We actually did pretty well in the Senate

People seem to have latched on to the narrative that Dems did badly in the Senate. This is false on its face, since the map was the worst in many years. But, in fact, Dems seem to have done even better in the Senate than in the House, with a "generic ballot" of about 9.4 points, compared to about 8 points in the House. The scatter is a bit larger in the Senate, but less than I'd have expected.

There was a lot of chatter about Dems missing expectations, but that wasn't really the case.  North Dakota was a lost cause for a long time (and polling pre-Kavanaugh suggests that Heitkamp's vote wasn't the deciding factor).  The only competitive races, at least according to the statewide polls, were AZ, NV, FL, MO, IN – and Dems won 2 out of 5.  That's pretty much the definition of "exactly what you'd expect." We can also compare to the national environment.  In the plot above, I've identified the 7 races where candidates especially over- or und…

What happened?

Is a Miss as Good as a Mile (in Senate Polling)?

A quick pitch for my house modeler

Shock Polls aren't really so Shocking

Less Stressful than the Needle

How many votes do you need to win?

Where's the Generic Ballot At?

New Widget: The District Targeter (and other news)

Think Local, Act Local

Bad Pollsters are Dominating the Narrative

A really, really awesome widget

Special Specials and How Well Polls have done since 2016