The Battleground In The House Is Really Big -- And That Makes Life Hard For Republicans
Read different news articles, and youd be forgiven for not being sure whether the House map is expanding or contracting. It was less than two weeks ago, for instance, that The Washington Post claimed the prospect of a Democratic wave had diminished because of President Trumps rising approval rating and the polarizing fight over Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Those factors were limiting Democrats upside in conservative and rural districts where Trump was popular, the article said, probably confining their biggest gains to wealthy suburbs.
But a New York Times article published this weekend told a totally different story, one of a broader House map where, bolstered by their unprecedented fundraising advantage, Democrats had Republicans on the defensive in more conservative, exurban areas in addition to the suburbs, as the field of competition had grown well beyond 40 seats. Recent Republican ad buys in deeply Republican districts such as South Carolina 1 would also seem to support the map-is-broadening hypothesis.
So which case is right? Is the House playing field getting bigger or smaller? The answer is
a bit complicated. In fact, the different versions of FiveThirtyEights House model tell somewhat different stories about it.
The Timess article is more recent, however, and therefore probably closer to the mark. In early October, in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh hearings, you could make a good case that the map was contracting. But after those stellar Democratic fundraising numbers were reported earlier this month, and after Democrats continued to poll well in generic ballot and district-level polls, the map now appears about as broad as ever, with at least twice as many seats in play as in the last midterm, 2014.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-battleground-in-the-house-is-really-big-and-that-makes-life-hard-for-republicans/