal and mean lots of Democratic priority legislation passing.