Prognostications on the House in November 2018
I’ve said before that I’m worried about the makeup of the next House of Representatives. The specter of Pelosi or someone politically similar as Speaker, the rise of the hard left, the end of ongoing investigations that I think are important, the impeachment plans—all those things are not happy prospects.
In addition, it’s profoundly depressing to think that so many voters seem to find those same prospects consummations devoutly to be wished. And that includes a lot of my friends and family.
But that’s not what this post is about. That’s just the intro.
The real subject of this post is the prediction of the House elections. Blue tsunami, blue trickle, red wave surprise—predictions vary, but it’s a mystery. Not only have I lost whatever lingering faith I ever had in the polls, but House races are notorious for being difficult to poll and difficult to predict—which doesn’t stop prognosticators from doing so, over and over and over again. You can hardly open a paper (or click on a website, which is the way I get my news) or visit a blog without seeing a prediction, usually of a blue wave. And yet, I don’t think anyone really knows. I think we’re all just guessing in the dark.
Why are House races especially difficult to predict? They require more delicate and precise sampling, because the districts are so often complicated by the dictates of gerrymandering. There are so many House elections—every single member of the House is up for re-election every two years, and quite a few races are hotly contested and seemingly close—that polling is expensive and often not done, or not done all that often. Also, unless you do an up-to-the-minute poll shortly before the election itself the polls can be quite meaningless, because the situation can change so rapidly. In addition, because it’s a midyear election with no presidential race, turnout is especially important because fewer people vote, and yet turnout is particularly hard to predict. For all these reasons I think most House polls and predictions are garbage-in/garbage-out, even more so than in a presidential year.
I find myself wanting to turn away from the news in general, but in particular wanting to turn away from any article about what will happen in the House come November 6, 2018. And you?
I pay little attention to the House races for the reasons you give. I occasionally will read Nate Silver at 538, because he is cautious enough to give likelihoods and percentages rather than predictions. I will likely check him next week.
I pay a little more attention to the Senate, because there are fewer and more stable races there. Even at that, I hold conclusions lightly.
I continue to pay attention and view what I see with a dump truck load of salt.
I take most of the Blue Wave! stories as efforts to get the bandwagon rolling — about as persuasive as the Jeb! campaign.
Nonetheless, maintaining the GOP House majority is a hard uphill climb because of the midterm effect and the GOP has many more vulnerable seats up for grabs this year.
My bet is the House will be close and will probably go to the Dems, but we might be pleasantly surprised. The Dems did a lot of damage to their chances with their stunts in the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Silver’s odds are cautious for a reason. He takes credit for “correct predictions” when the favorite wins, and shrugs them off as “mere probabilities” when the favorite loses. The unexpected losses are easier to take if the probabilities aren’t too high to begin with.
For example, his last odds had Hillary with a 71% chance to win, which indeed was much lower than most of his ilk. However, consider that he gave the LA Rams, the best team in football and the heaviest favorite in Vegas to outright win their game yesterday, only a 71% chance to win (they won 39-10).
I predict the Dems will only net a dozen or so seats. Not enough for a majority. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but I just don’t see them taking the house.
My guess: The GOP will hold the House in spite of itself. It’ll do even better in the Senate with several pickups including some shockers (e.g., Menendez going down in NJ, Braun beating Donnelly in Indiana, and maybe even Sherrod Brown of Ohio in trouble). Even if the Donks do narrowly take the House, McConnell in the Senate will curtly inform them that any and all impeachment events will be DOA on the Senate floor. Turtle will also confirm DJT judicial appointments at ramming speed.
I think some of the above will be also determined by what happens with those Central American illegal caravans. I’d surmise that Trump will, indeed, keep his word about sealing the border and using troops to do so. “Posse Comitatus” be damned, this is a genuine invasion attempt. Soros & Co. apparently think Trump will cave on this issue, but I think they’ll be sadly mistaken.
On a somewhat related note, I’d prognosticate that, if the above comes to pass, the crazies in California will attempt to declare de facto independence (maybe as early as next year!)…at which time Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act and, quoting “Star Wars,” “crush the rebellion with one swift stroke.”
Stay tuned….
Bold prediction MarkJ.
I have tuned out of all broadcast news; and have never paid a whit of attention to polls.
I did send a small donation to the Republican Congressional Committee, and my wife actually made one to the RNC. We will vote of course. But, regardless of what transpires elsewhere, we know what to expect in California. Our Congressman is Ken Calvert, GOP. I have seen no prognosis; but, it is hard to believe that he can survive since I have never heard him speak Spanish; or more accurately the corrupted version of Spanish that nearly dominates his district.
I have alerted my wife that if California secedes we will move back to the U.S. The problem is that in the eventuality, I foresee real estate prices plummeting because of the significant exit of Americans, while real estate in neighboring states will go up significantly. Well, all talk like most everything these days.
If anything I’ve learned over the past several years to ignore predictions of political results; even more so to make them.
I do not watch the news now and likely will not until after the election. The news media are spinning and engaged in hyperbole to drive viewership. Not interested, thank you. I’ll be in my shop turning blocks of wood into useful things and gifts. Probably will learn and practice some new stuff on the guitar, and spend time catching up on my reading.
Wake me when it’s over.
Some of us in Calif are too old to go traipsing off. If succession/Calexit is attempted, I see things getting… messy.
We left California after 60 years in my case and three generations in my wife’s case. I think the Democrats made a serious error in nationalizing the election for the House. I am seeing several articles in the WSJ and even the NY Times warning of consequences.
NY Times trying to warn.
An old Democrat explains their cultural problem.
Three statements in recent years illustrate why former Democratic voters have abandoned their party. First, Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign remark that small-town Americans “cling to guns and religion.” Second, Michelle Obama’s statement, also in 2008, that “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country.” Third, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 characterization of Trump supporters as “deplorables”: “They are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
None of these statements had anything to do with national security or economics. They revealed a mind-set that many voters find offensive—a huge cultural chasm that cannot be bridged by offering voters economic goodies.
We are now in Arizona, driving distance to the grandkids but safe from the crazies.
I live in Orange County, CA – a 30 year resident. It’s been a red county until 2016 when it went for Hillary. We have 7 House races – 4 of them now are toss-ups and they used to be solid Republican. I’m volunteering at local Repub HQs as much as I can! We need to win these seats to hold the House.
In Washington State I am concentrating on three races. Dino Rossi (R) versus Kim Schrier (D), Susan Hutchison (R) versus Maria Cantwell (D), and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) versus Lisa Brown (D).Have given money to all three GOP candidates. These three races seem to be the best chances for GOP success in November. Susan Hutchison is a long shot, but I can’t believe even liberals are satisfied with the record of Maria Cantwell. They had a debate a few days ago and Hutchison blew Cantwell out of the water. (Not necessarily a huge feat.) Rossi is in a tight race in a district that has been Republican for many years. His campaign has been kind of lackluster, but in Washington state one cannot show much conservatism or pro Trump sentiment – the place is just too blue. Anyhow, keeping my fingers crossed for all three.
If my health was better I would be working the phones and doorbelling for the GOP. Alas, those days are gone.
I don’t read the polls for the numbers, or for the punditry which is usually biased, but will click on a story to see what the candidates are doing strategically or stupidly (Heitkamp & O’Rourke).
From MikeK’s links.
NYT “(keeping the House) would embolden Trump to push even harder toward the America he wants — where corporate oversight is scant, climate change is ignored, voting rights are abridged, health care is a privilege, judicial independence is a fiction and the truth is whatever he says it is.”
Kind of funny that, since keeping the House indicates what the voters want, which just happens — what a coincidence! — to be what Trump wants as well.
Of course, he left out a couple of biggies and misstated a couple of others, but a journalist gotta journ, I suppose.
And the “problem” has been building for a long time, judging from the WSJ oped. If the Dems had listened to this guy, they might have won.
The Democrats’ Biggest Problem Is Cultural
Since 1968, the party has been alienating working-class voters. President Trump is the latest result.
By Ted Van Dyk
July 27, 2017 6:07 p.m. ET
“The Democratic voter exodus began in 1968 when millions of traditional blue-collar and middle-income voters moved to Republican Richard Nixon or third-party candidate George Wallace, a Democratic former governor of Alabama. Alienated by street and campus riots and disorder, these voters bought into the Nixon/Wallace law-and-order themes. Some also were attracted to their message that Great Society programs had overreached.
…
Congressional Democrats are right to begin construction of an alternative agenda. But as they do so, they must recognize that most Americans are not racist, sexist, ignorant or opposed to alternative lifestyles. Most largely accept the cultural and social changes of the past half-century. To recapture traditional Democratic voters, and attract new ones, Democrats must learn empathy for those who believe they are being mocked for working hard, going to church, serving in the military, and trying to instill moral standards in their children.
Back in the day we spoke admiringly of officeholders and candidates who were “for the people.” Those same people now must come to feel again that there are Democrats who understand them, their values and their aspirations and do not view them as cultural inferiors to be manipulated in campaign years. President Trump is not our problem.”
History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes.
So does Kipling: The Gods of the Copy-book Headings, for instance.
I broke my rule and made the mistake of clicking on MikeK’s link to the NYT. Sure enough it was not any kind of thoughtful rethinking of the political trends in “flyover” country but yet another leftist rant screeching about all the terrible consequences of letting the unwashed masses beyond the Hudson have a say in things. I suspect the only “journalistic” purpose was to get out the vote.
I will repeat my theme that the toothpaste is out of the tube for Democrats today, much as it was for Republicans in 1932. The status quo ante is finished. “It’s all over Baby Blue” – to quote Bob Dylan. Neo’s post is spot on for me because we don’t know the details and quite how it will go down. The Dems win the house and continue to try to get rid of Trump. The Dems don’t win the house and continue to try to get rid of Trump. Clearly they can resist more if they win, but the important thing is that they are committed to resist no matter what. That is path they have chosen. Losing might wake them up faster and save their neoMarxist souls from the dustbin of history. Winning might lure them into it quicker. Who knows, but they have set their hearts on the road to ruin. That much is plain. It was the election of 1948 when the Republicans discovered that they were really not going to get the toothpaste back into the tube. I remember how angry they were. In 1955, in my 8th grade class, three years after Truman left office, I ragged my teacher by putting a picture of Harry Truman on the bulletin board. I liked the guy a lot so I fessed up and was treated to a 15 minutes of public dressing down. It was Truman Derangement Syndrome. Coming from a Democrat family I had no idea. It’s like wearing a MAGA hat to school today. So to recap, my point is that the paradigm has shifted but it is not clear how it will work out and how long it will take. Or where it will lead.
since az primary aug. 28. 90,000 new voters have registered only 25,000 have registered as republicans.
I had a small revelation this morning, reading a news clip at Lucianne.com in which Jonathan Alter says “you can kiss democracy goodbye” if the Republicans hold the House. What the leftists mean by “democracy” is the Democrat Party. This is why they have been so hysterical since Hillary’s loss. Their era is dying.
Wammo’s numbers, the Orange County details, and similar anecdotal material are discouraging for a Republican. Here in Pennsylvania, the Democratic Supreme Court threw out the districting and gave a liberal the power to draw new ones, so guesstimates are a switch of +5 Congressional seats to Democrats from PA alone.
Nonetheless….. it feels like 2016 again, to me. Trump’s own numbers are rising and we cannot quantify the degree of revulsion the Kavanaugh hearing shenanigans have caused. We cannot quantify it, but it is high. And there is #walkaway and Kanye…. the tips of a couple of icebergs.
I am with MarkJ on the Senate, and — though please don’t ask me the specific races — I am R+2 on the House as a whole.
Yet, from one perspective, it might be better to lose the House, because the stock market is coming apart at the seams and that is going to be blamed on Trump in particular (tariffs) and the Republicans in general. Maybe a little gridlock and some shared blame would be useful in that one regard, only.
What the leftists mean by “democracy” is the Democrat Party. This is why they have been so hysterical since Hillary’s loss. Their era is dying. –Kate
Yes, I think so too. We live so closely to the details we don’t always get the full picture. But, from Reagan’s call at the Brandenburg Gate to Solidarity in the Lenin Shipyard, the rejection of leftist utopianism continues to run its course. We are now doing it too. A hundred years of miserable history that cannot be concealed even by the best efforts of the NEA.
A financial emergency in China’s topsy-turvy economy may give even the Chinese a chance. But that is another story and we won’t have a lot of say in how it goes.
“…you can kiss democracy goodbye” if the Republicans hold the House….”
Which is why voter fraud by Democrats is not only absolutely necessary (to save the USA) but is positively the cutting edge of morality…:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/10/23/dem-voter-fraud-erick-erickson-drops-dems-claiming-voter-suppression-in-ga-in-epic-thread-stacey-abrams-hardest-hit/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget
Absolutely. Positively.
(Kinda like ensuring—insuring!—that Trump never gets elected…or if, somehow, elected is never given the chance to govern….)
Inside Elections (formerly Rothenberg) has a race-by-race taxonomy which suggests a gain of 26 seats for the Democrats. The position of the Republicans has been deteriorating for the last 3 months. Not so for the Senate, where their taxonomy suggests a gain of 1 or 2 seats for the Republicans.
The position of the Republicans has been deteriorating for the last 3 months.
According to them, I assume that means. But… do you yourself, Art Deco, think that is possible — that with Kavanaugh, Korea, economy, the Republican electoral probabilities have diminished in the last three months? They have strengthened per some other polls as well as common sense, it would seem. Unless this reflects very pro-D new registration totals across most states that I am unaware of.
I (still) suspect that any surprise in the results will be in favor of (Trump and) Republicans. There will be setbacks, downticks in the uptrend; but the wave that is still young is the trend toward Trump and the GOP, seems to me.
The other view would be that we have been seeing Peak Trump for the past three months or so.
The polls are even worse this election because we know there have been some serious demographic changes. All polls have to be adjusted in order to make the sample representative of the underlying electorate. Anybody who thinks they have an accurate understanding of the new changes is either a fool or a liar. So the pollsters are making adjustments which often have a larger margin of error Than they are predicting for the race. So the polls are more guesswork Than survey.
The core electorate is about 37% of the adult citizen population. The corps of people so interested that they follow things like the Kavanaugh imbroglio is much smaller and few of them are swing voters. Might move the need a bit, but so for not so much that it has more than a mild counteracting effect on the usual vectors. Usually the vectors run against the incumbent President. It’s just a question of the strength of the vector. If you look over the last 40-odd years, I think you see that the size of midterm losses is bimodally distributed, with peaks around 40 seats and 10 seats. My suspicion is that this will be a ‘large loss’ year like 2010, 2006, 1994, 1982, and 1974, but at the low end of that set. Rothenberg suggests almost a precise replication of 1982.
I think the smartest bet in this election would be to bet against the polls put out by the most left wing of the press homers. They don’t have a record of competence.
Art Deco, Who are all these people showing up at Trump rallys? They’ve never been involved in politics before.
As far as following Kavanaugh?! All the people who normally fill my Facebook feed with pictures of their cats and their grandchildren were talking about nothing else.
On polls, there are a vastly larger number of them than there were 40 years ago (when you had Gallup, Harris, Roper, and Yankelovich). The evolution of telephone technology and habits of living have made it more challenging to set up valid sampling frames. Also, you have the phenomenon of media push-polling, for which you can correct by ignoring polls from outfits like the Sulzberger Birdcage Liner. For all that they’re much less reliable, they’re still more reliable than ass-pulls. So, i’d take the median of a batch of them. Not sure what Rothenberg’s methodology is.
Who are all these people showing up at Trump rallys?
Trump supporters, presumably, except for the sorosphere rent-a-claque-of-antifa. People who show up at rallies are a modest minority. I take that as an indicator that his supporters are more motivated than the opposition. Pollsters use likely-voter screens late in campaigns to try to assess that.
Apropos of the discussion, using the armed forces to secure our own borders is not a violation of posse comitatus–never has been. That is one of the most poorly understood laws we have on the books and it’s frequently cited for all sorts of things where it has no relevance.
As for November? Hard to tell. Much of the media is actively supporting the Dems and working to deliberately demoralize conservative voters, so take any polling data cum grano salis, as they say.
My position has been consistent throughout the last year; and it remains so:
Democrats gain 5-15 in the House.
Republicans gain 1-3 in the Senate.
Thus: A reduced (but still workable) GOP majority in the House and a Senate with more breathing room (and without Jeff Flake!)
T
I’ve gone from treating all polls and all pundits’ “methodologies” skeptically, to ignoring them entirely. The ascent of Trump utterly destroyed any faith in polling one should have. Now, even more than in 2016, there is a large portion of the population who thoroughly distrust and detests the mainstream media (including pollsters). They cannot be quantified or measured with any degree of accuracy. This “silent majority” is overwhelmingly conservative. Whether they will turn out in great numbers is anyone’s guess. But their existence urges one to not take any MSM prognostications seriously.
I’m with Stan on this. Everyone and his brother had an opinion on the Kavanaugh hearings, Art Deco! Although I noticed that the only people who didn’t talk about it much were lefties — I think even many of them knew the Blasey Ford fantasies were untenable.
So, if Trump’s supporters are more motivated than his opponents, it will show up in the voting, not necessarily the polls. I’m with Ackler on that. But a little more optimistic. Put me down for the current House majority +2 additional Rs, come Nov. 7, despite the rigged PA districts. This wave has not crested.