Will November Bring A Nice Blue Wave— Or Will Execrable Candidate Quality Keep The House Red?

About a week since Trump lost the debate, Kamala is— according to YouGov— 5 points ahead of him, 50% to 45%, up from 47% to 46% in late August. Since the debate, her 9 point deficit with independents have turned into a 10 point lead!

This would translate to a national victory of at least 5 million votes, probably considerably more, although the poll says nothing about the swing states that will determine the electoral college winner. But these numbers are from 538: 

• Pennsylvania- Kamala up by 0.8

• Michigan- Kamala up by 1.5

• Wisconsin- Kamala up by 2.7

• Arizona- Señor T up by 0.7

• Georgia- Señor T up by 0.7

• North Carolina- Señor T up by 0.4

• Nevada- Kamala up by 0.2

She’s also leading in Maine’s second district and Nebraska’s second district (each worth one electoral vote).

If these numbers don’t change— they will— she will be president. The same poll asked people if they would vote for a Democrat or a Republican for Congress. The Democrats have a bigger lead than anything I’ve seen so far this cycle— 47% to 43%. But no one is talking about a blue wave any longer. I still feel one in my bones. The only problem is the DCCC and the weakest roster of congressional candidates I’ve seen since I started keeping track in 2006. The DCCC has 30 Red-to-Blue candidates. Most of them are terrible. There’s one I would rate as very good—Sue Altman— and 4 I would rate as ok. (I’ll be interviewing several who I haven’t talked to yet but, judging by their records and what I’ve seen of their campaigns so far, I’m pretty pessimistic about each of them.)

Still, a wave transcends the kinds of things I look for— policy, character, courage. A blue wave just means swing voters swing over to team blue and it almost doesn’t matter how terrible the candidate is. I have a feeling that’s what’s coming— followed in 2026 by a Democratic wipeout where most of the freshmen elected in 2024 are defeated.

Paul Kane does not see a blue wave; he sees a tight election that one party will win by a whisker. He watches all the pundit-pros and prognosticators who almost always get it wrong until the day before (or the day after) the elections. He repeats what they say— one party or the other will be within a range of 5 seats.

“That’s either enough,” he wrote, “to give Democrats the barest of margins, leaving them fearful of illnesses to determine their majority status on any given day, or enough to leave a narrow Republican majority staring down a group of 15 to 20 [fascists] who upended much of the GOP agenda over the past two years.” Under the scenario, illnesses indeed would be a problem. But what he didn’t mention is something even worse, the plethora of Blue Dogs and New Dems always looking for opportunities to show mythical swing voters back home that they’re ready to vote with the Republicans. Some, like Rudy Salas and Adam Gray, who were members of the California legislature until last year, have solid records offering just that— the same way that Jared Golden (ME), Marie ” Perez (WA), Don Davis (NC), Henry Cuellar (TX), Josh Gottheimer (NJ) and Mary Peltola (AK) are already doing regularly.

“Usually one party or the other,” Kane wrote, “tends to go on long, steady runs with sizable majorities that eventually collapse, and usually in a big fashion. House Republicans had an eight-year run of being in charge in the past decade, most of that time holding more than 240 seats. That was until the 2018 midterms delivered Democrats a gain of more than 40 seats for the majority. Democrats controlled the House for 40 years last century in a run that ranged from holding between 232 seats and more than 290— until the bottom fell out in 1994, when they lost 54 seats and the majority.

As the political analysts note, the true battlefield might include fewer than 35 seats.

…Each side starts off with the likely claim to three seats from the other party as a result of mid-decade redistricting that happened in Alabama, Louisiana, New York and North Carolina.

Inside Elections rates seven seats held by Democrats as pure toss-ups, while five Republican seats have that ranking. Another six Democratic seats have a “tilt” rating toward staying in that column, while 10 GOP seats “tilt” toward them.

The Cook Report’s slightly different rating places 11 Democratic seats and 13 GOP seats in the pure toss-up category.

Some races will probably change in the final seven weeks of campaigning, either becoming newly competitive or losing steam as one candidate races ahead. For now, there are fewer than 30 total seats truly competitive.

A Democratic victory would be the third time in four elections that the House majority changed hands, an era of instability only rivaled by the immediate postwar era in which the majority switched four times in the five elections from 1946 to 1954.

Harris’s strong campaign has boosted chances for Democrats and, while they need to win more of the toss-up races, they now have the better chance to expand races into GOP territory and multiple paths to the 218 seats needed for the majority.

“If Harris continues to perform well at the top of the ticket, that will improve her party’s chances in the House because of the lack of ticket splitting,” Gonzales and Jacob Rubashkin wrote in Inside Elections.

The Cook Report’s ratings give Republicans a likely floor of 208 seats, with Democrats’ worst-case outcome being 203 seats, and the remaining 24 deciding the majority.

Citing private polling shared with their analysts, Republicans were on track to hold and probably expand their majority before Biden bowed out of the election on July 2.

…[N]ot all toss-up races are created politically equal.

Of the 11 toss-ups Democrats are defending, seven of those districts favored Biden over Trump four years ago, with Trump narrowly winning in three others.

Of the 13 toss-ups Republicans are defending, six favored Biden by at least 10 points four years ago, with three more giving him a margin of victory between five and 10 points.

Trump needs to shore up his standing in the next few weeks following his shaky debate performance Tuesday, while Harris could provide more energy and help Democrats.

Regardless of which side wins, its majority is all but certain to be small and difficult to manage next year.

And if he’s wrong? Do we get our money back. Uh… no. And if he’s right— about the Republicans— we get more gridlock and dysfunction. Yesterday, Marianna Sotomayor and Jason Bogage reported that MAGA Mike is leading a House GOP that has been in power for nearly two years and is still unable to solve the most basic fiscal problems of governance— funding the government— within its own ranks. “The belligerent nature of the conference, coupled with a historically narrow majority,” they wrote, “has made it almost impossible for any GOP leader to appease each corner of their constituency when nearly every Republican vote is necessary to pass bills along party lines.”

So now there’s a bitter clash “between Republicans who want to prove to voters they can govern ahead of Election Day and others who would rather see [MAGA Mike, who takes his orders from Mar-a-Lago] fight aggressively for conservative policies— even if it means shutting the government down and risking their majority. The internal standoff could once again tarnish Republican efforts to send [MAGA Mike] into bipartisan negotiations with the credibility to seek concessions ahead of the looming deadline. ‘Let’s just be honest: Republican lack of unity has often sent us into negotiations with less leverage than we should have,’ Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) said. ‘That is a fact of being in a conference that values rugged individualism over collective action.’… Senior members of the Appropriations Committee, which drafts full-year spending bills, agree with Democrats’ preferred approach to extend current funding levels until December so lawmakers can pass new spending bills and clear the slate for the next president, whoever wins.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who led a failed motion to oust [MAGA Mike] as speaker earlier this year, said that [he] should just start negotiating with Democrats rather than twist GOP arms— including hers— to support his plan.

Republicans who oppose short-term spending extensions say such moves only add to the deficit, which the party has promised to reduce. [MAGA Mike] often notes that governing on spending and other conservative priorities could become easier if Republicans control Congress and the White House again, but many of his far-right colleagues are tired of waiting.

Unified GOP control is no guarantee of spending cuts, either: The debt grew from 102 percent of the United States’ total economic output to 104 percent during the two-year span when Republicans last controlled both chambers of Congress and Donald Trump was president, according to the Office of Management and Budget. And the discretionary spending that Congress considers as part of the appropriations process is a fraction of annual government spending, which is dominated by programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Some far-right Republicans could support [MAGA Mike’s] plan if they knew he would be willing to shut down the government when the Senate rejects the bill. But both McCarthy and [MAGA Mike] have broken with past Republican speakers by choosing to avert shutdowns, arguing that they did little to extract concessions from Democrats and earned Republicans the blame.

But hard-liners believe that [MAGA Mike’s] reliance on Democrats for must-pass bills has already hurt his negotiating position.

“When your enemy knows what you’re willing to do and not do, it makes it very difficult to negotiate. So because Schumer knows [leaders are] not willing to shut down the government, they’re going to, just like they have for the last two years, jam us,” Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) said.

Pragmatic Republicans are growing frustrated at [MAGA Mike] for still trying to keep the far-right coalition together for his current plan. But others are giving the speaker credit for trying to find consensus even if it is meant to send a message to the Senate.

“We’re in the majority and you have to at least engage with your colleagues,” said Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY), who represents a swing district that President Joe Biden won in 2020. “Yes, there’s going to be people that don’t vote for the final product, and if they’re unwilling to pass an initial offering toward a negotiation, then you move on without them.”

By the way, it’s worth mentioning that as of yesterday, 3 polling aggregators found the congressional Democrats leading the Republicans in the generic favorability question:

538:

• Dems- 45.9%

• Republicans- 44.8%

Real Clear Politics:

• Dems- 46.0%

• Republicans- 44.4%

The Hill:

• Dems- 46.8%

• Republicans- 44.8%

One more “by the way.” A wealthy friend called the other day and said he wants to max out to 20 House candidates and asked me for suggestions for candidates who are progressive and have a good chance to win. You can imagine how excited I was— or would have been. That's $66,000, a dream for the Blue America PAC. But I said, there are just 2 this cycle. It's the worst year I've ever seen. The Democrats running are primarily a bunch of worthless Blue Dogs and New Dems. I also recommendeded two Senate candidates and suggested we work together on an independent expenditure for a candidate where it can really move the needle.