The Democrats’ Wave Could Turn Into A Flood

Let's put this in context and perspective:



The RCP aggregate (RCP is Conservative-leaning) shows D+13.
Although I am not a huge fan of generic ballots, the congressional generic has generally shown the direction, but not necessarily the intensity, with accuracy.

Compare this with the end-aggregate for 2014:



With the +5.7% end-statistic, the GOP picked up 13 HOR seats after having flipped 63 seats in 2010.

Let's go back to 2010:



In 2010, the polling was clearly pointing to a GOP wave, but with smaller margins than we are seeing for the Democratic Party at current. The end-statistic of GOP +6.8 netted the Party 63 House seats in that year. Please not that both Gallup and FOX news way overestimated the GOP wave, whereas Rasmussen, in that year, was on the mark.

Let's go back to 2006:



In 2006, the Democrats underperformed the polling aggregate, with both CNN and Newsweek being the two biggest outliers. Here the RCP data is not exactly correct: the DEMS won the House in 2006 by +8.0, not +7.9 and that margin brought the party a net gain of 31 seats and the House majority.

Let's go back to 2002:



In 2002, a year that broke the mid-term paradigm, the GOP outperformed it's end polling aggregate and won the House by a +4.8 margin, which netted the GOP 8 seats and therefore the GOP retained it's House majority. As was the case in 2014, the end polling was not uniform: some polls showed a D lead, others an R lead. Either way, it was pointing to a relatively tight race for the House.

What we can learn out of this, if all of us put partisanship aside for a second, is that mid-terms, for good or for bad, are indeed a referendum on the sitting president.

As a result of his leadership, calmness and tenacity following the henious attacks on 911, then Pres. George W. Bush (43) enjoyed extremely high approval ratings through all of 2002 and it paid off in the 2002 mid-terms. By 2006, those approval ratings had eroded severely and the Democratic Party, which had been sent into the wilderness since 2002, reorganized, re-energized and fought tooth-and-nail for both chambers of Congress, which it won.

In 2010, then Pres. Obama's approval ratings were underwater, but nowhere underwater as they were for Bush in his 2nd administration. However, the racous debate over health-care and the contentious House vote to pass the ACA resulted in a reverse picture from 2006: the GOP, which had been sent into the wilderness, did exactly what the DEMS did in 2006: they reorganized and re-energized their party and went on to win their biggest shirt of all time in the HOR (bigger than 1994 and the Gingrich Revolution). In 2014, during Pres. Obama's second term, his approval ratings were more underwater but still not even remotely close to Bush's ratings in 2007-2008 and also not close to Trump's ratings even now during the infancy of his presidency. In 2014, the GOP did what the opposition party usually does to a 2-term President: it hits him on the jaw again (see: Eisenhower 1958, Johnson 1966, Nixon/Ford 1974, Reagan 1986 for further examples).

So, now we are looking at 2018 and seeing the standard paradigm of almost all mid-term elections (excluding 1962, 1998, 2002) forming: a pasting for the party in power.

Nate Silver's article is also very correct in that polling this far out tends to be far more predictive than people realize and usually when the numbers begin to shift again, it's generally an avalanche for the party that was gaining, anyway. Add to this Trump's historically low approval numbers and only the Lord above knows how deeper they will sink going in to the Fall of 2018, considering the ramifications of the newly signed Tax overhaul plus the ongoing Mueller investigation of Russiagate and we are without a doubt looking at the ingredients for a perfect storm.

But don't take my word for it: ask the many Republicans who are jumping ship right now. They too can read polling numbers.

Gone are the days where the Democratic Party had to hope and pray to somehow get to 50% +1 vote in just enough Seats in order to get over the top. Pelosi only needs to flip 26 seats, at least 80 are coming into play, and that number could easily go over 100 when all is said and done.

Of course, a week can be a year in politics, but unfortunately for the GOP, the President himself has been writing the DEM attack ads for them. All they need to do is to put out vids of his tweets and live statements and that right there is more than half of the battle.

Just a historical footnote: already in February 2008, polling in Indiana was showing a tied-race between Obama and McCain. It was also showing a low single-digit race in, of all places, North Dakota. 9 months later, Obama won Indiana and came in just 7 points under McCain in a state that is usually an R+30 state. So yeah, early polling can be more predictive than we may think.

If R+6 on midterm election night is enough for the GOP to flip 63 seats in 2010, the mid-term in Obama's first term, just imagine what a D+15 margin could do for the Democratic Party in 2018, were it to materialize. Just think about that.

-Stat

 

Feel free to put out actual stats to back up that claim, if you can.

 

The bottom 20% don't pay taxes but the credits go up.

 

And that paycheck will only arrive after the 2018 elections.

 

Income taxes still come out of each paychecl, so yes, they pay taxes. But they get them back after filing taxes, the same time as when their credits will apply.

And that paycheck will come after the 2018 midterm elections.

 

And let's not forget that ALL personal itemized deductions are now gone.
Many families that expect to have $2,000 more are going to end up with a bitter surprise when they have added up (or subtracted) all of the columns on their tax returns.

 

That depends on how many deductions you claimed on your W4 form when you started your job, and which you fill out each year going forward. And I think that most workers, whether or not they are registered to vote, will be made aware, by TV and word of mouth, that their tax returns will increase significantly, and that Republicans are responsible for it. Why would you think otherwise?

 

Because Trump has so little credibility that people don't believe him when he says they will get a tax cut. Because most Americans see the tax cut as a giveaway for the rich. And because Republicans rushed a glitchy tax bill which will need fixing in the best of circumstances and the very mild benefits from the majority of Americans wont be experienced until after 2018.

 

True and the lower deductions and bigger paycheck will begin in February. Dems in states that the President won will have to defend the reasons for voting no on the bill. Not sure about you but when my rep votes to keep MY money in DC I notice.

 

One of those columns will show a doubling of the personal deduction for single and married. Most don't itemize anyway.

 

Geez, Common sense, look at the bill, families in the lowest income "For parents and guardians of dependent children, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides a tax credit that can help reduce your tax liability for the 2017, 2018 tax season." 50% of citizens don't pay federal income taxes and receives the child income credit of 1000k this year and up to 2000k for 2018. https://nationaltaxreports.com/how-much-child-tax-credit/ 20% may even be too low.

 

I doubt that they will have to work very hard to defend a vote against the second least popular bill of the last 30 years.

 

Keep that mindset and you'll suffer another Nov. 8th 2016 breakdown. People vote their pocketbooks, always have and if you've been on the planet more than 10 minutes you'd know that.

 

Untrue. Independent businessmen itermize all the time.

 

If we have a tax cut it would seem logically that the most benefit would go to those who actually pay that tax.

 

I don't think that Trump has a credibility problem. In fact, I think his credibility has risen since the contest and since taking office, evidenced by his job performance and accomplishments. Maybe you are confusing the liberal medias drop in credibility with Trump. And when Trumps doubters see their tax cuts, they will adjust their measure of the man, the party and the leftist media who steered them wrong. Not to mention seeing bonus's, pay raises, job expansions and more hirings. The only people who see the tax bill as a cut for the rich are those who fail to look at the rest of the bill. With that narrow measure, you could just as easily say that it is a tax cut bill for unwed Mothers. As for the rich, who cares if they get a tax cut too. Heck, their taxes pay for most everything anyway. Besides, the corporate cuts apply to small business too. Do you know that this years holiday sales are the highest since forever? Consumer confidence is way up.

 

Let us hope it isn't a flood. For the last time we got one of those, it destroyed all life on earth except what Noah had tucked on the ark. And given the dems have nothing to offer but more corporatism and selling out the People to the banking cabal, and refuse to represent anyone but the elites, well, that is what the GOP does, so giving us GOP lite will solve nothing.

 

Feel free to think anything you want. I respect that.
But the vast majority of patriotic Americans have seen through the russian-puppet manchurian-candidate traitor-deluxe whose name is Trump.
He has a MASSIVE credibility problem.

 

"cabal"???

LOL

 

Sure, or cartel. Big banking meets those requirements. And one reason FDR had to regulate the bastards. A banking system should serve the economy and business. And not resemble a casino. That gambles with the money of their customers. Plenty of books have been written on these issues, perhaps you should read some of them? For you will not learn a thing from MSM. MSM creates partisan dumb arses.

 

Your personal opinion is noted as largely irrelevant against polling data from a larger swath of Americans.

 

Indeed.

Even at Christmastide, Trump doesn't have enough common-sense to keep his mouth shut. His self-inflicted wounds are many and sundry.

 

Some additional signs of the potential blue flood, per the informative @Statistikhengst

I wonder if someone has already put in the legwork (or knows where to locate the required data) to further understand how the massive advantage of unchallenged seats for democrats compares to the advantage enjoyed by republicans in the last several elections.

 

I am not sure if anyone has recorded this ongoing data in the past so far in front of a midterm. The green papers logs the stuff, but doesn't necessarily keep a snapshot of the daily stats. As far as I know, I am literally the only one out there following this stuff every so many days, so I doubt we have past-precedent data to look at.

But Republicans statisticians are alarmed at what they see.

That being said, as with most everything in life, this is also a two-edged sword. See: OP

Nice to hear from you.

 

He just got 13 million new voters


By by mandate