https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...retch.html
Good discussion on the House election. Some key quotes:
"...The consensus view is that Democrats are favored to take the lower chamber. Analysts disagree on just how large a majority they are likely to win, and how likely that majority is. If you split the RealClearPolitics tossups in half, it results in Democrats gaining about 25 seats, for a narrow 220-215 majority. I tend to think that the tossups will break disproportionately toward Democrats, and see something more on the order of a 225-210 Democratic majority, but this is hair-splitting to a certain degree...."
"Will there be a late break? As we learned in 2016, and in a less dramatic fashion in 2014, a late break in the races can alter the landscape substantially. This year, there are a lot of undecided voters remaining. Look at the most recent House polling from the New York Times/Siena: In some races, the leading candidates are at 43 percent (IA-03), 45 percent (UT-04, PA-10, NJ-03), and 44 percent (NY-11). Moreover, the trailing candidate is typically only behind by a point or two...."
"How many votes are Democrats wasting? One of the biggest news stories this cycle has been the massive influx of cash into Democratic campaigns. This initially showed up in marquee races, such as Beto O’Rourke’s challenge to Ted Cruz, but it has since filtered down into more marginal ones. Consider Indiana’s 9th District, where GOP incumbent Trey Hollingsworth has been outspent 2 to 1 by his challenger. Or California’s 1st, where Doug LaMalfa has been matched by his opponent. Both districts are heavily Republican and unlikely to flip. At the same time, the Democrats can probably use this cash to mobilize “low-hanging fruit” in these districts. In other words, Democrats may not win there, but will probably substantially overperform their typical showing.
This is relevant because Democrats right now have roughly a 7 1/2-point lead on the generic ballot, which asks which party people would prefer to have control Congress. Normally this would be enough to flip the majority. But if Democrats run up the score in districts that they are unlikely to win, suddenly that seven-point margin translates into a closer-than-expected seat share...."
"Are we relying too much on one pollster? This is a pretty straightforward concern. So far, most of our House race polling has come from the New York Times, in partnership with Siena. On the one hand, this is good, because without them we would have virtually no polling. On the other hand, polling is both an art and a science, and having a disproportionate amount of our data coming from a single view of what the electorate looks like increases the chances of No. 3 (above) occurring. ..."