I recommend doing a little bit of research to educate yourself. This isn't hard. Really?
“Really? After there have been hundreds, if not thousands of stories and words written about the races, you don’t understand the difference between the US Senate races and the House and why the dynamics are different? Really? Really?
I recommend doing a little bit of research to educate yourself. This isn’t hard. Really?”
Yeah so I get the fundamentals that we have 10 Dem senators running for reelection in red states and we have 45 or whatever GOP retirements and some unfavorable court decisions regarding redistricting working against us in the House. What I don’t get is how we could make SIGNIFICANT gains in the Senate and in the same year lose the House. And by significant, I mean picking up 3-5 Senate seats.
Before Kavanaugh, the polling had us gaining just 1 in North Dakota, and even that one was not a sure thing. At that time, there was also a risk of losing TN, NV and AZ Senate races, thus giving the Dems an outside shot at taking over the chamber. And back then, they were talking a 35-40 seat pickup for the Dems in the House.
Now North Dakota has become a foregone conclusion for the GOP, TN and NV are looking very solid, and AZ is looking good. On top of that, we have strong pickup opportunities in IN, MO, and perhaps MT. We also have decent pickup opportunities in FL, WV, and some possible surprises in NJ, MI, and MN.
My point was that, given that there appears to have been a fundamental shift in Senate races post-Kavanaugh, I have a hard time believing that there hasn’t been a similar shift in House races. I just think that the House districts are far more difficult to poll accurately, so it is not as easy to see the trend there. And in some cases, analysts don’t want to see it because they want to cling to their fantasy that the Dems will take over at least one chamber.