Two polls this week give Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) a narrow lead in a must-win rematch.
With the control of the chamber very much on the edge, it is no surprise that the battle for the majority of the U.S. Senate has received the bulk of the attention in the conversations about the 2014 election cycle.
But, as Summer gives way to Fall, there is starting to be a fair amount of U.S. House polling piling up in our Daily Kos Elections polling database. In the past week alone, a total of nearly a dozen different competitive House races have seen at least one poll.
What do they tell us? Not a whole heck of a lot, quite frankly. It is tough to declare them as universally good for the Democrats, or good for the Republicans. Indeed, if you had to give a characterization to the vast bulk of the House polling done to date, you would have to define it, more or less, by the term "as expected."
And that, in itself, is very telling.
To peruse all of the data since the last edition of the Wrap (spanning dates from Sep 16-18), including a nice cross-section of the aforementioned House polling, head below the fold and check out the 53 different polls that made the cut.
AK-Sen (Hays Research—D): Sen. Mark Begich (D) 41, Dan Sullivan (R) 36
CO-Sen (Keating Research—D): Sen. Mark Udall (D) 47, Cory Gardner (R) 42
CO-Sen (Myers Research—D): Sen. Mark Udall (D) 48, Cory Gardner (R) 46
CO-Sen (Quinnipiac): Cory Gardner (R) 48, Sen. Mark Udall (D) 40
CO-Sen (Suffolk): Cory Gardner (R) 43, Mark Udall (D) 42
GA-Sen (Rasmussen): David Perdue (R) 46, Michelle Nunn (D) 41
IA-Sen (Fox News): Bruce Braley (D) 41, Joni Ernst (R) 41
IA-Sen (Quinnipiac): Joni Ernst (R) 50, Bruce Braley (D) 44
KS-Sen (Fox News): Greg Orman (I) 48, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) 42
KS-Sen (PPP—D): Greg Orman (I) 46, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) 36
KY-Sen (Gravis—R): Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) 51, Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) 41
LA-Sen (Fox News): Bill Cassidy (R) 51, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) 38
LA-Sen Open Primary (Fox News): Bill Cassidy (R) 35, Mary Landrieu (D) 31, Rob Maness (R) 7, Brannon McMorris (Lib) 2
LA-Sen (Gravis—R): Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) 45, Bill Cassidy (R) 45
LA-Sen Open Primary (Gravis—R): Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) 43, Bill Cassidy (R) 30, Rob Maness (R) 14
MA-Sen (Rasmussen): Sen. Ed Markey (D) 49, Brian Herr (R) 31
MA-Sen (Boston Globe): Sen. Ed Markey (D) 53, Brian Herr (R) 27
MI-Sen (Denno Research): Gary Peters (D) 45, Terri Land (R) 38
NH-Sen (ARG): Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 50, Scott Brown (R) 45
NH-Sen (New England College): Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 51, Scott Brown (R) 40
NH-Sen (Vox Populi—R): Scott Brown (R) 47, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) 43
NC-Sen (Fox News): Sen. Kay Hagan (D) 41, Thom Tillis (R) 36
NC-Sen (PPP—D): Sen. Kay Hagan (D) 44, Thom Tillis (R) 40
OR-Sen (Polling Company—R): Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) 42, Monica Wehby (R) 34
AK-Gov (Hays Research—D): Bill Walker (I) 37, Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 30
CO-Gov (Quinnipiac): Bob Beauprez (R) 50, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) 40
CO-Gov (Myers Research—D): Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) 51, Bob Beauprez (R) 44
CO-Gov (Suffolk): Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) 43, Bob Beauprez (R) 41
FL-Gov (SurveyUSA): Gov. Rick Scott (R) 44, Charlie Crist (D) 39
IA-Gov (Fox News): Gov. Terry Branstad (R) 50, Jack Hatch (D) 37
IA-Gov (Quinnipiac): Gov. Terry Branstad (R) 60, Jack Hatch (D) 37
KS-Gov (Fox News): Paul Davis (D) 45, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) 41
KS-Gov (PPP—D): Paul Davis (D) 42, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) 38
MA-Gov (Boston Globe): Martha Coakley (D) 39, Charlie Baker (R) 36
MA-Gov (MassINC): Martha Coakley (D) 44, Charlie Baker (R) 35
MI-Gov (Denno Research): Gov. Rick Snyder (R) 43, Mark Schauer (D) 40
NH-Gov (ARG): Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) 51, Walt Havenstein (R) 39
NH-Gov (New England College): Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) 51, Walt Havenstein (R) 36
NH-Gov (Rasmussen): Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) 51, Walt Havenstein (R) 40
NH-Sen (Vox Populi—R): Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) 47, Walt Havenstein (R) 43
WI-Gov (Marquette Law School): Gov. Scott Walker (R) 49, Mary Burke (D) 46
WI-Gov (Rasmussen): Gov. Scott Walker (R) 48, Mary Burke (D) 46
CA-52 (SurveyUSA): Rep. Scott Peters (D) 47, Carl DeMaio (R) 46
MA-06 (DCCC IVR—D): Seth Moulton (D) 49, Richard Tisei (R) 41
MA-06 (Municipoll—D): Seth Moulton (D) 49, Richard Tisei (R) 31
NH-01 (New England College): Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) 46, Frank Guinta (R) 42
NH-01 (Normington Petts—D): Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) 45, Frank Guinta (R) 43
NH-02 (New England College): Rep. Anne Kuster (D) 50, Marilinda Garcia (R) 38
NH-02 (Normington Petts—D): Rep. Anne Kuster (D) 44, Marilinda Garcia (R) 38
NY-01 (Siena): Rep. Tim Bishop (D) 51, Lee Zeldin (R) 41
NY-04 (Siena): Kathleen Rice (D) 55, Bruce Blakeman (R) 37
NY-11 (Siena): Rep. Michael Grimm (R) 44, Dominic Recchia (D) 40
NY-18 (Siena): Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D) 50, Nan Hayworth (R) 42
Last weekend, as part of the series of essays known affectionately as "Sunday Kos", I ruminated on the
incessant desire to categorize this election cycle as a "wave election", favoring (of course) the Republicans, given that they are likely to put a large dent in, and perhaps even eliminate, the Democratic Senate majority.
In the midst of that essay, where I largely pour cold water on the whole "wave" thesis, I made the following argument:
And therein lies one of the true absurdities of all this "wave" discussion. Our own Daily Kos Elections Poll Explorer (which you should bookmark, if you haven't already) gives Democrats, at present, a better than 50/50 shot at gaining gubernatorial seats. Meanwhile, most estimates of the U.S. House forecast, at best, single-digit gains for the Republicans. That, too, is also owed to some unfortunate geography (namely, Democratic retirements in some very red districts). The battle for state legislatures do not appear to be one-sided, either. And the latter are still reasonably competitive despite an all-in effort in 2011-2012 for Republicans to help lock in their gains with some truly inspired acts of gerrymandering.
Which raises a question that underlies this entire "wave" debate: Shouldn't an electoral wave, properly understood, impact more than just one arena of elections?
As the cycle builds, we no longer have to merely rely on speculative estimates of how the balance of power in the U.S. House is liable to shift. We now have actual data points to plug in, to guide us in that assessment. And, based on a modest sample size to date, it just seems awfully difficult to read "wave" in these numbers. Some of these polls look pretty promising for Republicans. But some of them look pretty good for Democrats. And therein lies the folly of the "wave" election concept.
Consider just a few examples from the past two weeks, including ones from today's set of polling results listed above. If this were a Republican wave, would:
- Tim Bishop, who has faced coin flip after coin flip in defending his seat on New York's Long Island, be leading by ten points?
- Would Democrats be leading by six in an open seat in Iowa where Obama only modestly bested Mitt Romney in 2012?
- Would an independently-released poll have another GOP-held open seat, one perceived as leaning away from the Democrats, deadlocked at 42 percent?
- Would another such GOP open seat, in an ever-reddening Arkansas, be a one point race? (Granted, that one is an older survey. We haven't seen one since!)
In the name of full disclosure, Republicans have their own data points to point to and crow. CA-21, a district Obama carried in 2012 where the Democrats recruited very well, still gives a double-digit lead to Republican Rep. David Valadao. Meanwhile, Republicans have internal polls showing Democratic incumbents like Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01) and Joe Garcia (FL-26) in varying degrees of peril.
But, really, that makes my larger point. There just doesn't seem, at this relatively early point, a clear argument for either party to claim an advantage in the battle for the House. It is amazing how many races look, well, pretty much as expected. Some look a tad better for Democrats than you might expect (I will confess to being pleasantly surprised this week to see two polls showing Carol Shea-Porter leading Frank Guinta in their third straight battle for NH-01). But some look better for Republicans than pundits might've expected (see: Grimm, Michael).
And, though we are nowhere near the last mile, that is why this election seems to feel like more of a "status quo" election than a true "wave" election, the likes of which we saw in the last two midterms.