According to the Washington Post, some allies of President Biden are already plotting their post-election spin, and it's very dumb. What they're considering, we're told, is arguing that because House Democrats are likely to lose fewer seats than have been lost in previous wave elections, that nets out to something of a win for Biden. It's a preposterous talking point, for reasons I'll illustrate below -- but here's an excerpt from the Post story confirming that, yes, they're actually contemplating using it.
Deeply silly:
“Biden allies are preparing to spin even a defeat as a win for the president, since President Barack Obama lost 63 seats in 2010 and President Donald Trump lost 40 in 2018, and Biden is not expected lose as many.” — @ToluseO https://t.co/ek9KssFR3j
— Azi™️ (@Azi) November 4, 2022
Here's the piece, if you're interested. And here's why it's a ridiculous talking point, preemptive of otherwise. The number of House seats gained by a party depends on a baseline that fluctuates. Because Republicans shocked the experts and gained more than a dozen House seats in 2020, they enter 2022 just a few seats shy of a majority. By comparison, the 2010 "shellacking" of 63 gained seats was only possible because of how deep of a hole the House GOP had dug for itself in 2006 and 2008. The more meaningful and indicative number is how many House seats a party controls after the election is over, because that's a consistent baseline. I made this point on Fox earlier:
Here are the points of comparison I shared with @DanaPerino & @BillHemmer:
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 4, 2022
Post-🌊 seats controlled…
1994: 230 (R)
2010: 242 (R)
2014: 247 (R)
2018: 235 (D)
In 2014, the GOP “only” gained 13 House seats, but look at that number above! Seats controlled = best metric. https://t.co/BONj8aTksv
Republicans entered the 1994 'revolution' cycle with just 176 House seats. In 2010, it was 178. Those low numbers allowed for gaudy 'gains' stats, but the final number of seats they arrived at is what matters, as a sign post. That's how I'll be thinking about things as I assess the size and significance of next week's expected GOP gains. Gallup has pointed out that in modern American political history, the average gain for the party opposite the president in a midterm election, if that president has an approval rating below 50 percent (as Biden obviously does now), is 37 seats. If Republicans somehow hit that average next week, that would translate into 249 seats, which would be an absolute historic blowout, even as an "average" performance. A "below average" showing of 20 seats gained would mean the next Congress would have more Republicans serving in the House than after the famed 1994 Gingrich wave, and a roughly equivalent number of seats as the Democrats held after their 40-seat Trump midterm wave.
I'll leave you with two other Midterms-related points. First, despite a few rare exceptions (like what's happening in Florida, which looks undeniable), trying to read into early voting numbers to draw any strong conclusions is a fool's errand, per one of the smartest election analysts I know:
Recommended
I can't believe I had to write this piece yet again. But seriously -- don't read the early voting tea leaves (unless you are Jon Ralston)!https://t.co/i3SOomr9IU
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) November 4, 2022
I’m serious – don’t pay attention to early voting. About this time in every election cycle analysts become starved for data to analyze. Of course, actual useful data is just around the corner, dropping on Election Day 2022. Some analysts, not content to wait, turn to the closest thing we have: early voting. It happens every time. So once again I will implore the site’s readership to just wait until Tuesday, because the analysis of early voting is a mug’s game in almost all circumstances...To paraphrase Paul Samuelson, early voting has predicted five of the last two good Democratic years, because every year there are good signs in the early voting for Democrats, as well as good signs for Republicans. What is particularly frustrating is that this is guaranteed to be a good night for Republicans, or a disappointing night for them. So someone who is currently analyzing early voting will be right. But they’ll be right in the sense that someone who adds two and two and gets five, and then adds three and gets seven ends up in the right place. Bad analysis can lead to solid predictions, but that’s the best one can hope for from early voting analysis (unless you are Ralston). So as tempting as it may be, just ignore the early voting tea leaves. We’ll have actual results to fight about in five nights.
For what it's worth, his lone mentioned exception is Nevada guru Jon Ralston, who's been making noises that are likely concerning to Democrats in that state. And lastly, remember that polling errors can cut in both directions. It's seemed like they've underestimated Republicans lately, but that's not always the case. Just a friendly word of caution against over-exuberance or complacency. Waves don't just happen. They need to be created by motivated voters:
How the national popular vote for the House compared to the final RCP generic ballot average (R+3 means GOP did 3 points better than polling average)
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) November 4, 2022
2002: R+2.9
2004: R+2.6
2006: R+3.6
2008: D+1.7
2010: D+2.6
2012: D+1.4
2014: R+3.3
2016: R+1.7
2018: D+1.1
2020: R+3.7
2022: ? pic.twitter.com/lTlD1fQSFf
