Trump's effect on upcoming Senate and House races

That’s like saying the Titanic ran into “a little” ice.

A few recent historical examples:

Gary Johnson 2012: July poll 5.3%, actual vote 0.99%
Jill Stein 2012: September poll 2%, actual vote 0.36%
Bob Barr 2008: July poll 6%, actual vote 0.40%

Admittedly, this is an unusual year, and Johnson may do better than expected by getting votes from Republicans who know that Trump is incompetent but can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary.

I started a thread predicting that Trump’s candidacy would be catastrophic for the Republicans in both the House and Senate. They will lose both.

I’m sticking by my prediction. I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, other than the behavior of Donald Trump and the Republican congressional leadership seeming to avoid him like the plague but still not able to bring themselves do withdraw their personal endorsements of him.

As noted, the third party numbers will very likely go down on election day. And of course, there’s no “none of the above” or “undecided” on the actual election ballot. You’ll note that the RCP average numbers don’t add up to 100%, so Hillary is really averaging 43.9/92.3 which is pretty close to the 48% you said she needs.

If this poll is accurate and holds up to November, the Democrats have got the House. Even with gerrymandering and inefficiently distributed urban Democrats, the Republicans cannot hold their majority with an eight point loss nationally. Probably anything more than a three point loss will knock Paul Ryan out of his job.

Problem is that no generic candidate is up for election in a generic district.

On the subject of gerrymandering, here is an excellent post by Pleonast.

This isn’t much of an objection. You may as well complain that nobody has polled you. The generic ballot has a strong correlation with the number of seats won or lost by either party, as Sam Wang has shown.

Oops. N/m

But Republican House candidates don’t win by slim margins in most cases. Per 538:

Another cautionary note in that article suggests that the eight point lead in the generic ballot may actually just mean control of the House is a coin flip right now:

Johnson is not “right wing”. He’s all over the place.

And, Johnson wont change the Senate races.

What with gerrymandering, I just cant see the GOP losing the House. Hopefully, the GOP will lose just enough seats so that a few Republicans can be talking into crossing the aisle on important votes.

My call for a very close Senate, like 51/49 GOP still stands.

The post in which he stated that 2012 would see the House be very close to a tie and maybe go D?

Actual result? R majority of 33 I think?

I loves me my Wang but not one of his best data crunches.

Clearly 2012 and 2014 falsified his hypothesis.

Right now the GOP is still looking likely to hold the Senate, they’re only looking likely to lose in New Hampshire, Illinois and Wisconsin, which is just +3. But they’re also looking to lose Harry Reid’s seat (he isn’t running again, and the Republican running against his Democratic successor is currently up in the polls.) All the other “vulnerable Republicans” are actually ahead of their challengers in the polls, at the moment.

FWIW (and again, on House predictions he has not been so great) Wang is stating that current generic polling places it as a Democratic House. He seems to ignore the particularly poor correlation of generic polling with actual results in 2014.

Martin Hyde, last poll had McGinty up with the rolling average tied. Bayh is too soon for polls but is expected to lead. So “all the other …” is factually untrue.

Truth be told polling is thin enough that anything within 5 either way, especially with polls taken before this last week, should be considered way too close to call right now.

My opinion is that no Senate polls are worth the ink right now. It’s just too far out, and the voters that are not political junkies who are starting to get interested are more focused on the Presidential race at the moment.

Also, some states don’t have set candidates yet. For instance, both parties have contested primaries in Florida that won’t occur until August 30th.

The data I looked at for my post (which was up to 8/3), PA was still +2 GOP. Indiana wasn’t listed presumably because polling isn’t available yet.

I do think the GOP have a good shot of losing the Senate, there’s also frequently an effect “over time” of congressional races moving towards the Presidential results in their states. Particularly in recent elections which see smaller numbers of ticket splitters than in years past.

This guy just won the Republican nomination for governor in Missouri.

And given that incumbent Senator Roy Blunt got more votes in his primary than all the Democratic senatorial candidates combined, I don’t expect the Democrats to push the state back into the blue column this time around.

Generic polls, and even state-wide ones, have become less accurate as the House Districts have been increasingly gerrymandered. (And with cell phones, actual polling locations are harder to determine. States that go blue overall have been districted so that more Republicans get elected to the House.

District level polls would give a more accurate result, but those are either not done, due to the high cost, or are kept very confidential by the candidate who pays for them.

I’ll say Susan Collins realizes her truer home, and her political future, are in the Dem caucus, and she’ll join her colleague Angus King as an Independent. That, and Kaine casting the tiebreaking vote when needed, would mean the Dems would only need to pick up 4 seats. I think they will.

I am a long time Democratic activist in Missouri (Claire McCaskill was in my home at right around the time, and possibly at the exact moment, that Todd Akin was recording his legitimate rape fiasco interview), and the people I know feel pretty bullish about our Senate and gubernatorial candidates. Not that we are necessarily cruising to victory, but we have a better chance than in many other elections over the past 10 or 15 years.

One odd thing about that governor’s race is that less than 10 years ago the Democratic candidate was in the Republican leadership in the state legislature, and the Republican nominee was a Democrat only about five years ago. So in theory they could have made their way to this point and faced off against each other, except from opposite parties. It makes me feel like this result matters less than many others.

So it’s over? The generic ballot made a nice tight correlation with seats won and lost for several cycles but it will never happen again? I am dubious.

But even if that’s so, that was not your objection. Someone could have snarked in all those previous cycles that it wasn’t generic candidates on the ballot. Yet somehow that tight correlation showed up that is nearly impossible to have arisen by chance.