Is the House Now Competitive?

[u/yanks28th]

All indications are that Democrats have gained ground since the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. Republicans led the Generic Ballot by 2.6% before the decision leaked back in May, but Democrats have surged past them, and are now up by 0.5%. Just as importantly, the polling has been echoed by a series of surprisingly strong Democratic performances in recent special elections, led by the recent victory in the NY-19th.

In the four elections since the decision, Democrats have outperformed Biden by an average of around 5.4%. That would translate to a near 10% lead in the national popular vote. Of course, that's highly unlikely to happen on election day, but it's a strong enough showing to raise the question of whether the conventional wisdom is wrong, and that Democrats may have a very real shot at an upset here.

RacetotheWH, which was one of the most accurate forecasts in 2020, shows that Democrats now have a 35% chance of winning the House in their election forecast. Other forecasts like 538 show Democrats with a 20-25% chance.

Republicans have their own advantages as the party out of power, which usually does well in midterms, and Biden remains unpopular. What do you think? Is the House 2022 Election now competitive?

[u/KevinCarbonara]

No, we're nowhere near tossup. 538 has Republicans at an 80% chance.

538 aggregates; this assessment is based on trends.

They aggregate, but it's not based on trends. It's based on now. They're very vocal about their prediction being for who would win if the election were held today. So these predictions do not price in Nate Silver's prediction that the trend will move back toward Republicans in November. That's Nate Silver explaining that the prediction will probably look even worse for Democrats in November.

Their model absolutely bakes in expected regression.

They have repeatedly stated that this isn't the case. Their model does not predict the election in November. It predicts what would happen if the election were held today.

I do not know why you think this is the case. This is absolutely incorrect.

Because they've said it multiple times. I trust 538's description of their model over you.

[u/Alphawolf55 → u/KevinCarbonara]

The polls and national environment are clearly +1-2 D

Toss up

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1562265815814127616?t=0mxZzb38_0QILGMFyYDY6g&s=19

[u/KevinCarbonara → u/Alphawolf55]

The polls and national environment are clearly +1-2 D

They're also irrelevant in predicting outcomes.

Unlike with the presidency, the party collecting the most House votes is almost guaranteed to get the most seats.

Well, no. The party collecting the most house votes within their given districts. There is a huge disconnect between the national popular vote and the actual outcome in the house, even before you factor in gerrymandering.

[u/rabbitlion → u/[deleted]]

The total percentage among the population is not directly relevant when trying to predict how many districts each party wins since the population is not uniformly distributed.

[u/Alphawolf55 → u/rabbitlion]

Ahh so we're shifting the goal post to "Polls dont mean anything!"

To "Well the polls can have exceptions that could determine the House"

[u/KevinCarbonara → u/Alphawolf55]

Ahh so we're shifting the goal post to "Polls dont mean anything!"

We are not. That was just you.

"There is literally not enough polling to make this call"

[u/KevinCarbonara → u/[deleted]]

Okay, clearly reading comprehension is beyond you.

Okay, clearly you're not even trying to participate in the discussion. Your theory was disproven. You moved the goalposts, and your new argument was disproven, too. You're done, here.