People had this perception that Bannon was trying to make Trump's electoral agenda better outside the white house, and that Moore was part of that. After Moore lost and Trump publicly bashed Bannon, it became apparent that wasn't the case.

I think Moore would still have won the primaries without Bannon's endorsement

Yeah I think Bannon really spread the false message that the GOP was trying to undermine Trump. It was untue but if it wasn't for traitors who sunk Obamacare repel like McCain the idea would not have found traction. Plenty of blame to go around

It wasn't just Bannon.

isn't the GOP trying to undermine him though?

yeah, GOP senators and congressmen seem to vote with him frequently enough

but during the 2016 election they pulled all sorts of BS to try to sabotage Trump

Yeah but now that he gave them the Rust Belt it's not advantageous to them. They thought he would lose. Look at the scotes

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

The problem is they have too few numbers in the Senate

here's the thing I noticed,

in the last 4 midterm elections,

(all of them)

the party that was leading in the generic ballot never won by the projected margin

for instance,

in 2014,

Republicans outperformed the generic ballot by 3.3 points,

before that, Republicans underperformed by 2.6 points,

before that, Democrats won but underperformed by 3.6 points,

before that, Democrats over-performed by 2.9 points

this means that in reality,

Democrats could be leading by 9-10 points in the generic ballot and still not take the house,

because they need to win 7-8 points in the popular vote to flip the house,

so when adjusted with that 2.9-3.6 margin of error, being as high as 10 could not mean much, but being higher than 10 could be troubling

It's really not just keeping the house, which is important nonetheless, but winning it with at least 230 seats

We don't want it to be too close

so, to get it straight

2014: Republicans overperofrming by 3.3
2010: Republicans underperforming by 2.6
2006: Democrats underperforming by 3.6
2002: Democrats overpeforming by 2.9

?

correct

keep in mind that in 2002, the GOP actually made gains

although I wouldn't be surprised if polling methodology has changed since then

by the way, what's more important than speculating over polls is taking action

wait

come to think of it, you can speculate over polls all you want, but will that actually change anything?

okay so,

2002: Republicans outperform polls (+2.9)
2006: Democrats underperform polls (-3.6)
2010: Republicans underperform polls (-2.6)
2014: Republicans outperform polls (+3.3)

as long as Democrats aren't leading by 9.4 through 10.4, we should be fine

make no mistake,

the margin of error can swing either way

so even if Democrats are leading only by +3.2, they have a shot