Silver keeps moving Senate red

This was 1 in 5 just a couple of weeks ago. Then it was 1 in 6.  Now we see 1 in 7.

I wonder if it will change again before the election.

He's bumped both Texas and Tennessee over 80% and moved the second Mississippi to 87%.  He even moved Heidkamp's chances down to 26% (down from around 33%) after another poll showed her down by 9. 

In spite of more polling showing Josh Hawley leading in Missouri (seven in a row now) - Silver still stubbornly keeps McCaskill as a 60% favorite. 

Half of American say Trump has "no blame" for mail bombs...

huffingtonpost.com/entry/most-americans-say-trump-bears-little-or-no-responsibility

Another 10% say he only bears a "little" blame.
Another 15% says he bears "some" blame.

The rest (24%) are complete morons.

Oh yeah, and the lion's share of those who believe Trump bears responsibility for someone else's actions? Democrats.

Btw... The President was right about the Dodgers!

So there was much criticism about a tweet the President made questioning the decision to pull the Dodger starter after just six and a third innings. He was working on a one hit shut out, had a reasonable pitch count, and had pretty much the entire off-season to rest.

Obviously hindsight being 20-20 it was easy to say that going to the bullpen that gave up as many runs (8) as they got people out (8) was a huge mistake. But I guess even in being right the President is still going to be wrong in the eyes of many.

I guess I am old fashioned as I remember playoff pitcher's duels that would go the distance. Who can forget game seven of the 1991 World Series between the Minnesota Twins and the Atlanta Braves. 

Hall of Famer, World Series MVP, (7-0 in the post season) Black Jack Morris 

vs 

Hall of Famer, 8 time all star, and Cy Young award winner John Smoltz.   

Smoltz, of course, had a nice game. Pitched eight and a third innings of shut out baseball. 

But Black Jack Morris ended up pitching 10 innings of shut out baseball that night, literally refusing Tom Kelly's repeated attempts to pull him from the game. The Twins finally scoring the winning run in the bottom of the tenth inning. This was Morris' third complete game win in post season play.  Morris threw 126 pitches. 

Perhaps a pitcher throwing 126 pitches and going 10 innings is something today's athletes cannot comprehend. Much less throwing 126 pitches and 10 innings of shut out ball in a game seven of the world series. 

But I remember these days, as does the President. 

Here is something you "will not" hear about

Republican Party office shot up in Florida

Trump inciting anti-Semite behavior is ridiculous...

Back in the 1990s, Donald Trump had to go to great lengths to allow Jews and blacks into his Palm Beach Country Club Mar-a-Logo. He basically had to engage in an extended legal fight against all of the Palm Beach ordinances and community standards, which basically made all other exclusive country clubs exclusively white.

You really blaming me?

Let's not forget that Donald Trump's own daughter Ivanka, as well as his son-in-law and trusted adviser Jared Kushner are both Jewish.

Let's also not forget that Trump has reversed several anti-Israel stances held by Obama, as well as pushing hard to make sure Israel understands that we (after an eight year hiatus) have their back.

On top of the fact that the anti-Semite in this case did not cite anything Trump said or did as motivation for his attacks on the Synagogue. In fact, he was anti-Trump, and thought Trump was too easy on Jews.

The real anti-Semites?

Yet, you cannot walk into a coastal city Starbucks without running into at least a dozen liberals who will demand that the President Anti-Semite and White nationalists views are to blame for the attacks.

Make no mistake here folks. If you fall into that category of blaming Trump for someone else's anti-Semite behavior, you might as well just blame Trump for anything and everything (including the Dodgers losing the World Series)... as logic and common sense waved bye bye to you a while ago.

House update: Slip Sliding?

217-217-1

So according to Real Clear Politics polling averages, if the Democrats win 50% of the toss up races it would put them on pace to win twenty five seats, which is only two more seats than they need. This provides them very little cushion in a situation where there are thirty toss up states.

Now, granted the Democrats look to almost certainly pick up seats. They sat at 194 after the 2016 election, and are considered favorites in 205 seats based on RCP numbers.

It's also fair to point out that Nate Silver, Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, and others are projecting higher Democratic gains than RCP. But it would also be fair to point out that Nate Silver, Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato and others have overstated Democratic election prospects for the past few elections.

But the point here remains that RCP is not providing us with anything other than straight ahead polling numbers. They are not building in any assumptions, any trends, or any personal opinions. The difference between what RCP sees (approximately a ten to forty seat gain) and what Silver sees (approximately twenty to sixty seat gain) is pretty much all based on Silver's "polling adjustments" and other "factors" being added into the equation.

At this point, Silver and gang are expecting that the pure polling numbers that RCP is looking at will be overstating Republican support. In fact, in order to get to an average of the thirty nine seat gain that Silver is projecting, it would require that the polls be skewed in favor of Republicans by more than just a marginal amount. Silver is suggesting that based on his adjustments, that an average scenario would provide that the Democrats would win twenty nine of the thirty seats that RCP lists as toss ups. In order to get into the range that Silver believes is possible, the Democrats would need to be winning seats in Republican areas where the Republicans have at least a mid single digit polling lead.

Could it happen? Of course. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Silver is more than "overdue" to get an election cycle right, after bumbling through the past few. But his assumptions could also be wrong in the same way that his assumptions were wrong in previous elections as well.

Now you want irony?

If you actually take a closer look at the polling numbers of those 30 races that RCP lists as toss-ups;  the GOP leads in 17, the Democrats lead in 12, and there is one that is actually tied with the race having only two polls, both showing a literal dead heat.

So if it actually came down to how the RCP polling averages played out, the House would sit at 217-217 with the one tie race.

Could it be any closer?

A Few Senate Updates

Florida:  This is one of those two polling stories. One one hand you have Quinnipiac, Survey USA, Saint Leo, Gravis, and Sienna/NYT who are showing Nelson with a lead between four and nine points. On the flip side you have YouGov, Strategic Research, St Petes, Florida Atlantic, Schroth that all show the race with Governor Scott up by a little, or the race effectively tied.

Sometimes you can simply take an average and be done with it. In that case, Nelson appears to have a lead in the two to three point area with a polling average of right around 47% (which is right about where an incumbent would want to be to feel really save).  But just as likely (in my experience) is that one of these subsets or the other is actually right and the other is wrong. This would mean that Nelson is either up by fiver or six points, or that the race is a toss up, with Scott having a slight advantage.

Of course, That provides of with three different possible scenarios to choose from. Given the fact that Nelson holds a sizable advantage in one scenario, a smallish advantage in another, and a disadvantage in the third, I would still offer that he remains a favorite. Probably not the prohibited 72% favorite that Silver makes him out to be, but a favorite non-the-less.

Indiana: In Indiana, the GOP challenger Mike Braun seems to be gaining momentum. He has led in the three most recent polls.  He is leading by three in the YouGov poll, by four with Mason Strategies, and by four in the most recent American Viewpoint poll. Prior to those three polls, you had Gravis, Survey USA, and Vox Populi all showing the Incumbent Joe Donnelly in the lead by four, one, and ten respectively. A couple of other polls by American Viewpoint in early October point showed Braun with a four point lead (seems to be consistent), with FOX and Ipsos showing Sept polls with Donnelly holding two point leads.

Again, Nate Silver shows the Democrat Donnelly as a prohibited favorite, while RCP averages now shows Braun with his first polling average lead. I understand that Donnelly had led more polls, but even in polls where Donnelly is leading (with only one exception) he is polling in the mid forties. In fact, only two polls (Vox Populi and the old Ipsos poll) shows him over 44% at all. So as a blue incumbent in a red state, who is polling under 44% on average, every bit of conventional wisdom suggests that Donnelly is in more than a bit of trouble.

Nevada: This was a race where at one time the Democrats thought this was a safe pickup. But then Ipsos (which has not been kind to Republicans) gave Heller a six point lead, Emerson gave him a seven point lead, and three other polls gave him a lead. Only PPP  and Vox (both left leaning pollsters) has recent polling showing the challenger Jackie Rosen a lead, and both of those were smallish two point leads. If you look at all of the October polling, Heller is polling at 47.4%. While this is not comfortable for an incumbent, it's a smidgen better than Nelson is at in the purple state Florida. So if Nelson is considered the favorite as an incumbent in his purple state, then it would follow that Heller is the favorite as well in his.

Oddly, even Nate Silver agrees with this one, making Heller about a three to two favorite (60%). Considering Silver has never been wrong when he picks a Republican, I might feel pretty good if I was Dean Heller.

No more Apu

Simpson's forced to write him out of the script due to political correctness.

Sorry this is a little late, but...

Happy birthday to this future president. pic.twitter.com/JT3HiBjYdj

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 26, 2016

Here is a head scratcher?

The 69 million dollar question?

NBC talk show host Jimmy Fallon performs in black face! No problems!

NBC talk show host Megyn Kelly talks about black face! NBC fires her!

Sunday Funnies

More Nate Silver part XVII

So another fresh poll shows Josh Hawley with four point lead over Clair McCaskill.  That is the sixth poll in row what Hawley has led. In fact, McCaskill has not led in the past 9 polls. You have to go back to a CNN poll in September to find a time when McCaskill had a polling lead. 

From an objective polling standpoint, the incumbent is polling at 45% against her challenger, who is polling at over 48%. By all conventional wisdom, and incumbent at 45% who is behind by three points, in a state that leans against her, with basically two weeks to go in a campaign would be considered to be sinking hard. Not quite dead in the water, but splashing and flailing. 

Yet, Nate Silver somehow manages to provide a manner in which he sees the polling as "actually" being nearly tied, and he provides McCaskill to be approximately a 60% favorite.

Again, I have no issue if someone wants to just come out and say "I don't trust the polling and I have a gut feeling that McCaskill is going to win".  But this isn't what Nate Silver is doing. He is basically not trusting the polling, using a gut feeling that he believes McCaskill will win, while attempting to suggest that she is objectively and statistically ahead.

Sorry... she may end up winning. Anything is possible. But she is neither objectively or statistically ahead at this point.

Jews targeted by deranged gunman in Pittsburgh

Robert Bowers:

“HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in.”

For the record, Bowers was an anti-Semite. He was not a fan of President Trump, so this was not a "Trump inspired killing" as much as the left would like to make it as such.  He also went in with a variety of weapons, including an assault style rifle and several handguns.

Unlike many synagogues , there was no security present. At local temples here in St Paul, there has apparently been a heavy police presence at most events. Synagogues have long been seen as vulnerable to attacks such as these, based on the largue amount of anti-Semites in the country. 

Watching the events unfolding in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Law enforcement on the scene. People in Squirrel Hill area should remain sheltered. Looks like multiple fatalities. Beware of active shooter. God Bless All!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2018

Events in Pittsburgh are far more devastating than originally thought. Spoke with Mayor and Governor to inform them that the Federal Government has been, and will be, with them all the way. I will speak to the media shortly and make further statement at Future Farmers of America.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2018

Pres. Trump calls to "stiffen up laws" on the death penalty to deter attacks like the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue: "Anybody that does a thing like this to innocent people who are in temple or in church... they should pay the ultimate price." https://t.co/rIc3B3kOwz pic.twitter.com/6b9dNO7z20

— ABC News (@ABC) October 27, 2018

Bottom line: This is another senseless killing from someone who was obviously emotionally distraught. He targeted his victims based on religious bigotry. Unfortunately there was no criminal record or history of mental illness that would have pegged him as a potential killer. No amount of background checks probably would have prevented this from happening. 

Everyone should be saddened and have their thoughts on the victims and their families.

Avenatti and Swetnick corroborating witness never corroborated anything

Women never saw Kavanaugh act inappropriate.
Did not even meet Swetnick till they were in their 30s. 

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, “I didn’t ever think it was Brett,” the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick’s claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.

When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, “no.”

_______ 

After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: “It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn’t see anyone spike the punch…I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.”

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: “I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female.”

So, yeah, I know Kavanaugh is on the USSC and this is yesterday's news. But there are still people who are upset that these so called Swetnick allegations were never investigated by the FBI. It's also becoming clear why the Senate Judiciary committee has referred Swetnick and Avenatti to the DOJ for possible criminal charges.

It is also becoming increasingly difficult to take people seriously, who claim that they still believe these allegations against Kavanaugh. It's clear that this was another women who knew Kavanaugh in high school, and is 100% convinced that he never engaged in any of this sort of activity.

The Russians did it !!!

Yes! You are correct sir!
I am the stupidest man alive!

"Native American" bomber should have been in jail...

But the system is unfair to minorities? 

Three felonies, multiple other criminal acts, and our law enforcement knew this man had made terrorist threats in the past. If someone could explain to me why this person was not in jail, that would make me happy.

We need to reform our criminal justice system to make sure repeat offenders are not out roaming the streets and causing serious issues for the rest of us law abiding citizens. Everyone (including liberals) should take criminal sentencing reform seriously.

Same tribe as Liz Warren?

1991- 3rd degree grand theft
1994- Domestic Violence
2004- Possession of illegal ID 
2004- Possession of controlled substance without prescription
2004- Tampering with evidence
2009- Property foreclosure
2009- operating without drivers license
2013- 3rd degree grand theft
2013- Battery
2014- Theft
2015- Violation of probation

Federal authorities make arrest in Florida

New: Federal authorities have arrested a man in Florida in connection to the suspected explosive packages, according to multiple law enforcement sources, per @MarkMorales51, @evanperez, @ShimonPro and @brynnCNN.

Name is being withheld by the FBI at this point!

Update:

Cesar Sayok, Jr 

UPDATE: President Trump has just announced (at the Young Black Leadership Summit) that law enforcement has taken a suspect into custody. The President went on to congratulated the officers involved, and made an appeal for unity. 

(yeah, fat lotta chance we have at any unity here)

GDP at 3.5%

Unexpectedly, of course!

More Winning!

The U.S. economy grew at a faster-than-expected rate in the third quarter as inflation was kept in check and consumer spending surged, according to data released by the Commerce Department on Friday.

Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two thirds of U.S. economic activity, grew by 4 percent in the third quarter, the strongest since the fourth quarter of 2014.

While stronger than expected, the overall expansion was a slower pace of growth than in the previous quarter. Gross domestic product grew by 4.2 percent in the second quarter, marking the fastest quarterly expansion since the third quarter of 2014. The economy increased by 2.2 percent annual pace in the first quarter of the year.

The media blames Trump for "everything"

I would generally offer that the Democrats are playing an obvious game of double standards, but double standards don't even begin to tell the story. 

I read the back and forth between Jim Acosta and Donald Trump Jr on twitter. Jim Acosta, of course, blames the President and his anti-media words for these fake bomb attacks on CNN and others. But on the flip side, Jim Acosta sees no parallel between the media's anti-Trump rhetoric, and attacks on the President's family. 

In fact, when the envelopes of white powder were sent to Trump Jr, Eric Trump, McConnell, and others prominent Republicans a few months back, there was no suggestion anywhere by anyone in the main stream media that these attacks were being spawned by any rhetoric at all against Trump or the Republicans. Just as it was when a Republican was literally shot on a baseball field, the media sees all attacks against the right as independent of any liberal anti-Trump rhetoric.

(btw... did you know that Nickelodean and the history channel beats CNN in ratings)

In fact, when Acosta was asked by Donald Trump Jr about whether or not the anti-Trump media rhetoric was responsible for attacks on Don Jr and Eric (referencing the repeated times Acosta referred to them as racists and Nazis) Acosta's remarks seemed to entirely miss the question. He basically doubled down and blamed the President's rhetoric for all previous, current, and future attacks.

Don please understand everybody at CNN was terrified for members of your family when they were attacked. Please also understand that because of your father’s rhetoric (calling us the enemy of the people), we are all very worried that somebody is going to get hurt. https://t.co/vckpMoH2Wg

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) October 25, 2018

I wonder out loud if Acosta is really that stupid, if is Trump derangement syndrome is so intense that it blinds him from reason, or if he simply believes that those who follow him will not know the difference?

But the truth is that all of the violence against the right (which far overshadows anything coming back at the left) is nearly always deemed to be  somewhat justified, if not outright condoned as legitimate political expression. Mainly and very specifically because the media sees these sorts of violent actions as being triggered by the President and the Republicans. To recap:

• Those on the left who commit acts of domestic terror against the right, simply cannot help themselves, and their actions are the "fault" of the President and his rhetoric.
• But ironically, when there is an attack against liberals, then apparently that too is also triggered by the rhetoric of the President, and somehow he is to blame for that as well. 

So the main stream media (obviously distraught with TDS) has apparently convinced themselves that all violence by anyone is purely the fault of Trump's rhetoric (along with his simple existence as President). Their own hateful rhetoric in calling Trump every name in the book is irrelevant to the entire thing. 

And they cannot figure out why nobody takes them seriously anymore?

Kavanaugh, Caravan, Pipe Bombs... Oh My!!!

Let's be clear here folks. Someone is getting desperate!

You cannot be a political Party that calls for high scale bullying, condones mob violence, supports the hate group Antifa, and has their political leaders demand that their followers confront opposing politicians in public places and cause disruption and possible violence. 

Then has their 2016 Presidential candidate step up to the microphone and demand publicly that there can be no civility when it comes to this election... 

And in spite of all that, attempt to blame the "other Party" for an large uptick in political confrontation and political violence. Unless of course, you are counting on the collective IQ average of the people you are attempting to fool... being right around room temperature.

The Caravan

So the Caravan is apparently still well over a thousand miles from the border, with less than two weeks before the election. In order to reach the border by the election, they would need to march the equivalent of at least four marathons a day, every day. Considering the average time it takes a trained runner to "run" a marathon is around 5 hours (slightly shorter for men, slightly longer for women), it would make it entirely impossible for anyone to "walk" this distance in 10 days... even if they did so without stopping and without sleeping.

But now it would appear that someone has been offering bus-rides to the caravan, presumably to allow them to pick up the pace and possibly create the "show down" at the border "before" election day comes and goes. The bigger problem "appears to be" that to the degree this is helping, it's probably helping the Republicans more than the Democrats. I suspect it may be helping someone like McSally in Arizona more than anyone else.

According to the most recent survey on the subject 51% of voters believe that the caravan should be stopped at the border and that nobody should be allowed into the country. 38% believe that they should be allowed to come into the country temporarily (and allow them all to have their say before a judge). I wonder out loud how those 38% break up in terms of where and how you house them all. Obviously that sort of longer term thinking is probably not their collective forte.

Anyways, both sides are now accusing the other of creating and exploiting the issue, with allegations flying that this has been organized, and that busing is being provided by both George Soros and Karl Rove... depending on who you believe might benefit from this.

One can probably get a better idea of how this is playing out by the simple fact that you hear very little talk at all from any of the candidates up for election (and pretty much none at all from the Democrats). I suspect that both sides are cautious about pushing their opinion on it right now, and that the Democrats realize that it's probably a big time stink pie loser for them either way.

Is Trump defining transgenders out of existence?

So apparently the President has offered a memo that would clarify the definition of "sex" to be limited to the biological chromosomal sex that exists when someone is born. From a pure biological standpoint this generally means (unless you are one of the 0.05% who are born intersex) male or female.

I have heard everything from this being an act of war, to a human rights violation, to a hate crime, and I am sure it won't be too long till someone will find a way to compare it to something done by Hitler.

But what exactly are we talking about here?

Well all of this has to do with the federal enforcement of Title IX of the Civil Right's act.

As we all know by now, Title IX is an important law that bans any discrimination based on the "sex" of a person. Title IX has led to many forms of policies that require equal opportunities for both men and women. The one area that has endured widespread notoriety and much controversy over the years, has been the requirement for schools to offer the same amount of athletic activities for both men and women.

While the law itself does not "define" the sexes as male or female, it does use the term "both sexes" within the law. The language unequivocally implies that the law sees sex as male and female. There can be no question of that.

The bigger problem is that Title IX of the Civil Rights act does not include, and in some cases could not, accommodate the concept of "multiple genders". For instance, by the letter of the law as it is written, schools could no longer offer sports programs to either men or women, unless they also offered the same amount of sports programs to those who would define themselves as transgender or the gender of "X".

So why are we even having this discussion at this time? Because the previous administration offered executive "guidance" that suggested Title IX protected the rights of transgender students to identify with whatever sex that they wanted, and participate in whatever gender specific activity they wanted. The "guidance" also included additional protections from discrimination for those who considered themselves transgender.

Now, we can all differ about whether or not this particular guidance is within the spirit of the law, and whether or not transgender people should be protected under the laws of our land. I certainly have sympathy for what the Obama administration was attempting to accomplish with their guidance. Certainly there was no malicious intentions or anything nefarious going on.

But the reality is that Title IX is not a subjective law about the 2018 fluidity of our genders. In fact, the term gender was never used. This was purely about providing women with the same opportunities provided to men. It was designed to eliminate institutional sexism that favored men over women in many social, school, and work related situations.

What the Obama administration did, may have been a worthy cause, but simple does not exist within the writings of Title IX. As the executive, it's the President's job to follow and execute the laws as they are written. I think we can all see the dangers of allowing Presidents and their executive staff to rewrite laws as they go, in order to conform with the social and political viewpoints that they believe are socially and politically correct today.

In other words, if you allow Obama to simply change laws to fit his views, then you would also have to allow Trump to do the same thing.

So, in essence, what Trump is doing on this particular issue is specifically what Trump has been doing all along. He is undoing executive actions that he feels were outside of the boundaries of what the Presidency should be doing. From a technical standpoint, what either Obama or Trump "feel" about what Title IX should or shouldn't do is not relevant to what their job really is. Their job is to enforce and apply the laws as congress wrote them.

So the solution is simple here. If we would like to protect the fluid nature of "genders" that we have today, then we need to either rewrite Title IX or offer new laws to guarantee those protections. But we should never allow our executive branch to simply override the written laws with their own "guidance".

Finally - A post that our liberal friends will agree with!

What’s scary about this video is that @Ocasio2018 actually thinks this way. pic.twitter.com/GB033vm1XR

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 23, 2018

More Nate Silver

So Nate Silver sees the Democratic chances of winning the Senate at roughly one in five. But in order to do so they would literally need to hold serve on all every one of the following close races that they are defending - I will put Silver's own odds of a Democratic win in parenthesis:

• Florida (66%)
• Indiana (77%)
• Montana (86%)
• Missouri (62%)

Then they would need to win both of the GOP vulnerable seats:

• Nevada (55%)
• Arizona (64%)

The chance of the Democrats sweeping those first four seats is approximately 27%, while the chances of them winning both of remaining two seats is approximately 35%. The mathematical/statistical chances of them winning all six of these races is under 10%.

Oh, and that still leaves them one seat short, which means that they would need to hold North Dakota (31%) or pick up Tennessee (26%) or Texas (22%), Mississippi (19%), Nebraska (3%), Mississippi (2%), Utah (0.1%), or Wyoming (0.1%).

Yes there are two Mississippi races this year. Interestingly, Silver gives the Democrat a 19% chance of winning one of them, in spite of the Democrat in that race not reaching 35% in a single poll. Go figure.

Either way, the odds of picking up one of those remaining seats is actually statistically higher than one might think, but still lowers the overall statistical odds down to under 7%. When you add back the odds that the Democrats could actually lose one of their own "safer seats" their overall percentage falls even further (down around 5%). So on paper (purely mathematically speaking), it would appear closer to being a one in twenty shot, than one in five.

But I guess I must be missing something "statistical" that Mr Silver is throwing into the mix.

GOP Leading in early voting?

The data suggests enthusiasm among early GOP voters that could put a dent in Democratic hopes for a "blue wave" in the midterms.

GOP-affiliated voters have surpassed Democratic-affiliated ones in early voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee and Texas, the data showed.

Only in Nevada have Democratic-affiliated voters exceeded Republican-affiliated voters so far in early voting, according to the data…  

This seems sort of counterintuitive at this point. Even in years where the GOP has done well, they were still out performed by Democrats in early voting.  While I understand that the GOP has become "more" motivated in the past few weeks, I would have expected that the Democrats had a running start on this deal.

So no matter how you cut it, this is not a good sign for the Democrats and their hopes of the big blue wave.

Here is something that might "alarm" the left a little?

Nearly two thirds of registered voters showed a high level of interest in the election—the highest ever recorded in a midterm election since the Journal/NBC poll began asking the question in 2006.

Although Democrats are preferred in the national poll overall, their advantage has vanished in the House districts that matter most. In districts rated as the most competitive by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, the parties are dead even on the question of which one should control Congress. In last month’s poll, Democrats led by 13 percentage points among registered voters and six points among likely voters.

This mirrors a poll last week from the Washington Post and ABC News. Their poll put Democrats up 11 points on the generic ballot, but Republicans at +1 in the 66 battleground districts, also a big swing from their earlier polling. That suggests that Democratic enthusiasm intensified in districts where they were already safe, and that Republican enthusiasm has changed the election where the House majority will be determined.

So a couple of points here:

One obvious point is that these two polls were at the overall "high end" of the spectrum for the Democrats with the plus nine and plus eleven. If you consider that there may be an overall swing of around ten points between the top line number and the battleground district number, then it would be logical to expand that to the overall collective average of all generic ballot polling. Right now, that average sits at between seven and eight percent. This would suggest that while the Democrats hold a larger lead "overall" that Republicans might be two or three percentage points up in the battleground districts.

On the flip side, the 2018 battleground districts are being identified as more Republican than would have been seen as battleground in recent elections. In other words, it makes perfect sense that the numbers would be close. That is what makes them the battleground districts. Looking at the Cook Report, the Democrats would need to win about twenty four of the sixty six battleground states to win back the House (or about a third of them). Obviously, when the Democrats were (as they had been) leading by four or five points collectively it looked like a pretty big wave brewing. But if the GOP has taken even a smallish lead in these districts, with a little bit of momentum, then it could be anyone's ball game.

_______

The only thing we can say for certain is that while there doesn't appear to be as much movement in the top line of some of these polls, there appears to be a noticeable improvement for the GOP in the actual battleground districts. This could ultimately be the difference between a blue wave and purple ripple.

Here is a head scratcher?

So explain this to me like I am a six year old. 

Nate Silver shows Arizona Democrat Krysten Sinema (who is behind the RCP averages and up only two in Silver's calculations) as having a 63.7% chance of winning in Arizona. 

Meanwhile, Kevin Cramer, who owns a polling advantage of over 8 points (by both RCP and Silver calculations) has an almost identical 64.9% chance of winning in North Dakota.

Nate Silver agrees with me... sort of.

If polls underestimate Republicans by 2-3 points—which is a very normal-sized polling error—the House is a district-by-district nail-biter.

If polls underestimate Dems by 2-3 points, their path to victory in the Senate is much more viable; toss-ups go their way, TN/TX close etc.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 22, 2018

Now I would actually offer that if the polls are fairly accurate that we are in a district to district nail-biter. That being said, I don't have the sophisticated formula that Silver use that provides Democrats with a one to two point adjusted advantage, so I have to sort of go with what the numbers actually show.  I would offer that if the polls are underestimating Republicans by two or three points, that the House will remain GOP with a handful of seats to spare. 

_______

In terms of the Senate, the polls would need to be off quite a bit more than two to three points. Even if the Democrats won all of the close races (Florida, Montana, Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, and Nevada)... they still would need to pull of an larger upset in either Texas, Tennessee, or North Dakota, all races where they are behind by at least than six and a half percent in the RCP averages, and more than five percent in Silver's "adjusted polling averages".

Sunday Funnies (the rest)