Be interesting if someone could compare Brown's 2018 map in Ohio to Clinton 2016 & Biden 2020. The areas he does well in that they lagged in are key to getting him reelected and defeating the disastrous, wage thieving used car salesman and Trump-endorsed fraudster Bernie Moreno. If Republicans get the Senate and Trump wins, 9 out of 9 SCOTUS judges from the conservative side is a real possibility that should scare the heck out of people to work like hell in the next 60 days to prevent it; keeps me awake at night!! 💙🇺🇲🙏💯
I have a similar concern on SCOTUS, but I think 9 is unlikely. I could see 7 with Alito and Thomas voluntarily leaving and getting replaced by younger, right-wing zealots that could be on the bench for 30 plus years.
That Fabrizio/Binder Senate poll in Montana is more evidence that Tester faces an uphill climb. At the same time, the Emerson poll in Florida is great news: It puts Harris 5 points behind Trump, while Mucarsel-Powell is only 1 point back.
If Mucarsel actually runs 4 points ahead of Harris in the final vote, she has a fighting chance. Biden only lost Florida by 3.36%.
The Emerson poll also puts Skeletor at only 46 percent, which is consistent with previous polls. That's a dangerous spot for an incumbent this late in the race.
Plus, I was pretty jazzed by the Mucarsel-Powell ad linked above: Nothing flashy, but very good IMO.
Skeletor is, of course, a nasty, low-down, cheating villain. Nothing's too low for him, and money is no object.
I know I'm a broken record on this race but it bears repeating: We need hedge our bets for that 50th Senate seat, and Mucarsel-Powell is the Democratic candidate most in need of the cash.
To be clear, I'm not writing off Tester, but cash isn't a problem for him. Or Allred -- but he has lots of cash, too. And I'm certainly not saying that Brown or any of our purple state candidates have it in the bag.
But I did decide to put my entire September Senate pile into Mucarsel-Powell's pot. Skeletor's pulled out three squeakers in FL. This year, I hope finally to learn the color of his blood.
I think Allred is a stronger candidate than Powell but Powell has a better chance. Scott has won all of his races by a razor thin margin. And you have the abortion amendment there.
Allred is more appealing to me, too. But I'm no swing voter.
Mucarsel-Powell has an advantage that previous Scott opponents did not: She's Latina. Plus she's from South Florida.
As an Ecuador native who fled the dictatorship of Guillermo Rodríguez, she has anti-Latin American dictator cred. The ad starts with a clip of Rodríguez and quickly pivots to Scott's anti-freedom stands. It wisely doesn't say who Rodriguez is, so it reads as anti-Castro/anti-Maduro/anti-communist. That's the kind of thing that can inoculate her against Scott's red-baiting.
I do think Allred has a chance. But he doesn't have that demographic wedge. In addition, Florida is still a wee bit bluer than Texas. And, as noted, abortion and weed are on the Florida ballot.
At any rate, according to the August reports, Mucarsel's the one more in need of money, so she's my gal!
I think most folks -- including Cubanos -- will watch it and find some resonance to old Castro footage. But entirely fair point. Watch for yourself and decide https://youtu.be/5_em-Lq0UIY?si=sX_eUlkj_NMOjf2c
I'm going to be also focusing on on Allerd and Mucarsel-Powell's races more along with Brown and Tester's but I still think the AARP poll isn't enough to make me doubt his chances. Especially since they were direct in saying they overpolled voters over the age of 50 so they could get an idea of what issues they care about. Yes, I don't doubt this group of voters are going to come out and vote as they always do but I still think it's a mistake to based Tester's chances on a poll that was focused on a specific age demographic.
Yes they oversampled seniors, but isn’t that just so they’d have a more accurate crosstab? Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t think that negatively affects the accuracy of the topline as long as the weighting is reasonable.
They mainly did that because they wanted to see which issues were the most important to voters over the age of 50. They ask questions about Social Security and Medicare.
Right, also so they’d have that data, but I’m asking if there’s any evidence that they didn’t properly weight to determine their topline number. Doing an oversample doesn’t necessarily mean the topline result is skewed; it can sometimes be more accurate.
Completely agree and what I've been saying for a few days. Starting to invest in FL or TX now does not need to come at the expense of an incumbent, especially with how much money we currently have right now.
We really have a perfect storm forming and this may be our best chance to pickup this cycle. Scott and Cruz are unpopular incumbents and always have been. Powell and Allred are great candidates with good profiles. We have enormous enthusiasm with Harris as the nominee, unique since (though maybe not 100 percent comparable) to Obama. And because of the shortened election season we are flush for cash.
We can't keep saying " it's too expensive to invest in Florida or Texas" or we will never make inroads. This year is literally our best chances in either state for the foreseeable future because Cornyn and Rubio are not on such a low level as Cruz and Scott.
I agree with your reasoning. I gave $40 to Tester but $75 apiece to Brown, Mucarsel Powell and Allred because they need more money in such populous states. Rosen in NV got $25 from me because she seems to be doing better and is running in a low-population state. But candidates in FL and TX in particular need more money to be able to compete effectively. I will say that I'm not optimistic that Harris will win TX and doubt Allred will win if she loses by 5. FL is looking more hopeful, but who knows how much credence we should give to any of those polls?
Haven't seen internal polling, but I absolutely agree with moving IA-01 from likely R to lean R. DCCC didn't spend here in 2022 but has reserved about $1 million in tv time which suggests to me Bohannan's position has improved.
Bohannan has out-raised Miller-Meeks four quarters in a row, and MMM had a weak showing against an under-funded GOP primary challenger.
Head scratcher that they moved AK-AL to Tossup after Peltola got a majority in the primary, which, as far as I know, hasn’t happened in any of her previous races in primaries or generals until after RCV put her on top.
Yeah, I wouldn't dispute the idea of AK-AL being a tossup. But recent evidence there has been positive for us if it has been anything. If they had it at tossup and kept it there, that'd make perfect sense. Shifting it away from us is odd with Peltola's primary performance.
Did they give a basis for moving CA 45 to tossup? While I believe there's a chance to defeat Steel, mentally, as an OC resident, I consider it hers to lose.
I keep hoping her long term corruption finally sticks.
She's so horrible. It's weird that this extreme, corrupt figure has had such a hold in a swing district. I guess that happens sometimes, but it's infuriating that it hasn't caught up with her yet.
I find it highly odd that Alaska moved to tossup. Sure you can argue it's a conservative leaning state all day, but the fact of the matter is actual data from the Alaska house primary showed Peltola ahead of her opponents in the actual voting results by over 50%, which is majority threshold for an outright win.
There is an argument to be made that there will be more non-primary Trump voters who show up for the GE than there are non-primary Harris voters (due to the red lean of the state you mentioned) and that will be enough to pull Begich to a win. I think there is a counter argument though that Harris will bring in more new voters, and that there may have been more interest on the R side of the primary since it was “contested”. Considering that Peltola cleared 50%+1 by all of 962 votes Toss Up seems appropriate to me.
I can definitely see that and it would be the conventional wisdom. However it moving the race in a direction against the incumbent here amidst recent data that shows a stronger position for the incumbent just seems counterintuitive. Keeping the race at Lean D seems more rational to me given the latest results, but if the race started at tossup I could see it staying there too.
That’s a very fair point. I suspect that Peltola over-performed most folks’ expectations so it does seem counter-intuitive to then decrease her chances of winning. The Trump voter thing is what came to mind as an explanation, but I don’t think it ever should have been anything but a tossup from the start. Is Cook one of the ones who always starts out favoring the incumbent?
Question: Can anyone think of any elections since 2020 where the Republican candidate did better than Trump in WWC areas, but did the same or worse than Trump in other areas of the district/state?
I am thinking about Federal elections in fast growing Southern states.
Budd in NC-Sen, and Walker in GA-Sen, did better than Trump 20 in rural areas, but worse in suburb. However since Black voter turnout was quite low in NC 2022, Budd also outperformed in urban precincts with high Black %.
Let's not forget though that NC is not as dominated by Charlotte, the Triangle, and the Triad as GA is by Atlanta. A major reason why we remain stronger in GA than NC. At least in federal elections.
It depends what numbers you use. By CSA, those three areas make up a larger percentage of the population in NC (68.7%) than Atlanta does to Georgia (65.1%). However, I suspect the CSA of the NC locations, especially Charlotte and the Triad includes more rural areas than the Atlanta CSA does.
HMP makes some intriguing decisions to invest in, courtesy of @catargetbot0001 including the 3 that most caught my eye in IA-03 (Trump +0), VA-02 (Biden +2, weak D fundraising) and CA-45 that Steel won in 2022 by almost 5 points. When in doubt, follow the money. Democrats definitely see a bluer election in their data. Do Republicans?
Sorry, can’t get the image to post. See Twitter for totals.
Meanwhile, a GOP org is investing $1m of their already underfunded party’s funds in *blinks twice* WI-01(!!?) a Trump +2 seat Bryan Steil won 54-45 in 2022 that Democrats spent $0 in, other than Democrat Ann Roe raising $800k, and another $2.3m in PA-10, a Trump +4 seat Scott Perry won by 8 points in 2022 courtesy of @jacobrubashkin. I guess they do see one too in their data.
Starting to see some substantial ad buys from a GOP super PAC, "Eighteen Fifty-Four Fund," that's primarily funded through the 501c4 "dark money" group Common Sense Leadership Fund.
I live in IA-03 and while I still think of Lanon Baccam as a slight underdog, I think it would be defensible to consider this race a toss-up rather than lean R. The Polk County Democrats (that's most of the Des Moines metro) are putting together a better ground game than I have seen in many years.
I think so. He's not an electrifying speaker but he is very likable and of course has a strong biography. Their main strategy seems to be "tie him to Joe Biden" but I don't know how much that will help now that Biden's not the candidate.
The Libertarian candidates are in limbo while we await a court ruling on their ballot access. Having a Libertarian on the ballot here would help Baccam, I believe.
More evidence that House GOP is on the defensive. After months of being extremely even, generic polling has put some space between Dems and GOP.
I've been skeptical about Dem chances in some races (e.g. against well-positioned incumbents like Molinaro, Lawler, Kean and Steel). But reproductive rights seem like a pretty powerful cudgel in just about any suburban district.
Add in the crazy candidates in marginal seats(looking at you, Anna Paulina Luna, for example) and huge fundraising disparity across the board; and the Democratic decision makers can expand their offensive targets, while forcing the Republicans to play defense with smaller money
I wrote a piece this morning about Electoral College math on DK as a primer to a series I'm writing using statistics to predict the 2024 Presidential Election.
OK, folks: Let's assume that the currently vacant seats go as expected -- which puts the starting split at 221-214. So ...
How many seats could we pick up in the House if conditions in November are about what they are now? I'm talking realistically. What would our all-things-go-right pickup be?
What's a reasonable low point? By "reasonable," I don't mean the bottom falling out. I mean what would the low number be with conditions about where they are today?
I'm about at the same place as you and @Jonathan. And I like the way you put this. Likely to win a tiny majority right now, but trajectory looks good -- particularly because of money, but also because of enthusiasm.
Thanks! I’m extremely cautious when it comes to my predictions because I try very hard not to let my own bias influence my predictions from being a hardcore Democratic supporter. Until data average is basically telling me “this race has changed to blank” for several weeks consistently, I won’t move things. Too much noise and ups/downs on pollercoaster ride.
Under current conditions, I don't see us losing 14 seats. IMO, something bad would have to happen for us to lose seats -- or a major polling error on the order of 2020.
I've seen some quite doomerist comments recently regarding MT-Sen.
All I have to say about that right now is, don't forget that Sara Gideon led in almost every single poll of ME-Sen 2020 after Labor Day. And we know how that turned out.
Tester is an institution in Montana, just like Collins in Maine. It's been speculated that if not for RCV, Collins would've won by about 5%. Biden won Maine by 9%, so Collins effectively outperformed Trump by 14%.
That's almost exactly the margin I expect Trump to win Montana by this year. MT-Sen is going to be very close. But Tester definitely has a chance to win.
However, i do wish the Center For Politics would acknowledge that the Fabrizio Ward poll done for the AARP was heavily skewed towards older voters and on the issues they care about. It's bad enough Axios and Politico and of course right-wing sites are just pushing a simplistic and sensationalist narrative that Tester is losing without really giving context to the AARP poll.
While Maine and Montana may not be apples to oranges, I still don't think anyone should write off Tester.
I don't think Collins' win says anything about Tester's current race, because it assumes partisans on each side behave similarly, when they definitely do not. Trump supporters who see everything as "us versus them" seem far less likely to cross over and support a Democrat than the moderate, pragmatic voters of Maine who typically vote Dem for President while continually reelecting people like Collins, Olympia Snowe, indie Angus King, and others before them. These are not even close to the same type of person. One values authoritarianism (and with it, one-party rule), the other moderation and bipartisanship. It's true that Montana and Maine both have a lot of independents and an independence mind-set, but is that enough to overcome the partisan lean?
There was a good article a couple of years ago I read explaining why a lot of Dems crossed over to support Collins' reelection in 2020. It basically boiled down to they trusted her since she's been a pillar of the state for decades and Mainers are still willing to see politicians as people, rather than by their party labels. Unfortunately for Tester I don't think the average Montanan sees the same anymore.
Because those are the common factors...Tester and Collins are both popular incumbents. I'm suggesting that, despite those similarities, the voter pools in the two states are not similar enough for this comparison to be worthwhile.
Candidate quality is a major factor in any political race; Jon Tester is by far the best candidate our side can offer and he's a long-time incumbent with saturation levels of funding; I agree with you, because I think the Democratic ground game will bring between 2-3% of a turnout advantage; in a nutshell, it's a squeaker
I REALLY wish we saw some more polling from nonpartisan pollsters in this race, or heck even some Dem or left leaning pollsters. There's been a flood of R and conservative pollsters lately, notably in Montana, but also outside and it's getting frustrating to not see polls from other sources. I'd at least like to see some more data points and updates that may give us an idea of how things are playing out in Montana.
Is Emerson still all landline? If so, their results should be red shifted a touch, yes? Which would be great news in FL & TX for Senate and Prez, particularly FL. And it would mean Brown is up 4-5 pts in OH.
I believe AARP also oversamples older demographics. Tester may be behind but not that much
In MD-06, if Delaney wins Frederick County by 15 percentage points as Gonzales finds, then she's running away with the district. Their other local subsamples seem off, underestimating Delaney in Montgomery and overestimating Parrott in what Gonzales calls the "WAG" counties (Washington, Allegany, and Garrett.) Those three are red, but not to the combined level of 75% or 80% Republican.
The party registration sample Gonzales got was 42% D to 39%R, which is several points redder than reality; the most recent stats from the state elections website are 41 D, 34 R, and 25 unaffiliated or minor parties. I'm also not sure if 51% of voters don't recognize Delaney given that she convincingly won a primary a few months ago and her husband used to rep the district (though she hasn't featured him much in her campaign thus far), but she likely is less recognised than Parrott who is on his third consecutive bid for the seat, so she's probably in a better position to pick up undecideds, aided by what the writeup calls the "reflexive" party vote ("I don't know her, but if she's the Democrat I'm voting for her.")
Almost all credible observers have it as Likely D and have for months. Inside Elections even says Safe D, as does Elections Daily (not the best, but a decent looking effort by some younger, probably Republican-leaning but not MAGA, analysts).
I suspect that if the rather small Gonzales sample were representative of what the campaigns and others most in the know were finding then it would be in a more competitive category. (Neither party appears to be making it much of a priority.) Parrott's one (uphill) chance was/is based on coupling unusually low Democratic turnout with especially high GOP engagement, and the possibility of that probably went out the window when Harris replaced Biden.
The district is getting Bluer each cycle. And all the talk of a competitive race was anchored on Ds not voting. Of course if one side is not turning out and the other side does, anything weird could happen.
Each primary and general election DK front pagers always jump into the live results page lamenting so many Rs voted but Ds didn’t. My usual responses are, can’t you guess wait a bit till MD counts the votes? BTW Maryland puts out the ballot received day by day, clearly showing how many D/R ballots already there waiting to be counted.
As you mentioned the registration is D+8. And guess what the close primary turnout, unlike frontpagers pessimism of more Rs voting, is D+8.
MT-Sen, I sent Larry Sabato a message on X about the RMG poll that was released last month showing Tester ahead. He got back to me and appreciated me bringing that to his attention. He said that they did review that poll in yesterday’s analysis but is going to bring it to Kyle Kondik’s attention.
Any thoughts on donating to House candidates through the Force Multiplier slate? It’s appealing to make a lot of direct candidate donations (instead of DCCC etc.) at once with research done for you and without getting on a lot of email lists. But if there’s a similar but better / more strategic slate, I would like to know your recommendations. Thanks!
This is probably for the best. Every time he has legal trouble he gains attention and sympathy. If he got jail time or anything significant he would own the media for weeks before the election and would be victimizing himself endlessly. I was hoping it would get delayed tbh.
The entire scenario is a no-win. Best I can even daydream is the orange fascist loses and flees the country prior to sentencing. I'd happily accept his renounced citizenship as recompense.
So Emerson also asked about California, and this is the second poll to show Harris underperforming Biden's 2020 final result and its her home state.
Emerson has her +24.
Harris 61-38.
Biden 2020 was 63.48-34.32
Also I was surprised by the latest Maryland poll which showed Harris beating Trump just 56-35. In 2020 Bidens final in Maryland was 65 -32.
We have seen weaker numbers for Alsobrooks and in Delaneys congressional race. Would this be due to weaker support from African Americans across the board? Harris is underperforming in her home state and two black women at the top of the ticket in Maryland are underperforming 2020 numbers there too.
Emerson Texas, Florida and Ohio. Trump up 4, 5 and 10 respectively. Cruz up by 5, Scott by 1, and Brown by 2.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/september-state-polling-california-florida-ohio-texas/
Be interesting if someone could compare Brown's 2018 map in Ohio to Clinton 2016 & Biden 2020. The areas he does well in that they lagged in are key to getting him reelected and defeating the disastrous, wage thieving used car salesman and Trump-endorsed fraudster Bernie Moreno. If Republicans get the Senate and Trump wins, 9 out of 9 SCOTUS judges from the conservative side is a real possibility that should scare the heck out of people to work like hell in the next 60 days to prevent it; keeps me awake at night!! 💙🇺🇲🙏💯
I have a similar concern on SCOTUS, but I think 9 is unlikely. I could see 7 with Alito and Thomas voluntarily leaving and getting replaced by younger, right-wing zealots that could be on the bench for 30 plus years.
It would be a disaster and if it happens, the whole court system might as well as close up shop.
That Fabrizio/Binder Senate poll in Montana is more evidence that Tester faces an uphill climb. At the same time, the Emerson poll in Florida is great news: It puts Harris 5 points behind Trump, while Mucarsel-Powell is only 1 point back.
If Mucarsel actually runs 4 points ahead of Harris in the final vote, she has a fighting chance. Biden only lost Florida by 3.36%.
The Emerson poll also puts Skeletor at only 46 percent, which is consistent with previous polls. That's a dangerous spot for an incumbent this late in the race.
Plus, I was pretty jazzed by the Mucarsel-Powell ad linked above: Nothing flashy, but very good IMO.
Skeletor is, of course, a nasty, low-down, cheating villain. Nothing's too low for him, and money is no object.
I know I'm a broken record on this race but it bears repeating: We need hedge our bets for that 50th Senate seat, and Mucarsel-Powell is the Democratic candidate most in need of the cash.
To be clear, I'm not writing off Tester, but cash isn't a problem for him. Or Allred -- but he has lots of cash, too. And I'm certainly not saying that Brown or any of our purple state candidates have it in the bag.
But I did decide to put my entire September Senate pile into Mucarsel-Powell's pot. Skeletor's pulled out three squeakers in FL. This year, I hope finally to learn the color of his blood.
I think Allred is a stronger candidate than Powell but Powell has a better chance. Scott has won all of his races by a razor thin margin. And you have the abortion amendment there.
having the marijuana amendment on the ballot also helps at the margins
And an abortion amendment.
To be fair though, there’s also an abortion amendment on the ballot in MT too.
Allred is more appealing to me, too. But I'm no swing voter.
Mucarsel-Powell has an advantage that previous Scott opponents did not: She's Latina. Plus she's from South Florida.
As an Ecuador native who fled the dictatorship of Guillermo Rodríguez, she has anti-Latin American dictator cred. The ad starts with a clip of Rodríguez and quickly pivots to Scott's anti-freedom stands. It wisely doesn't say who Rodriguez is, so it reads as anti-Castro/anti-Maduro/anti-communist. That's the kind of thing that can inoculate her against Scott's red-baiting.
I do think Allred has a chance. But he doesn't have that demographic wedge. In addition, Florida is still a wee bit bluer than Texas. And, as noted, abortion and weed are on the Florida ballot.
At any rate, according to the August reports, Mucarsel's the one more in need of money, so she's my gal!
Imo Murcasel-Powell's greatest asset is simple.. She's a woman
If Rodriguez was right-wing, does an ad featuring him really insulate her from red-baiting?
I think most folks -- including Cubanos -- will watch it and find some resonance to old Castro footage. But entirely fair point. Watch for yourself and decide https://youtu.be/5_em-Lq0UIY?si=sX_eUlkj_NMOjf2c
How is Allred a better candidate? Because she was defeated for reelection to the House and he is still a sitting Representative?
I'm going to be also focusing on on Allerd and Mucarsel-Powell's races more along with Brown and Tester's but I still think the AARP poll isn't enough to make me doubt his chances. Especially since they were direct in saying they overpolled voters over the age of 50 so they could get an idea of what issues they care about. Yes, I don't doubt this group of voters are going to come out and vote as they always do but I still think it's a mistake to based Tester's chances on a poll that was focused on a specific age demographic.
Yes they oversampled seniors, but isn’t that just so they’d have a more accurate crosstab? Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t think that negatively affects the accuracy of the topline as long as the weighting is reasonable.
They mainly did that because they wanted to see which issues were the most important to voters over the age of 50. They ask questions about Social Security and Medicare.
Yes. After all, senior issues are the mission for AARP
Right, also so they’d have that data, but I’m asking if there’s any evidence that they didn’t properly weight to determine their topline number. Doing an oversample doesn’t necessarily mean the topline result is skewed; it can sometimes be more accurate.
Completely agree and what I've been saying for a few days. Starting to invest in FL or TX now does not need to come at the expense of an incumbent, especially with how much money we currently have right now.
We really have a perfect storm forming and this may be our best chance to pickup this cycle. Scott and Cruz are unpopular incumbents and always have been. Powell and Allred are great candidates with good profiles. We have enormous enthusiasm with Harris as the nominee, unique since (though maybe not 100 percent comparable) to Obama. And because of the shortened election season we are flush for cash.
We can't keep saying " it's too expensive to invest in Florida or Texas" or we will never make inroads. This year is literally our best chances in either state for the foreseeable future because Cornyn and Rubio are not on such a low level as Cruz and Scott.
As a Floridian; I agree only because we have the available funds; not 1penny would come from MT or OH; that's the key
I agree with your reasoning. I gave $40 to Tester but $75 apiece to Brown, Mucarsel Powell and Allred because they need more money in such populous states. Rosen in NV got $25 from me because she seems to be doing better and is running in a low-population state. But candidates in FL and TX in particular need more money to be able to compete effectively. I will say that I'm not optimistic that Harris will win TX and doubt Allred will win if she loses by 5. FL is looking more hopeful, but who knows how much credence we should give to any of those polls?
Cook House Ratings:
Republicans 208 Democrats 203 Tossups 24
https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1832016962664202369
Haven't seen internal polling, but I absolutely agree with moving IA-01 from likely R to lean R. DCCC didn't spend here in 2022 but has reserved about $1 million in tv time which suggests to me Bohannan's position has improved.
Bohannan has out-raised Miller-Meeks four quarters in a row, and MMM had a weak showing against an under-funded GOP primary challenger.
https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2024/06/05/underwhelming-wins-for-miller-meeks-feenstra-in-gop-primaries/
He moved two more Rs into toss-up. The number had been 11. Does anyone know which two of the 13 that are R tossups now were Lean Rs before?
Cook house rating changes:
AK-AL: Lean D to Toss Up
CA-45: Lean R to Toss Up
CO-03: Lean R to Likely R
FL-23: Likely D to Solid D
IA-01: Likely R to Lean R
NE-02: Lean R to Toss Up
OH-09: Toss Up to Lean D
TX-28: Lean D to Likely D
Cook also moved MT Senate from toss-up to Lean R.
Sabato moved MT Senate today to lean R as well
Yet he still has FL & TX as LIKELY R.
Based on polling, that's probably right at least for TX. FL might be more of a lean-R race, if we believe the polling.
Head scratcher that they moved AK-AL to Tossup after Peltola got a majority in the primary, which, as far as I know, hasn’t happened in any of her previous races in primaries or generals until after RCV put her on top.
Yeah, I wouldn't dispute the idea of AK-AL being a tossup. But recent evidence there has been positive for us if it has been anything. If they had it at tossup and kept it there, that'd make perfect sense. Shifting it away from us is odd with Peltola's primary performance.
Did they give a basis for moving CA 45 to tossup? While I believe there's a chance to defeat Steel, mentally, as an OC resident, I consider it hers to lose.
I keep hoping her long term corruption finally sticks.
She's so horrible. It's weird that this extreme, corrupt figure has had such a hold in a swing district. I guess that happens sometimes, but it's infuriating that it hasn't caught up with her yet.
Maybe a ground game will topple her; clearly it's winnable
I find it highly odd that Alaska moved to tossup. Sure you can argue it's a conservative leaning state all day, but the fact of the matter is actual data from the Alaska house primary showed Peltola ahead of her opponents in the actual voting results by over 50%, which is majority threshold for an outright win.
There is an argument to be made that there will be more non-primary Trump voters who show up for the GE than there are non-primary Harris voters (due to the red lean of the state you mentioned) and that will be enough to pull Begich to a win. I think there is a counter argument though that Harris will bring in more new voters, and that there may have been more interest on the R side of the primary since it was “contested”. Considering that Peltola cleared 50%+1 by all of 962 votes Toss Up seems appropriate to me.
I can definitely see that and it would be the conventional wisdom. However it moving the race in a direction against the incumbent here amidst recent data that shows a stronger position for the incumbent just seems counterintuitive. Keeping the race at Lean D seems more rational to me given the latest results, but if the race started at tossup I could see it staying there too.
That’s a very fair point. I suspect that Peltola over-performed most folks’ expectations so it does seem counter-intuitive to then decrease her chances of winning. The Trump voter thing is what came to mind as an explanation, but I don’t think it ever should have been anything but a tossup from the start. Is Cook one of the ones who always starts out favoring the incumbent?
Why did CO-3 get downgraded?
It s the right call, Tester has managed to snatch victory before but I think his time is up. Sheehy is despicable but I think Trump pulls him through.
Harris once again laps Trump in the cash game.
Harris raised 361 million, has 404 million COH. This is up from the 310 million she/Biden raised in July.
Trump raised 130 million, which is somehow lower than he raised in July, when he raised 139 million. Trump is sitting on 295 COH.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/06/kamala-harris-august-fundraising-00177657
There’s so much news I don’t even know where to begin.
Harris has now raised $615m in 1.5 months. Aug: 3m donors, 1.3m non-2024 donors, 1m non-2020 donors. 20% GOP/Ind registered donors.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4864751-harris-campaign-august-fundraising/amp/
Question: Can anyone think of any elections since 2020 where the Republican candidate did better than Trump in WWC areas, but did the same or worse than Trump in other areas of the district/state?
Dewine in 2022 would be my guess.
Not sure DeWine would do worse than Trump in suburbs?
Phil Scott in 2022.
Phil Scott did much better than Trump everywhere.
I am thinking about Federal elections in fast growing Southern states.
Budd in NC-Sen, and Walker in GA-Sen, did better than Trump 20 in rural areas, but worse in suburb. However since Black voter turnout was quite low in NC 2022, Budd also outperformed in urban precincts with high Black %.
Budd is a good example. And you're right that a big reason for that was low African-American turnout.
Let's not forget though that NC is not as dominated by Charlotte, the Triangle, and the Triad as GA is by Atlanta. A major reason why we remain stronger in GA than NC. At least in federal elections.
It depends what numbers you use. By CSA, those three areas make up a larger percentage of the population in NC (68.7%) than Atlanta does to Georgia (65.1%). However, I suspect the CSA of the NC locations, especially Charlotte and the Triad includes more rural areas than the Atlanta CSA does.
Battle for the House:
HMP makes some intriguing decisions to invest in, courtesy of @catargetbot0001 including the 3 that most caught my eye in IA-03 (Trump +0), VA-02 (Biden +2, weak D fundraising) and CA-45 that Steel won in 2022 by almost 5 points. When in doubt, follow the money. Democrats definitely see a bluer election in their data. Do Republicans?
NEW FEC F24
HMP
$4,222,214-> #PA08 #WA03 #CA13 #ME02 #MI07 #OH09 #IA03 #NY22 #VA02 #NE02 #MI08 #CA45 #OR05 #NY19
Sorry, can’t get the image to post. See Twitter for totals.
Meanwhile, a GOP org is investing $1m of their already underfunded party’s funds in *blinks twice* WI-01(!!?) a Trump +2 seat Bryan Steil won 54-45 in 2022 that Democrats spent $0 in, other than Democrat Ann Roe raising $800k, and another $2.3m in PA-10, a Trump +4 seat Scott Perry won by 8 points in 2022 courtesy of @jacobrubashkin. I guess they do see one too in their data.
Starting to see some substantial ad buys from a GOP super PAC, "Eighteen Fifty-Four Fund," that's primarily funded through the 501c4 "dark money" group Common Sense Leadership Fund.
$1 million in TV ads in WI-01 and WI-03 each
$2.3 million in PA-10
$2.2 million in PA-17
I live in IA-03 and while I still think of Lanon Baccam as a slight underdog, I think it would be defensible to consider this race a toss-up rather than lean R. The Polk County Democrats (that's most of the Des Moines metro) are putting together a better ground game than I have seen in many years.
Baccam seems like a very high-quality candidate.
I think so. He's not an electrifying speaker but he is very likable and of course has a strong biography. Their main strategy seems to be "tie him to Joe Biden" but I don't know how much that will help now that Biden's not the candidate.
The Libertarian candidates are in limbo while we await a court ruling on their ballot access. Having a Libertarian on the ballot here would help Baccam, I believe.
About 75 percent of voters in IA-03 live in Polk or Dallas counties (that's most of the Des Moines metro area).
More evidence that House GOP is on the defensive. After months of being extremely even, generic polling has put some space between Dems and GOP.
I've been skeptical about Dem chances in some races (e.g. against well-positioned incumbents like Molinaro, Lawler, Kean and Steel). But reproductive rights seem like a pretty powerful cudgel in just about any suburban district.
Add in the crazy candidates in marginal seats(looking at you, Anna Paulina Luna, for example) and huge fundraising disparity across the board; and the Democratic decision makers can expand their offensive targets, while forcing the Republicans to play defense with smaller money
Baccam (IA-03) and Bohannan (IA-01) are certainly emphasizing reproductive rights.
I wrote a piece this morning about Electoral College math on DK as a primer to a series I'm writing using statistics to predict the 2024 Presidential Election.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/6/2268225/-The-Path-to-Victory-The-Math
OK, folks: Let's assume that the currently vacant seats go as expected -- which puts the starting split at 221-214. So ...
How many seats could we pick up in the House if conditions in November are about what they are now? I'm talking realistically. What would our all-things-go-right pickup be?
What's a reasonable low point? By "reasonable," I don't mean the bottom falling out. I mean what would the low number be with conditions about where they are today?
And finally where do you think we'll land?
Imo lowest point is 214; highest point is 230; I think I will predict that Democrats wind up with 226
Lowest: lose 5 seats.
Current: pickup 5-10 seats.
At rate of race projection and evidence of red House seats seeing investment on 1 or both sides: 10-20 seats.
In the end, I think Democrats pickup 10-15 seats, but I don’t think data shows this… yet. It’s inching closer though.
I'm about at the same place as you and @Jonathan. And I like the way you put this. Likely to win a tiny majority right now, but trajectory looks good -- particularly because of money, but also because of enthusiasm.
Thanks! I’m extremely cautious when it comes to my predictions because I try very hard not to let my own bias influence my predictions from being a hardcore Democratic supporter. Until data average is basically telling me “this race has changed to blank” for several weeks consistently, I won’t move things. Too much noise and ups/downs on pollercoaster ride.
Unless the presidential races moves out of the toss up/margin of error range, the house seat range is probably 200 -230.
Under current conditions, I don't see us losing 14 seats. IMO, something bad would have to happen for us to lose seats -- or a major polling error on the order of 2020.
I feel like our side has both stronger incumbents and more money; hence, we have the better betting odds
I've seen some quite doomerist comments recently regarding MT-Sen.
All I have to say about that right now is, don't forget that Sara Gideon led in almost every single poll of ME-Sen 2020 after Labor Day. And we know how that turned out.
Tester is an institution in Montana, just like Collins in Maine. It's been speculated that if not for RCV, Collins would've won by about 5%. Biden won Maine by 9%, so Collins effectively outperformed Trump by 14%.
That's almost exactly the margin I expect Trump to win Montana by this year. MT-Sen is going to be very close. But Tester definitely has a chance to win.
I was just going to say that the Center For Politics even noted Collins' electoral win and the polling being off. https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/montana-senate-race-moves-from-toss-up-to-leans-republican/
However, i do wish the Center For Politics would acknowledge that the Fabrizio Ward poll done for the AARP was heavily skewed towards older voters and on the issues they care about. It's bad enough Axios and Politico and of course right-wing sites are just pushing a simplistic and sensationalist narrative that Tester is losing without really giving context to the AARP poll.
While Maine and Montana may not be apples to oranges, I still don't think anyone should write off Tester.
I'm not writing him off. But I do think he's the underdog at this point. We need to hedge our bets by leaning into FL and TX.
I don't think Collins' win says anything about Tester's current race, because it assumes partisans on each side behave similarly, when they definitely do not. Trump supporters who see everything as "us versus them" seem far less likely to cross over and support a Democrat than the moderate, pragmatic voters of Maine who typically vote Dem for President while continually reelecting people like Collins, Olympia Snowe, indie Angus King, and others before them. These are not even close to the same type of person. One values authoritarianism (and with it, one-party rule), the other moderation and bipartisanship. It's true that Montana and Maine both have a lot of independents and an independence mind-set, but is that enough to overcome the partisan lean?
There was a good article a couple of years ago I read explaining why a lot of Dems crossed over to support Collins' reelection in 2020. It basically boiled down to they trusted her since she's been a pillar of the state for decades and Mainers are still willing to see politicians as people, rather than by their party labels. Unfortunately for Tester I don't think the average Montanan sees the same anymore.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/01/17/do-democrats-who-supported-susan-collins-in-2020-regret-their-vote/
Imo you are not factoring in incumbency and personal popularity as much as is warranted
Because those are the common factors...Tester and Collins are both popular incumbents. I'm suggesting that, despite those similarities, the voter pools in the two states are not similar enough for this comparison to be worthwhile.
Agree to disagree👍
But we're not disagreeing.
Oops sorry.. My bad
Candidate quality is a major factor in any political race; Jon Tester is by far the best candidate our side can offer and he's a long-time incumbent with saturation levels of funding; I agree with you, because I think the Democratic ground game will bring between 2-3% of a turnout advantage; in a nutshell, it's a squeaker
Reid looked doomed in NV-SEN in 2010, but survived.
I think Trump is likely to win MT by double digits, and I'm not doomerist about this race, but I'm definitely concerned about it.
I REALLY wish we saw some more polling from nonpartisan pollsters in this race, or heck even some Dem or left leaning pollsters. There's been a flood of R and conservative pollsters lately, notably in Montana, but also outside and it's getting frustrating to not see polls from other sources. I'd at least like to see some more data points and updates that may give us an idea of how things are playing out in Montana.
Is Emerson still all landline? If so, their results should be red shifted a touch, yes? Which would be great news in FL & TX for Senate and Prez, particularly FL. And it would mean Brown is up 4-5 pts in OH.
I believe AARP also oversamples older demographics. Tester may be behind but not that much
In MD-06, if Delaney wins Frederick County by 15 percentage points as Gonzales finds, then she's running away with the district. Their other local subsamples seem off, underestimating Delaney in Montgomery and overestimating Parrott in what Gonzales calls the "WAG" counties (Washington, Allegany, and Garrett.) Those three are red, but not to the combined level of 75% or 80% Republican.
The party registration sample Gonzales got was 42% D to 39%R, which is several points redder than reality; the most recent stats from the state elections website are 41 D, 34 R, and 25 unaffiliated or minor parties. I'm also not sure if 51% of voters don't recognize Delaney given that she convincingly won a primary a few months ago and her husband used to rep the district (though she hasn't featured him much in her campaign thus far), but she likely is less recognised than Parrott who is on his third consecutive bid for the seat, so she's probably in a better position to pick up undecideds, aided by what the writeup calls the "reflexive" party vote ("I don't know her, but if she's the Democrat I'm voting for her.")
The story of this district being competitive, is getting really old.
Maybe RCP can switch it back to tossup now. Hehehe
Almost all credible observers have it as Likely D and have for months. Inside Elections even says Safe D, as does Elections Daily (not the best, but a decent looking effort by some younger, probably Republican-leaning but not MAGA, analysts).
I suspect that if the rather small Gonzales sample were representative of what the campaigns and others most in the know were finding then it would be in a more competitive category. (Neither party appears to be making it much of a priority.) Parrott's one (uphill) chance was/is based on coupling unusually low Democratic turnout with especially high GOP engagement, and the possibility of that probably went out the window when Harris replaced Biden.
Yeah.
The district is getting Bluer each cycle. And all the talk of a competitive race was anchored on Ds not voting. Of course if one side is not turning out and the other side does, anything weird could happen.
Each primary and general election DK front pagers always jump into the live results page lamenting so many Rs voted but Ds didn’t. My usual responses are, can’t you guess wait a bit till MD counts the votes? BTW Maryland puts out the ballot received day by day, clearly showing how many D/R ballots already there waiting to be counted.
As you mentioned the registration is D+8. And guess what the close primary turnout, unlike frontpagers pessimism of more Rs voting, is D+8.
This one will end in low teens this year
Lmao.. The voice of reason.. Thank you
MT-Sen, Something Larry Sabato should fix is he claimed that he hasn't seen Tester lead in one public poll since March. That's not true. Tester led Sheehy 49-45 in the RMG Research/Scott W Rasmussen poll conducted last month August 6th to the 14th: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/8/16/2263637/-MT-Sen-New-Poll-Has-Sen-Jon-Tester-D-Beating-Tim-Sheehy-R-49-44
To be fair, Sabato did mention that poll yesterday; probably just an oversight in today's mail out
MT-Sen, I sent Larry Sabato a message on X about the RMG poll that was released last month showing Tester ahead. He got back to me and appreciated me bringing that to his attention. He said that they did review that poll in yesterday’s analysis but is going to bring it to Kyle Kondik’s attention.
Nice! Fact-checking the big dogs!
Any thoughts on donating to House candidates through the Force Multiplier slate? It’s appealing to make a lot of direct candidate donations (instead of DCCC etc.) at once with research done for you and without getting on a lot of email lists. But if there’s a similar but better / more strategic slate, I would like to know your recommendations. Thanks!
Against Anna Paulina Luna in Pinellas Florida; the Democrat is solid and can most definitely win
Judge wimps out.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/nyregion/trump-sentencing-delay-ruling.html?te=1&nl=from-the-times&emc=edit_ufn_20240906
This is probably for the best. Every time he has legal trouble he gains attention and sympathy. If he got jail time or anything significant he would own the media for weeks before the election and would be victimizing himself endlessly. I was hoping it would get delayed tbh.
And instead he gets away with shit for longer once more. That's not a good result and further erodes any illusion of a rule of law in the U.S.
The entire scenario is a no-win. Best I can even daydream is the orange fascist loses and flees the country prior to sentencing. I'd happily accept his renounced citizenship as recompense.
The rule of law needs to be established. It's totally unacceptable that all his henchmen can be sentenced and he can't.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-lawsuit-delays-mail-ballots-north-carolina-rcna168237
Main-in voting in NC delayed until they figure out what to do about RFK Jr. Ugh
I've also been wondering why Harris isn't doing an event in NC to coincide with the beginning of early voting. Hopefully she will.
Because she is busy in New Hampshire, OK?
So Emerson also asked about California, and this is the second poll to show Harris underperforming Biden's 2020 final result and its her home state.
Emerson has her +24.
Harris 61-38.
Biden 2020 was 63.48-34.32
Also I was surprised by the latest Maryland poll which showed Harris beating Trump just 56-35. In 2020 Bidens final in Maryland was 65 -32.
We have seen weaker numbers for Alsobrooks and in Delaneys congressional race. Would this be due to weaker support from African Americans across the board? Harris is underperforming in her home state and two black women at the top of the ticket in Maryland are underperforming 2020 numbers there too.
It's why you shouldn't take polling too seriously.
My guess is Harris wins CA 65-34, right about where Biden did but a tiny bit better.
Didn’t CA move a little right in 22 versus 20?
Ignore the CA results in 2022. There was literally no Dem campaign at the state level.
Hmmm. Interesting point. I hope that does explain the underperformance.
KH will win CA by 28 to 30