2022 House elections

[The Dog 44,062]

[chainsaw 9,870]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mean, that's still a LOT of ground to make up.  The Ledge says we are fucked.

Nothing but pointless impeachments and investigations happen without a veto-proof majority in both chambers.

[Voldemort86 2,259]

5 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

These guys are pathetic. Be a man and stand up for what you really believe in. 

[Tuco 5,076]

It’s tough when the only thing you believe in is getting elected.

[gmr548 16,580]

9 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

That is a cartoonishly ugly face. Like Quagmire from Family Guy added 20 pounds.

[YGIFS 19,452]

45 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

That is a cartoonishly ugly face. Like Quagmire from Family Guy added 20 pounds.   

Edited August 29, 2022 by YGIFS

[The Dog 44,062]

This likely applies to Senate races as well but this is as good a place as any:

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,206]

15 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

These guys are pathetic. Be a man and stand up for what you really believe in. 

He didn't believe in pro-life to begin with, but spouted it to pander to the dipshits.

[Js1 85,408]

31 minutes ago, The Dog said:

This likely applies to Senate races as well but this is as good a place as any:

 

And they are typically moderate male independents living in the exurbs. Not a traditionally Dem group. 

Snaps for the Christofascists on SCOTUS and the stumbling, bumbling party of dumbasses

[YGIFS 19,452]

For decades, we've listened to pundits discuss that in polling, there's also the great unknown of people who don't to publicly admit how they'll really vote so they'll guise it and go along to get along.  Jim Henson from Texas Polling Project has written/spoken extensively about this.  and to this day, they still can't agree on how to quantify that amount despite big data and A.I. analysis.  

But holy shit, these next two elections are really putting the stress test on that.  From Trumpers back in hiding to white middle class folks still saying at back-to-school functions, "Oh, I'm still undecided...I'm gonna wait and see.  Only time will tell.  You never know..."

It's like talking to 1000 non-crack fueled Mike Lindells.  What the fuck are you waiting for?  What the fuck is happening in two weeks that nobody's talking about?  This is it.  This is the thing.  This is the landscape.  These are the choices.  Early voting starts 8 weeks from tomorrow.  Anything that may happen in those 8 weeks that's bad in Texas/for Texans is only gonna hurt one side.  All the laws and policies taking effect on Thursday...if you like 'em...vote 'em back.  If you have issue with many of them, vote the other way.  This landscape was settled months ago.  

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

28 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

For decades, we've listened to pundits discuss that in polling, there's also the great unknown of people who don't to publicly admit how they'll really vote so they'll guise it and go along to get along.  Jim Henson from Texas Polling Project has written/spoken extensively about this.  and to this day, they still can't agree on how to quantify that amount despite big data and A.I. analysis.  

But holy shit, these next two elections are really putting the stress test on that.  From Trumpers back in hiding to white middle class folks still saying at back-to-school functions, "Oh, I'm still undecided...I'm gonna wait and see.  Only time will tell.  You never know..."

It's like talking to 1000 non-crack fueled Mike Lindells.  What the fuck are you waiting for?  What the fuck is happening in two weeks that nobody's talking about?  This is it.  This is the thing.  This is the landscape.  These are the choices.  Early voting starts 8 weeks from tomorrow.  Anything that may happen in those 8 weeks that's bad in Texas/for Texans is only gonna hurt one side.  All the laws and policies taking effect on Thursday...if you like 'em...vote 'em back.  If you have issue with many of them, vote the other way.  This landscape was settled months ago.  

Now you know how we feel. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

For decades, we've listened to pundits discuss that in polling, there's also the great unknown of people who don't to publicly admit how they'll really vote so they'll guise it and go along to get along.  Jim Henson from Texas Polling Project has written/spoken extensively about this.  and to this day, they still can't agree on how to quantify that amount despite big data and A.I. analysis.  

But holy shit, these next two elections are really putting the stress test on that.  From Trumpers back in hiding to white middle class folks still saying at back-to-school functions, "Oh, I'm still undecided...I'm gonna wait and see.  Only time will tell.  You never know..."

It's like talking to 1000 non-crack fueled Mike Lindells.  What the fuck are you waiting for?  What the fuck is happening in two weeks that nobody's talking about?  This is it.  This is the thing.  This is the landscape.  These are the choices.  Early voting starts 8 weeks from tomorrow.  Anything that may happen in those 8 weeks that's bad in Texas/for Texans is only gonna hurt one side.  All the laws and policies taking effect on Thursday...if you like 'em...vote 'em back.  If you have issue with many of them, vote the other way.  This landscape was settled months ago.  

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

5 hours ago, The Dog said:

This likely applies to Senate races as well but this is as good a place as any:

 

At this point, all the prognostications that show Republicans taking the House are based on two things: (1) the historical norm that the party in power loses seats, and (2) the theory that recent polling showing Democratic gains will revert to the mean.  That's it.  Otherwise, there's not a shred of actual data out there from which one would conclude that the GQP should be favored to win the House.

I am particularly annoyed with the revert-to-the-mean people.  The revert-to-the-mean people are to poll analysis what the "momentum" people are to football commentating.  "Well, Northwestern has the momentum now."  You hear it in damned near every football game.  But there's not a single piece of evidence that "momentum" is a thing in football.

In the same way, you'll hear political prognosticators talk about polling "reverting to the mean," as though the mean has some supernatural pull on polling.  But it doesn't.  Sometimes, shit diverts from the mean because shit is abnormal.  And that's where we are now.  Shit is borked.  The fucking Supreme Court seized dictatorial power and eliminated entire parts of the Constitution.  To ignore that fact and to conclude that things are going to revert to some mythical mean is to ignore the actual data you're receiving.

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

At this point, all the prognostications that show Republicans taking the House are based on two things: (1) the historical norm that the party in power loses seats, and (2) the theory that recent polling showing Democratic gains will revert to the mean.  That's it.  Otherwise, there's not a shred of actual data out there from which one would conclude that the GQP should be favored to win the House.

I am particularly annoyed with the revert-to-the-mean people.  The revert-to-the-mean people are to poll analysis what the "momentum" people are to football commentating.  "Well, Northwestern has the momentum now."  You hear it in damned near every football game.  But there's not a single piece of evidence that "momentum" is a thing in football.

In the same way, you'll hear political prognosticators talk about polling "reverting to the mean," as though the mean has some supernatural pull on polling.  But it doesn't.  Sometimes, shit diverts from the mean because shit is abnormal.  And that's where we are now.  Shit is borked.  The fucking Supreme Court seized dictatorial power and eliminated entire parts of the Constitution.  To ignore that fact and to conclude that things are going to revert to some mythical mean is to ignore the actual data you're receiving.

I didn’t realize you were Tom Herman

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I didn’t realize you were Tom Herman

Well, I have fucked Kendra Scott, sooooooo . . . .

[Pescado_Rojo 19,423]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, I have fucked Kendra Scott, sooooooo . . . .

out of what? 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

At this point, all the prognostications that show Republicans taking the House are based on two things: (1) the historical norm that the party in power loses seats, and (2) the theory that recent polling showing Democratic gains will revert to the mean.  That's it.  Otherwise, there's not a shred of actual data out there from which one would conclude that the GQP should be favored to win the House.

I am particularly annoyed with the revert-to-the-mean people.  The revert-to-the-mean people are to poll analysis what the "momentum" people are to football commentating.  "Well, Northwestern has the momentum now."  You hear it in damned near every football game.  But there's not a single piece of evidence that "momentum" is a thing in football.

In the same way, you'll hear political prognosticators talk about polling "reverting to the mean," as though the mean has some supernatural pull on polling.  But it doesn't.  Sometimes, shit diverts from the mean because shit is abnormal.  And that's where we are now.  Shit is borked.  The fucking Supreme Court seized dictatorial power and eliminated entire parts of the Constitution.  To ignore that fact and to conclude that things are going to revert to some mythical mean is to ignore the actual data you're receiving.

Don’t forget Republican courts “owning the libs” in gerrymandering. 
 

the Dem gerrymander in NY got tossed and it would’ve netted the dems 4 seats. Seats that they desperately needed to offset the screw jobs in Ohio, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana.

[chainsaw 9,870]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

At this point, all the prognostications that show Republicans taking the House are based on two things: (1) the historical norm that the party in power loses seats, and (2) the theory that recent polling showing Democratic gains will revert to the mean.  That's it.  Otherwise, there's not a shred of actual data out there from which one would conclude that the GQP should be favored to win the House.

I am particularly annoyed with the revert-to-the-mean people.  The revert-to-the-mean people are to poll analysis what the "momentum" people are to football commentating.  "Well, Northwestern has the momentum now."  You hear it in damned near every football game.  But there's not a single piece of evidence that "momentum" is a thing in football.

In the same way, you'll hear political prognosticators talk about polling "reverting to the mean," as though the mean has some supernatural pull on polling.  But it doesn't.  Sometimes, shit diverts from the mean because shit is abnormal.  And that's where we are now.  Shit is borked.  The fucking Supreme Court seized dictatorial power and eliminated entire parts of the Constitution.  To ignore that fact and to conclude that things are going to revert to some mythical mean is to ignore the actual data you're receiving.

I wish I had your optimism. To me the elephant in the room is gas prices, inflation, and overall mood. It would be naive to assume these recent "wins" are going to continue into November. What happens if gas prices go up? What happens if there is some kind of shortage like we saw with baby formula?

I don't think regression to the mean is definitely going to happen, but we can't say for sure that it won't happen, either.

[atomheartbevo 89,727]

48 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I wish I had your optimism. To me the elephant in the room is gas prices, inflation, and overall mood. It would be naive to assume these recent "wins" are going to continue into November. What happens if gas prices go up? What happens if there is some kind of shortage like we saw with baby formula?

I don't think regression to the mean is definitely going to happen, but we can't say for sure that it won't happen, either.

Abortion is on the ballot.  It may not be directly on the ballot like in Kansas, but it’s there, and there is a reason some Republicans who are running are trying to clean their sites of it.

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

9 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I wish I had your optimism. To me the elephant in the room is gas prices, inflation, and overall mood. It would be naive to assume these recent "wins" are going to continue into November. What happens if gas prices go up? What happens if there is some kind of shortage like we saw with baby formula?

I don't think regression to the mean is definitely going to happen, but we can't say for sure that it won't happen, either.

I'm not saying reversion to the mean is not going to happen, either.

What I am saying is that it is equally likely that the Democrats' position will continue to improve through October and into November.  But most "data reporters" completely discount that possibility and treat reversion to the mean as a near certainty.  And I think that's ridiculous and not based on any actual data.

[GopherRock 1,765]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Abortion is on the ballot.  It may not be directly on the ballot like in Kansas, but it’s there, and there is a reason some Republicans who are running are trying to clean their sites of it.

Barring any complications, it will be on the ballot in Michigan. And it's going to win something like 67-33. That's the sort of result that ends in downballot slaughter for the GOP. 

I mean, in 2012 the Minnesota GOP put anti-gay-marriage and Voter ID amendments on the statewide ballot. Both lost ~51.5-48.5, and they lost control of both chambers of the Legislature and had to sweat out a photo finish in the 6th. 

[YGIFS 19,452]

14 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

out of what? 

3.5 billable hours   -or- 3.5 inches     

Dealer's choice.

[babysdaddy 2,725]

52 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not saying reversion to the mean is not going to happen, either.

What I am saying is that it is equally likely that the Democrats' position will continue to improve through October and into November.  But most "data reporters" completely discount that possibility and treat reversion to the mean as a near certainty.  And I think that's ridiculous and not based on any actual data.

 

 

[Js1 85,408]

11 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

 

Democrats are motivated by Dobbs and Biden's legislative wins - that's why they have turned out and inched his approval up to almost the mid-40s. 

 

[babysdaddy 2,725]

Just now, Js1 said:

Democrats are motivated by Dobbs and Biden's legislative wins - that's why they have turned out and inched his approval up to almost the mid-40s. 

 

Yes.  That's what the graph is showing....although it is specific to Dobbs.  I'd be wary that legislative wins are going to carry the day.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19,423]

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Democrats are motivated by Dobbs and Biden's legislative wins - that's why they have turned out and inched his approval up to almost the mid-40s. 

 

I bet a conservative neighbor of mine back in the spring that gas prices would be below $3.00 before the midterms. I feel pretty good about that bet right now, and I feel like that as much as Dobbs will take a lot of wind out of the red wave sail. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

9 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Yes.  That's what the graph is showing....although it is specific to Dobbs.  I'd be wary that legislative wins are going to carry the day.  

The legislative wins not only motivates the dem base, but takes away a massive talking point that the GOP wanted to use in the fall. The GOP was going to campaign on “ the do nothing” Biden administration, but they can’t do that now that Biden has accomplished more in nearly 2 years than Donald trump accomplished in a full 4 years.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Voldemort86

[Js1 85,408]

11 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Yes.  That's what the graph is showing....although it is specific to Dobbs.  I'd be wary that legislative wins are going to carry the day.  

Popular legislation motivates people. Keeping promises reminds voters what a Dem majority is doing for them. 

[chainsaw 9,870]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not saying reversion to the mean is not going to happen, either.

What I am saying is that it is equally likely that the Democrats' position will continue to improve through October and into November.  But most "data reporters" completely discount that possibility and treat reversion to the mean as a near certainty.  And I think that's ridiculous and not based on any actual data.

It's based on historical trends and those tend to be pretty accurate. Most of these possibilities are already accounted for.

[atomheartbevo 89,727]

33 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's based on historical trends and those tend to be pretty accurate. Most of these possibilities are already accounted for.

Does it account for the abortion issue?  Because that’s something that really hasn’t been an issue in nearly 50 years, bifurcation now it’s everywhere.

[chainsaw 9,870]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Does it account for the abortion issue?  Because that’s something that really hasn’t been an issue in nearly 50 years, bifurcation now it’s everywhere.

I think it does try to account for it, but it may not fully account for it. Falls under the "unknown unknowns" category, which are somewhat accounted for in these models. We can't just assume that the anger will be as strong in October/November. No brakes.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

It's based on historical trends and those tend to be pretty accurate. Most of these possibilities are already accounted for.

That’s all well and good but this country has been well off normalcy since 2016.

I don’t put much stock in historical trends right now.

[chainsaw 9,870]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

That’s all well and good but this country has been well off normalcy since 2016.

I don’t put much stock in historical trends right now.

I know it feels that way but in terms of poll accuracy I don't think they have been that off.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I’m not talking about poll accuracy.

I’m talking about 30% of this country losing their gotdamn minds.

There are no historical trends that can be applied to emerging fascism.

[chainsaw 9,870]

37 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m not talking about poll accuracy.

I’m talking about 30% of this country losing their gotdamn minds.

There are no historical trends that can be applied to emerging fascism.

We've been pretty shitty for a long time.

[Snake Diggity 4,625]

19 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

At this point, all the prognostications that show Republicans taking the House are based on two things: (1) the historical norm that the party in power loses seats, and (2) the theory that recent polling showing Democratic gains will revert to the mean.  That's it.  Otherwise, there's not a shred of actual data out there from which one would conclude that the GQP should be favored to win the House.

I am particularly annoyed with the revert-to-the-mean people.  The revert-to-the-mean people are to poll analysis what the "momentum" people are to football commentating.  "Well, Northwestern has the momentum now."  You hear it in damned near every football game.  But there's not a single piece of evidence that "momentum" is a thing in football.

In the same way, you'll hear political prognosticators talk about polling "reverting to the mean," as though the mean has some supernatural pull on polling.  But it doesn't.  Sometimes, shit diverts from the mean because shit is abnormal.  And that's where we are now.  Shit is borked.  The fucking Supreme Court seized dictatorial power and eliminated entire parts of the Constitution.  To ignore that fact and to conclude that things are going to revert to some mythical mean is to ignore the actual data you're receiving.

Gerrymandering is the real reason for Republican optimism.

The GOP WILL control the House.  It’ll be way less than expected 6 months ago but >220 House seats will be red.

[Js1 85,408]

15 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Gerrymandering is the real reason for Republican optimism.

The GOP WILL control the House.  It’ll be way less than expected 6 months ago but >220 House seats will be red.

The GOP gerrymander advantage is such that basically anything R+0.7 or less means the House is a tossup.  Even with the NY, NC and FL bullshit, anything neutral means they fail to take the House.  The prognosticators like 538 EXPECT the GCB to turn after Labor Day, in the GOP's favor.  The models will adjust if that fails to happen.

I will not say as of today they 100% will take the House.  They likely will, but there is no guarantee and only a handful of races have to go wrong to keep it in Pelosi's hands.  Their optimism is because Biden is still struggling to get out of the low-40s in approval, the right/wrong track is pretty bad and for the most part, the party in power loses seats in midterms.  

But as Bama Chick says, and I've been saying, we have been living in the upsidedown since 2016.  I don't think there's any precedence for the hyperpartisanship happening now and the one unelected branch of government doing their own thing at the expense of the minority party's plans for retaking the legislative branch. 

Shit is weird, yo.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Js1

[Voldemort86 2,259]

Probably our best indication of the current political environment. I think we still need the environment to turn more blue if we’re going to be competitive in the house.

[chainsaw 9,870]

1 minute ago, Voldemort86 said:

Probably our best indication of the current political environment. I think we still need the environment to turn more blue if we’re going to be competitive in the house.

Can't react any more

[Voldemort86 2,259]

Don’t know much about this guy, but I like his prediction.  Final Alaska results expected tomorrow at 4 pm Alaska time. Dems are playing with house money and have already put up a good showing. Winning would be nice and give the party some more momentum for November, but the winner only serves for 4 months and it will probably go red in the fall. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,488]

20 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m not talking about poll accuracy.

I’m talking about 30% of this country losing their gotdamn minds.

There are no historical trends that can be applied to emerging fascism.

I think the other thing is that there has never been a time in America where the experience of the economy by the vast majority was so disconnected from economic indicators. Hard to say if that breaks hard in one direction or the other because it’s such a mixed bag, but it certainly makes a lot of the background modeling  and assumptions in place more questionable. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[The Dog 44,062]

 

[The Dog 44,062]

 

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

13 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Beware the outliers.

[The Dog 44,062]

50 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Beware the outliers.

It's consistent with their other polls - but they have been consistently showing the Democrats with a lead. The Politico one has also shown Democrats with a consistent lead recently. Both show a shift to the Ds since July (+5 for Economist and +1 for Politico). 

Others showing a shift:

Trafalgar (July): R +8; (August) R +5

Emerson (July) R +1; (August) R +1 - only one that didn't change but it's down from R +3 in June

Rasmussen (July) R +10; (August) R +5

I probably should have done the analysis but just wanted to post a couple of polls that were pretty big Democrat leads - hadn't seen that before. 

and I agree the D+8 poll is an outlier.

Edited August 31, 2022 by The Dog

[Voldemort86 2,259]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/31/poll-young-voters-more-motivated-after-dobbs-decision-00054310
 

the push to kill abortion motivated GOP voters for probably 30-40 years and likely juiced turnout in all those elections. Could we see an opposite long term effect for the dems? 
 

voters think a lot differently than 10,20,30 years ago.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Voldemort86

[Js1 85,408]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

It's consistent with their other polls - but they have been consistently showing the Democrats with a lead. The Politico one has also shown Democrats with a consistent lead recently. Both show a shift to the Ds since July (+5 for Economist and +1 for Politico). 

Others showing a shift:

Trafalgar (July): R +8; (August) R +5

Emerson (July) R +1; (August) R +1 - only one that didn't change but it's down from R +3 in June

Rasmussen (July) R +10; (August) R +5

I probably should have done the analysis but just wanted to post a couple of polls that were pretty big Democrat leads - hadn't seen that before. 

and I agree the D+8 poll is an outlier.

Quinnipiac went D+1 to D+4.

Either it's extreme herding or...

[Sawbonz 27,578]

Women are pissed. 

[Js1 85,408]

On 8/30/2022 at 8:49 AM, GopherRock said:

Barring any complications, it will be on the ballot in Michigan. And it's going to win something like 67-33. That's the sort of result that ends in downballot slaughter for the GOP. 

I mean, in 2012 the Minnesota GOP put anti-gay-marriage and Voter ID amendments on the statewide ballot. Both lost ~51.5-48.5, and they lost control of both chambers of the Legislature and had to sweat out a photo finish in the 6th. 

Uh yeah, MI board needed 3 votes to approve putting it on the ballot. Both GOP objected. Now it’s in limbo 

[SubliminalHorn 6,806]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Uh yeah, MI board needed 3 votes to approve putting it on the ballot. Both GOP objected. Now it’s in limbo 

Now it’s up to the people to decide! /piece of shit republicans