Ignore The Beltway Committees And The Fools Who Take Them Seriously; They're Always Wrong

I'd love to know who hired PPP to poll the dozen House districts they polled this week. Notice that in some districts they polled the incumbent Republican against some crap Republican-lite conservaDem the DCCC is pushing-- Ann Kirkpatrick, Jason Crow, Angie Craig, Chrissy Houlahan-- even though there are competitive progressives in the races. Example: of course the DCCC honchos (who probably commissioned the poll) are excited about a rotgut loser like carpetbagger Ann Kirkpatrick from Northern Arizona, but Democrats in the South Arizona district are laughing at her opportunism and aren't especially likely to nominate her to run against Martha McSally. Jason Crow may be a wet dream for Ben Gay Lujan but Democrats who don't exist inside the Beltway are at least as likely to nominate progressive Levi Tillerman than the manufactured Crow. And so on and so on. On the other hand, though Doug Applegate is way ahead of the rich establishment candidates the DCCC prefers to run against Issa-- yes, the DCCC only lives to lose; it's the only thing they know how to do-- instead of polling Applegate, the polled "generic Dem." It's the only contest where the Democrat has an absolute majority but I'm sure the DCCC was afraid if they had Applegate's name in there with those numbers, it would have killed the imaginary chances for Ira Lechner grandfather clock cleaner Mike Levin which would have made right-wing Dem and DCCC stooge Kyle Layman cry.

Anyway, enjoy the chart; the establishment conservatives aren't doing that great against the Republicans, are they? Abby Finkenauer is ahead of Rod Blumin IA-01, but she's a progressive. New Dem endorsees (Republican wing of the Democratic Party) Chrissy Houlahan and Angie Craig are losing and Kirkpatrick only manages to tie McSally (in a district Hillary beat Trumpanzee in 49.6% to 44.7%). Anyway, with those polls in mind, let's turn to the Beltway pundits who're usually better at explain what happened than in predicting what will happen: Cook. They just changed some House ratings for the midterms, all but one downgrades for the Republicanos. The one that isn't a GOP downgrade is just a rote thing they do about an open seat, in this case Sinema's AZ-09, which has a PVI of D+4, was won by Obama both times (with 51%) and where Hillary stomped on Señor Trumpanzee 54.7% to 38.4%. Not even the DCCC could lose this one, but Cook moved it from solid Dem to likely Dem. Whatever.

The 3 most serious downgrades are all from lean Republican to Toss Up. Cook is so conservative in their prognosticating that "lean Republican" usually means the Democrat will win unless the DCCC screws up royally by winning the nomination for a fake Democrat and turning off grassroots voters, something they do very frequently. The 3 in this category are AZ-02, where they are trying to shove piece-of-crap-candidate Ann Kirkpatrick down voters' throats; CA-48, where they are trying to shove an even worse piece-of-crap-candidate, Hans Keirstead, down voters throats; and IA-01 where they seem content to let moderately progressive Abby Finkenauer have the nomination. David Wasserman wrote up all the ratings changes. When he writes crap like "For example, Democrats are rightfully excited about former federal prosecutor Jay Hulings, he means establishment Democrats in DC, not actual Democrats; he may never have met one, I'm not sure. Hulings was endorsed by the Blue Dogs and the New Dems and the DCCC is pushing him on... people like Wasserman. He's strictly Republican wing of the Democratic Party manufactured as a candidate in the DCCC factory for a district that is 71% Latino-- and, of course, they are eager for him to beat the progressive Latino, Rick Treviño, who's running on the Bernie issues grassroots Dems love and DC Dems fear and loath. So take everything he writes with a grain of salt, like when he calls the very right-wing shit bag Kirkpatrick, an especially stinky New Dem "an unabashed progressive" who is planning to trick voters regarding the carpetbagger label because she can play up how she has two grandchildren who were recently born prematurely. Wasserman makes the point that McSally's vote Trumpcare in the moderate district repeal "may endanger her independent reputation and put her back in jeopardy."

AZ-02- [T]he Democratic frontrunner is former 1st CD Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who moved from Northern Arizona to Tucson following her losing challenge to McCain in 2016.

Kirkpatrick is running as an unabashed progressive defender of the ACA and has the support of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly. She'll also seek to deflect the carpetbagger label by talking about moving to Tucson to care for her family based there, including two grandchildren who were recently born prematurely months after the 2016 election. It also helps that she's advertised in Tucson in all of her congressional races.

Kirkpatrick won't have a free ride in the primary: 2016 nominee Matt Heinz is probably her most serious competition, but former Assistant Army Secretary Mary Matiella, former state Rep. Bruce Wheeler and hotel manager Billy Kovacs are running too. However, Giffords's endorsement of Kirkpatrick will be difficult for others to overcome. If Democrats are to take back the House, this is a must-win race.

CA-48- Rohrabacher's profile as a surfing, pro-marijuana conservative has played well in this part of Orange County since 1988. But as this coastal district's demographics have changed, Rohrabacher has taken a different turn: his recent sympathetic comments towards Russia and strange interactions with Julian Assange and internet conspiracy theorist Chuck Johnson could amount to self-sabotage in a district President Trump narrowly lost.

Democrats in DC are thrilled with Hans Keirstead, a stem cell and cancer researcher who founded a biotech company that was sold for $126 million. Keirstead will talk about helping spinal cord injury victims recover function and the need to cut through FDA red tape. He's not just new to politics, he's new to the country: he grew up in Canada, still speaks with a Canadian accent and only became a U.S. citizen in 2008.

Keirstead is confident he can get past real estate businessman Harley Rouda in the primary and peel off Rohrabacher's corporate support, but his political skills are still unproven to say the least. Rohrabacher allies insist voters aren't focused on Russia and appreciate his "independent streak," but Democrats can also make the case that 30 years in Congress is too long. This is one of Democrats' best takeover opportunities in California.

I can't do it... this guy is such a DCCC tool and so clueless that I can't put his crap on my blog. If you want more of the DCCC perspective just go to the page. He's like a stenographer with ZERO value add. Didn't even mention Laura Oatman, the progressive woman in the race, probably because he doesn't know she exists because the DCCC didn't spoon-feed him any info on her. Keirstead and Rouda with both endorsed by the New Dems... what more does anyone need to know? What drivel!

Decision Desk HQ changed its 2018 forecast model yesterday, recognizing that ole Bob Dylan aphorism about Mr. Jones. "Up until now," they admit without a trace of embarrassment or irony, "our forecast of the 2018 House midterms has been pretty grim for Democrats. It has noted a 7-8 percentage point Democratic advantage in the generic ballot and calculated a 32% chance of Democrats winning control of the House majority. It has come to that conclusion via a mix of national polls, district-level predictions, and simulations designed to parameterize the error in our measurement." Their new computer model gives the Democrats not a 32% chance of taking over the House but a 46% chance. If you click on the link above you'll get their very wonky numerical analysis, which is somewhat interesting and worth reading. It certainly beats taking stenography from the DCCC. I'll end with their recap:

Our initial reporting on the 2018 midterm race emphasized the seat share estimates produced by a linear model. Reporting also favored the probabilities produced by a simulated range of possibilities that had been adjusted to match that model, rather than allowing it to speak for itself. We’ve done away with that adjustment now. As a result, the probability that Democrats win back the House in 2018 has increased from 32% to 45%, a very meaningful difference. We are also choosing to emphasize reporting the median and mode (most likely outcome) of these simulations rather than the strict estimate of the aforementioned linear model-- again, 215 seats now instead of 208.

We think that the changes more accurately reflect the distributional dynamics at play in the 2018 House midterms: notably, the 5-6x greater number of possibly vulnerable Republicans than possibly vulnerable Democrats.

Before our change, we were saying “Our best guess of the Democratic Party’s share of House seats after the 2018 midterms, according to a simple model, is 208 seats. A simulation, which accounts for the chance that we are wrong, adjusted to match that model says they have a 32% chance of winning 218 or more seats.”

Now we’re saying “Our best guess of the Democratic Party’s share of House seats after the 2018 midterms is around 215 seats. Strictly speaking, they are favored in 208 seats, but when we account for the higher number of Lean Republican districts than Democratic districts, Democrats get a slight boost and they win a House majority about 45% of the time.”

We think the latter makes more sense.

But don't worry, by spring they'll be predicting 225 House seats for the Democrats. 230 by the middle of next summer. And by the time the leaves start falling, they'll see the wave forming.