Hillary’s not Obama or Bill, she has acknowledged that. But her campaign is being very well run IMO. They are not gambling for the maximum blowout potential: they are playing it safe. And I think that’s smart, to seek lower variance and just run the ball and even be willing to throw in a “coffin corner” punt now and then while protecting that lead. (Apologies if this analogy is opaque to any non-football fans.) You don’t get anything extra (except the ineffable “mandate”, which I don’t believe anyone cares about in the 21st century) for running up the score.
All that said, I will say that it’s disappointing to see this lead be so modest. I really think Drumpf is at his ceiling, but I’d have expected the ceiling to be lower. That’s not on Hillary, though. She shouldn’t even need to sell herself. There are a bunch of people expressing support in polls for Drumpf who should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t mean the uber-douchebags at the core of his fan base, I mean at the very least the “outer” ten points of his 40 percent. C’mon, people. This isn’t an ordinary election: we need to show the whole world that we’re better than this.
Admittedly, I used to think similar things about Dubya and Reagan (Bush *pere *was an asshole in the way he ran against Dukakis, but he wasn’t a shameful figure to hold before the world), but that, sadly, looks rinky-dink next to the idea of electing someone like Drumpf. And they, Dubya especially (his recent Dallas hijinks reminding us all that, oh right, he’s a cretinous d-bag) are still embarrassments. Drumpf is just so bad that even letting him lose by single digits is a troubling statement to send the rest of humanity.
Polls are going to be volatile possibly up into late September. Remember that in early September '08, right after the GOP convention, McCain was up by over 2 in the aggregates. Heck the RCP rolling average had Romney and Obama tied September 5 2012.
Get into September, or at least a few weeks past the conventions, and hope that some pollsters’ likely voter screens are good, then decide about how bad your worrying should be.
Of course the flip side of that remains that being too reassured by the polls going back up to a consistent Clinton +5-7 is only so reassuring as well.
Me? I’ve been worrying and continue to, but no worse than before.
Put it another way: if, despite no ground or data game to speak of, despite having half his party against him, despite his being an inartful race baiter and cretinous buffoon, Drumpf still wins? Then the American people have shown themselves (a majority anyway) to be idiots at best. That would also call into question Obama’s victories (especially 2012) in retrospect. Were those then just a lark by an irresponsibly superficial electorate?
But I just don’t think that’s ultimately going to prove true.
What’s changed since 2012 is the psychological impact of these repeated attacks on the West, a demagogue who will try to exploit them to the hilt and an opponent who is disliked by a majority of voters. What would be the impact of another 2-3 attacks on US soil? I don’t think anyone can answer that with any confidence.
It's nearly impossible to stop a lone wolf from shooting a gun into a crowd. The future of American democracy may rest on what a handful of disturbed men choose to do over the next few months. It's scary....
It’s not just terrorism that could tip the scales of the election. The police involved shootings and related civil unrest may also inflame simmering racial tensions, with an increasing number of undecided white voters that they need to vote for a ‘knight’ to save their country. Trump’s campaign speaks to all of those fears – he doesn’t provide any real solutions but just speaking to them is probably enough. Hillary speaks to conventions. Trump has already vanquished a lot of conventional candidates, and this race is now probably within his reach.
There’s going to be a lot of back and forth for a while. Trump had been having about as horrible a post-nomination stretch of any candidate in recent memory, and he’s still in bad shape given the fact that many of his party members won’t be attending. However, Clinton has probably had her worst 2 weeks of the campaign, with the email scandals and police shootings weighing on the minds of voters. I also worry about how the emails can be used as the campaign gets closer, like if there’s a connection between the Clinton foundation and some group of unsavory characters with ties to Middle Eastern terrorists or the Communist Party in China.
Probably the best thing we Clinton supporters can say right now is that Trump’s post-convention bounce will probably be small. He also doesn’t have a lot of cash to play with. However, Mike Pence now makes him more credible among religious conservatives. He can turn this campaign into a holy war for America’s soul.
America’s actually made a lot of progress under Obama. Unfortunately the average American doesn’t feel it and doesn’t see it, mainly because the net benefit is that, relative to where we once were, many of us are worse off than our parents. Our real wages have stagnated for decades. Employees are more disposable. Home ownership is down. Rents are up. Fuel prices are down over the last few years but higher than they’ve been for much of my lifetime. Healthcare and college tuition costs are rising much faster than inflation. Obama slowed the pace of decline, but unfortunately, that’s all he could accomplish over an 8 year period and that’s all he can really put on the wall for his legacy.
On the heels of the Q polls (Clinton is losing!) comes new battleground polling from NBC/WSJ:
Colorado: Clinton 43%, Trump 35%
Florida: Clinton 44%, Trump 37% (another polls just released put Clinton +5)
North Carolina: Clinton 44%, Trump 38%
Virginia: Clinton 44%, Trump 35%
This is really more to point out the folly in getting excited over a single poll than to say that Clinton has turned it around.
No it wasn’t. Obama’s 4-point lead was solidified shortly after Romney got a bump from the first debate, and remained there pretty much until Election Day.
[QUOTE=Slackerinc]
I suppose we’re not allowed to wager money here, or I’d offer one (and give you odds). But I guaran-fucking-tee you, he’s not coming within sniffing distance of this win.
[/QUOTE]
Why not? By all means send me a PM with your details and we’ll arrange a bet. What odds are you offering? And if you’re guaranteeing he won’t even be close, we could have a side bet on what “close” means and whether that will happen or not.
Will you give me ten to one on Trump winning outright?
I think Clinton is probably going to win, but “probably” isn’t very reassuring to me when the alternative is Trump. I’m planning to have a constant, slow-motion breakdown between now and the election. I won’t feel at ease until Clinton is absolutely, positively the President. A 30% or 40% chance of President Trump is terrifying. I’d rather face a 50% chance of President Romney or even President Jeb Bush than a 30% chance of Trump.
In an interview will Bill O’Reilly, Trump says he’ll declare war on ISIS. Not wage war; actually issue a declaration of war.
So to whom do you deliver the declaration of war? Does ISIS have an embassy in Washington and ambassadors you can expel? So, am I to assume that Donald Trump wants to formally grant ISIS recognition as a legitimate nation-state?
That was not solid, during summer and after Obama was ahead by just 2 in the aggregate. The bump you talk about disappeared in October and then it was a virtual tie until the polls showed Obama ahead by 2 at the very end.
I took that bump and the tie into account by averaging and 2-3 points is what It looks that took place.
