The 2022 Midterm Elections

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I know 

I don't know that I believe any of the polling and think things will be way tighter than some of these polls are showing. When you look at the issue based polling around what people care about, inflation and gas prices are #1 and #2 on voters minds with abortion usually a distant third. When you look at who voters trust more on gas prices and inflation it's Republicans by a fairly wide margin. Democrats are going to win a few of the senate races, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and maybe Ohio, because of bad candidates on the GOP side. Say what you will about Ron Johnson, but I don't think is qualifies as a bad candidate in comparison to the likes of Masters or Oz.

Generally agreed, but while Ryan has run a great campaign, they would win Wisconsin before they win Ohio. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

Only Democrats can take good polling news and spin it into bad news. 

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Only Democrats can take good polling news and spin it into bad news. 

It's not even just Dems, it's the mainstream media in general.

If the poll was released and it shown Johnson tied or leading, it'd be taken as gospel. A poll showing Johnson down, meanwhile, people are told to slow their roll or that it's not to be believed.

The odds of Barnes winning by seven points when it's all said and done are zero, but the trend from the last poll (which showed a virtual tie) is what matters and it kinda confirms that evolution of the environment. And it hasn't just been seen in polling alone either - it was seen in Kansas Amendment election and in the Minnesota 1 Special Election as well.

Edited August 17, 2022 by mtutiger

[Mr.TaterSalad]

4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Only Democrats can take good polling news and spin it into bad news. 

Marquette University, the same poll that has Barnes up over Johnson here, also had Feingold up +11 at this point in time in 2016. They had Fiengold up +6 in early October and up +1 just days before the election on October 31st. They were way off in their early 2016 estimates with Feingold up +11 and off with their final tally as Ron Johnson ended up winning by 3.4%. Pardon me for being skeptical about polling that has consistently gotten it wrong.

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Marquette University, the same poll that has Barnes up over Johnson here, also had Feingold up +11 at this point in time in 2016. They had Fiengold up +6 in early October and up +1 just days before the election on October 31st. They were way off in their early 2016 estimates with Feingold up +11 and off with their final tally as Ron Johnson ended up winning by 3.4%. Pardon me for being skeptical about polling that has consistently gotten it wrong.

Jesus kid, you're giving me heartburn. 

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Marquette University, the same poll that has Barnes up over Johnson here, also had Feingold up +11 at this point in time in 2016. They had Fiengold up +6 in early October and up +1 just days before the election on October 31st. They were way off in their early 2016 estimates with Feingold up +11 and off with their final tally as Ron Johnson ended up winning by 3.4%. Pardon me for being skeptical about polling that has consistently gotten it wrong.

Marquette had Tammy Baldwin up 49-47 with LV in August 2018. What did she go on to win by?

Again, I don't buy that Barnes will win by 7, but the trends matter.

Edited August 17, 2022 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

Basically what Tater is saying is that the Marquette poll in 2016 accurately showed a big shift towards Republicans. Of course he ignored 2018 which Marquette nailed the Baldwin and Evers elections, an election that didn't have Trump on the ballot. 

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Marquette had Tammy Baldwin up 49-47 with LV in August 2018. What did she go on to win by?

Again, I don't buy that Barnes will win by 7, but the trends matter.

Baldwin won 55-44. The final Marquette had Baldwin winning 54-43. Dead on accurate. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's not even just Dems, it's the mainstream media in general.

If the poll was released and it shown Johnson tied or leading, it'd be taken as gospel. A poll showing Johnson down, meanwhile, people are told to slow their roll or that it's not to be believed.

The odds of Barnes winning by seven points when it's all said and done are zero, but the trend from the last poll (which showed a virtual tie) is what matters and it kinda confirms that evolution of the environment. And it hasn't just been seen in polling alone either - it was seen in Kansas Amendment election and in the Minnesota 1 Special Election as well.

I think we have some data that shows for whatever reason, at least to a small extent, Republicans and Trump voters are being under sampled in mainstream polling as 538 points out. My concerns is that polling in a general sense isn't capturing Republican enthusiasm, as it semi-failed to do in both 2016 and 2020. I worry they are underrepresented nationally by pollsters. I also worry that the polling on candidates doesn't correlate to issue-based polling that shows what voters care about. And when you dive into that, Democrats are losing on the issues by a decent margin, specifically the economy. I worry there is a big divergence between candidate and issue polling. I worry that issue-based polling is what will more accurately reflect the final results in 2022 and thus will be a bigger Republican victory, in both Congress and the Senate, than people believe.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Basically what Tater is saying is that the Marquette poll in 2016 accurately showed a big shift towards Republicans. Of course he ignored 2018 which Marquette nailed the Baldwin and Evers elections, an election that didn't have Trump on the ballot. 

There's a set of priors that everyone has going into this election, and honestly I kinda share them, by which the fundamentals run counter to the Democrats because of incumbency + economic conditions.

But we keep getting data points in, not just in polling, but with special elections as well, that keeps showing that (at least as of this moment) it's not a red wave scenario, and yet all that data seems to be getting thrown in the trash because of those priors.

Do the fundamentals point to a Johnson win? Yes. Does he stand a better chance of winning in November than Barnes? I'd say the race is no better than a tossup for Barnes, even with this poll. People aren't tuned in as closely right now, it's been a good news cycle for Ds and that will likely not continue much longer.

My only argument is that people need to be open-minded to scenarios in which priors aren't confirmed. Johnson is yet another candidate who isn't well liked (even if he isn't Oz levels of bad).... it's not unthinkable that he'd lose, particularly if one believes Ohio is actually in play (which I don't)

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

 I worry that issue-based polling is what will more accurately reflect the final results in 2022 and thus will be a bigger Republican victory, in both Congress and the Senate, than people believe.

Honestly feels to me like the conventional wisdom broadly is that of a Republican wave, despite data to the contrary.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

There's a set of priors that everyone has going into this election, and honestly I kinda share them, by which the fundamentals run counter to the Democrats because of incumbency + economic conditions.

But we keep getting data points in, not just in polling, but with special elections as well, that keeps showing that (at least as of this moment) it's not a red wave scenario, and yet all that data seems to be getting thrown in the trash because of those priors.

Do the fundamentals point to a Johnson win? Yes. Does he stand a better chance of winning in November than Barnes? I'd say the race is no better than a tossup for Barnes, even with this poll. People aren't tuned in as closely right now, it's been a good news cycle for Ds and that will likely not continue much longer.

My only argument is that people need to be open-minded to scenarios in which priors aren't confirmed. Johnson is yet another candidate who isn't well liked (even if he isn't Oz levels of bad).... it's not unthinkable that he'd lose, particularly if one believes Ohio is actually in play (which I don't)

These priors of the party in the presidency losing the house and senate really didn't start until the 90's. We also never had a basic right taken away like abortion and a party as extreme as the Republican party. We've been conditioned to assume the Democrats are going to lose the mid terms because they won in 2020 and that's what is suppose to happen. If you looked at polls, voter registration, and actual elections and you would say the momentum is with the Democrats. 

[Motown Bombers]

Speaking of Wisconsin, is there any state in the country that has two senators that are such polar opposites? 

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

These priors of the party in the presidency losing the house and senate really didn't start until the 90's. We also never had a basic right taken away like abortion and a party as extreme as the Republican party. We've been conditioned to assume the Democrats are going to lose the mid terms because they won in 2020 and that's what is suppose to happen. If you looked at polls, voter registration, and actual elections and you would say the momentum is with the Democrats. 

It's more mixed than that imo.... party registration data doesn't favor Dems (even if that's an imperfect measurement because not every state has party registration), trends in POC communities still aren't great, etc. 

I'm not saying that the Dems are going to win the House... I don't believe they will. But the margins matter.... at least as of this moment, I don't buy that they are in position to lose 40+ seats. And when it comes to Senate races, that matters a lot.... it's the difference between some candidates winning and losing.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

It's more mixed than that imo.... party registration data doesn't favor Dems (even if that's an imperfect measurement because not every state has party registration), trends in POC communities still aren't great, etc. 

I'm not saying that the Dems are going to win the House... I don't believe they will. But the margins matter.... at least as of this moment, I don't buy that they are in position to lose 40+ seats. And when it comes to Senate races, that matters a lot.... it's the difference between some candidates winning and losing.

I was referring to all the women who have registered to vote post Roe decision. That would favor Democrats. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Basically what Tater is saying is that the Marquette poll in 2016 accurately showed a big shift towards Republicans. Of course he ignored 2018 which Marquette nailed the Baldwin and Evers elections, an election that didn't have Trump on the ballot. 

Why the divergence then from what voters care about and the candidates they are supporting? Voters say in poll after poll say inflation and gas prices are issues #1 and #2 that they care about. They also say they trust Republicans more on those two issues. So are those polls wrong? Are voters going to significantly diverge from the party they say they trust more to handle the issues that matter to them most?

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Why the divergence then from what voters care about and the candidates they are supporting? Voters say in poll after poll say inflation and gas prices are issues #1 and #2 that they care about. They also say they trust Republicans more on those two issues. So are those polls wrong? Are voters going to significantly diverge from the party they say they trust more to handle the issues that matter to them most?

Because voters vote on culture wars and the Democrats have a culture war they can win. Republicans vote against their best interest constantly because of culture wars. 

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Why the divergence then from what voters care about and the candidates they are supporting? Voters say in poll after poll say inflation and gas prices are issues #1 and #2 that they care about. They also say they trust Republicans more on those two issues. So are those polls wrong? Are voters going to significantly diverge from the party they say they trust more to handle the issues that matter to them most?

According to the crosstabs of the Marquette poll, Inflation is a big concern for 42% of Democrats, which is likely a not-insignificant chunk of the total who rank Inflation as a high priority

I assume most of those folks, if not all, will not be voting for RonJohn in November.

Edited August 17, 2022 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

Republicans look at unfavorable polls and say don't believe them go vote. Democrats look at favorable polls and tell us all the way Democrats are going to lose. 

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Republicans look at unfavorable polls and say don't believe them go vote. Democrats look at favorable polls and tell us all the way Democrats are going to lose. 

Dems do a better job of unskewing favorable polls than Rs do of unskewing unfavorable polls lol

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Dems do a better job of unskewing favorable polls than Rs do of unskewing unfavorable polls lol

Maybe that explains why Dems don't turn out for elections and lose them. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

15 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

According to the crosstabs of the Marquette poll, Inflation is a big concern for 42% of Democrats, which is likely a not-insignificant chunk of the total who rank Inflation as a high priority

I assume most of those folks, if not all, will not be voting for RonJohn in November.

But there is clearly a Johnson/Baldwin voter given the margins of what Baldwin won by. I do think Mandela Barnes is running a fairly good campaign from the looks of it. He's not trying to be a lite beer version of the Republicans nor trying to show you how conservative he too can be. He's solidly and unapologetically progressive on economics and healthcare and brands himself in a way that doesn't scare voters off with big government lingo (i.e. people like Bernie calling themselves a socialist). Wisconsin voters seem to accept a more progressive-minded candidates who takes, bold, left-of-center stances and votes on economic and healthcare issues, given the success Tammy Baldwin has had campaigning as a progressive in the past. I do think Barnes can win as well and am not saying it is a lock that Johnson wins. I am just skeptical at some of the polling margins we are seeing here and elsewhere for 2022 and am unsure how the divergence between issue trust and candidate plays out.

[Motown Bombers]

What's interesting in the polls is that Ron Johnson has remained steady at 44. There was 7% undecided pre Dobbs and that's down to 3% and that 4% seems to have gone all to Barnes. Barnes is also at 51%. Even if all the undecideds go for Johnson, Barnes still wins. Johnson needs voters to change their minds. 

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But there is clearly a Johnson/Baldwin voter given the margins of what Baldwin won by. I do think Mandela Barnes is running a fairly good campaign from the looks of it. He's not trying to be a lite beer version of the Republicans nor trying to show you how conservative he too can be. He's solidly and unapologetically progressive on economics and healthcare and brands himself in a way that doesn't scare voters off with big government lingo (i.e. people like Bernie calling themselves a socialist). Wisconsin voters seem to accept a more progressive-minded candidates who takes, bold, left-of-center stances and votes on economic and healthcare issues, given the success Tammy Baldwin has had campaigning as a progressive in the past. I do think Barnes can win as well and am not saying it is a lock that Johnson wins. I am just skeptical at some of the polling margins we are seeing here and elsewhere for 2022 and am unsure how the divergence between issue trust and candidate plays out.

I get it. I don't think Barnes is winning by 7 either.

All I'm trying to say is that the data (both in terms of polling an in terms of special elections) suggest that the environment isn't as robust for Republicans as it was six months ago. The Marquette poll is but one data point that has largely pointed to that at this moment.

We will have another special election in NY-19 in a week (a tossup district, replacing Anthony Delgado)... let's see how that one goes as well and add that to the pile.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Marquette University, the same poll that has Barnes up over Johnson here, also had Feingold up +11 at this point in time in 2016. They had Fiengold up +6 in early October and up +1 just days before the election on October 31st. They were way off in their early 2016 estimates with Feingold up +11 and off with their final tally as Ron Johnson ended up winning by 3.4%. Pardon me for being skeptical about polling that has consistently gotten it wrong.

yup. I don't see any reason to have confidence the pollsters have figured out their sampling resistance issues between left and right until they actual start hitting the Dem numbers a little closer to election results. It's not so bad with national numbers but at state and congressional district level blue polling bias has been significant.