Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Don’t Fool Yourself — The Blue Wave Is Probably Real
On August 13, Ricochet member @bloodthirstyneocon shared a post about entitled “Nope, the Blue Wave Is a Myth.” The one datum pointed to in that post was the Real Clear Politics average of generic ballot polls which showed the Democratic advantage at a mere 3.9 points. The prevailing wisdom (as cited in the post) is that Democrats need a seven point advantage to retake the house, due to factors including gerrymandering and “wasted votes” in Democratically dominated urban areas.
August 13 was about the only time anyone could make that point, because there were two times this year that the Democratic advantage dipped that low, and one of them was on August 13. It immediately rebounded. So if you were pinning your hopes on something other than a blue wave to that one datum, you should know that the current RCP average is D +8.9.
However, the RCP average is not the only thing pointing to a blue wave.
The website FiveThirtyEight recently released their congressional forecast model which looks at all 435 congressional district. It’s … very complex. (If you want to hear Nate Silver explain how it works, you can find that here, and they made some changes which they talk about here.) They actually have several models that look at a whole slew of factors, including polls, weighted based on history. But since there aren’t quality unbiased polls for most districts, they do rely on other data.
So what does their model show?
Currently they give Republicans a 25.7% chance of keeping control of the house, or, as they phrase it, one in four. They give Democrats a three in four chance of keeping control.
If you’re curious about their forecast for your particular district, you can find that here. Since they launched their model a couple of weeks ago, those numbers have remained stead, as has their estimate of the popular vote margin, which they estimate at D +7.8.
Traditionally, the party that controls the White House loses seats in the midterms. It’s happened in almost every midterm year going back at least half a century. It happened in 2010. It happened in 2006. It happened in 1994. (The exception was 2002, which took place a 14 months after 9/11.)
Let’s look at 2010. That year, if we look at President Obama’s job approval rating for this week (8/30-9/5), it was 45 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove. On Election Day, it was the same, 45-47. Democrats lost 63 House seats that year.
For comparison purpose, Gallup currently has President Trump at 41 approve, 53 disapprove. That is in line with FiveThirtyEight that has Trump’s numbers to be 40.3-54.4 and RCP which shows at 41.8 to 54.0. In other words, Donald Trump is dramatically more unpopular than Barack Obama was at this point in their respective midterm cycles.
Is this set in stone? Could things change? Sure. A lot can happen in two months, and FiveThirtyEight still gives the GOP a one in four chance of holding onto the house. Weird stuff can and does happen in politics.
But if you think the Blue Wave is a myth, with all due respect, you’re deluding yourself. This isn’t a media creation. This isn’t a deep state conspiracy. This isn’t Democratic propaganda. There is data that strongly points to a victory for Democrats on November 6.
Addendum
Here are a few responses to common objections:
Yeah, yeah, but all the polls said Trump wouldn’t win either.
I know that’s what some Trump supporters claim, but it doesn’t apply to everyone. FiveThirtyEight still has their 2016 election page up. You can look at it for yourself. They gave Trump a 28.6 percent chance of winning. Not zero percent, not 10 percent, 28.6. What they’ll tell you is that they took crap from people before election day for having it that high, but it was what their model predicted.
All these polls are biased against Republicans.
Not all pollsters are created equal. There are polling outfits that lean toward Democrats and there are some that lean towards Republican. But the incentive structure in polling favors accuracy. If you’re interested in the quality of pollsters, their predictive values, and how they lean, FiveThirtyEight keeps a list of pollster ratings.
Isn’t it interesting that it swung from D+4 to D+11 in one poll!
Yeah. That’s why we look at the rolling average. An individual poll is going to vary. The rolling average smooths that out.
This poll is imperfect because of X! I disagree with its methodology.
All polls are imperfect. That’s why we take an average, and look at it over time. That mitigates the imperfections of individual polls.
You’re only talking about this because the RCP average shows a high Democratic advantage right now.
It has consistently showed a large Democratic advantage. The aberration, the cherry pick, would be to post about it when it’s at the second lowest point of the year.
You’re clearly rooting for the Democrats!
Whether I am or I’m not is completely irrelevant to what the RCP average is or what the FiveThirtyEight model says.
You’re so blinded by hatred of Trump that…
That’s not an argument. Again, whether I am or I’m not is completely irrelevant to what the RCP average is or what the FiveThirtyEight model says.
All polling is all broken.
It’s really not though. When it’s done well and used in the correct way, it’s actually a very useful tool. Even in 2016, well done polls were pretty accurate.
A lot of Trump supporters refuse to talk to pollsters. We’re too busy living our lives.
That would be interesting … if there was any data to back it up. (Note: the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”) I’ve heard Republicans trot this chestnut out to explain inconvenient polls for at least 25 years. Not for nothing, but the idea of shy Trump supporters seems … odd to me. If you think Trump supporters are too busy to share their opinions, obviously you’re not on Twitter.
Published in General
Sssshhh!
It would however have changed the outcome of the elections of 2008 and 2012. I thought Maine and Nebraska only gave 1 vote to the winner of the state? … No I see its 2… Never mind.
Making a fast trip through the Interwebs to double-check, it is two votes based on the Senators that go to the overall vote winner, while the House district electoral votes are divvied up based on the winner in each individual district.
Nope, I brought plenty of numbers: 4.2% and 4.1% economic growth in Q2 and Q3 respectively and good right track wrong track numbers(wrong track + 15.2%). I’ve brought numbers and theory into this debate. Fred brings only an RCP snapshot, numbers from a prognosticator who was spectacularly wrong in 2016, and no theory about how identity politics beats a stellar economy on Election Day. His analysis is lazy and conventional. I look forward to calling him out in a triumphant post the day after Election Day the way he just called me out.
Obama 2010 proves nothing about 2018. The electorate liked Obama and hated his policies. Since he wasn’t on the ballot in 2010, they voted against the not quite as likable people who passed his awful policies.
2018 is the bizarro-Obama year. Voters don’t like Trump, but they like Trump’s policies, and they really like the results of them. Hence, they will let the people who passed those policies keep the House majority.
What’s your basis for saying Trump’s policies are popular?
Right track wrong track is as good as it’s been in a long time. That is driven by how happy people are with the current situation of the country, not the popularity of any given policy. Also, the tax law is only underwater by 5. That’s much better than Obamacare was at this time 8 years ago.
right track/wrong track.
Obama was aberration, normally incumbents loose when they’re viewed as being on the wrong track. Obama’s voters however didnt care. The virtue of having a black president trumped all other considerations.
Also Trump’s approval on the key economic issue Approve +7.7%. Is there another issue you’d rather be well above water on?
Okay, so Trump’s policies are popular because the tax law is only underwater by 5 points and the right track-wrong track is underwater by only 15?
That’s speculation, and to say it “proves nothing” is an overstatement. There are other instances of off-year elections working against the party in the White House. I don’t have an opinion on your points v. Fred’s, but let’s not ignore the fact that off year elections frequently work against the party in the White House. The electorate is fickle.
A little context is in order. Democrats told America that they wouldn’t even be getting a tax cut. The voters know they were lying. It’s amazing that the law is just barely underwater, given the relentless media campaign against it. On right track-wrong track, for the vast majority of the Obama Administration it was much worse than Wrong Track +15. Historically speaking, the current number is very good.
I agree with this. One complication, though, is the unusually high number of GOP retirements, depriving the party of some of the normal power of incumbency. Most of Trump’s policies are popular, if we stipulate that popular in a 50/50 nation isn’t what it used to be. On trade/globalism, entitlements, and immigration he’s got the plurality with him. Relatively few people read Foreign Policy magazine, so the foreign policy events aren’t a coalition-splitting controversy and some are popular. He’s managed to deftly convince the SoCons that he’s a pal while doing very little that would piss off the rest of us.
Blood Thirsty Neocon is also, I think, onto something that a lot of conservatives have trouble seeing: that even independents, moderates, and disillusioned, disappointed Democrats who voted Republican because they disliked Obama-era policies did not outright hate Obama with the fury of a thousand suns that was on every site of the rightwebs from January 21, 2009 on. They liked him as a figurehead, as an articulate national spokesperson, and it drives us crazy to this day because we see it as tolerating his policies. Bluntly, by 2011 a lot of us got out of touch with public opinion, whether we liked it or not.
You know who did that, bigger time? The liberals. They could not get, could not accept that even people who didn’t think Iran/Contra was a work of genius still thought Reagan was a dignified, admirable man. They hated him, and to this day it makes them grumble.
In both cases, they were greatly helped by the perception, real, exaggerated, or some of both, that their predecessor was one of the worst, weakest presidents in living memory, and they were performing a clean up job that was bound to be messy at times.
I, personally–vice BTN–have no basis. You going to wager?
Sounds like a sure thing, on you’re part. You gonna wager?
Who knows. It would be nice if somebody tried. Most likely pundits and MSM would not buy into it since they would not report “news” as they want. Others would dismiss them as outliers. You have to understand that a good part of this is entertainment and advertising. Nobody really wants the truth. They want people to buy what they are selling.
So it is here, too. “Contrarianism for ¢li¢k$.”
I am inclined to disregard a significant percentage of the analysis. In the past few years there have been a number of significant fails in this regard. i would prefer to just wait and see.
Oh and Fred i know that you will respond with “link please” so here you go:
Is this a result of the Big Sort?
And does this mean that the most sustainable path to political victory is having lots of babies?
I think the most sustainable path to every kind of victory is to have lots of babies. We’re talking the long game, of course.
Provided the babies grow up agreeing with us. That’s not a given.
It’s true. Have the babies, keep the families together, keep the churches solid, get the kids a decent education–i.e., not an education consisting largely of leftist propaganda.
It’s almost certain that they won’t, at least not at first. But it’s the best shot we’ve got.
“Train up a child in the way he should go . . . .”
Yes, they’re born making all sorts of leftist errors.
Exactly. And I’ve always wondered if the “and when they are old” part implies that we can’t depend on them to go the way we want when they are young, but that we can hope for the best as they grow older.
Yeah, only negative 15 is a good number. You started this with RCP data. Look at that same data for this question. A positive number is the last several years is a outlier. It is often-25 to – 40.
You keep mentioning the booming economy. Why doesn’t that translate to higher approval ratings for Trump? His approval ratings have never been above 50%. Normally with a healthy economy a presidents rating is above 60%.
Well, there’s also adoption. The world could use more of that anyway.
The CBS Battleground tracking poll has control of the House basically a tossup. Oh, and it also has the tax law with a 31% plurality of support (42% said not much impact so far). But as I said, looking at a snapshot doesn’t tell you that much. Which way is the narrative going? Yeah, that matters. For example, is Q3 economic growth gonna be stellar (probably)? Will strong job growth continue? Fed Chairman Powell seems to think so. 4.1% was a huge number when it came out. It got huge media coverage. The media’s gonna have a hard time covering a similar number up right before the midterm elections.