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?