For most of October, Hillary had a comfortable path to 270 EV in states where she was up by 4 points or more: especially PA, CO, NH.
Today’s polls especially in NH suggests that this blue wall is on the verge of collapsing. RCP has Hillary up by 0.8 in NH and her lead on CO has also declined sharply to under 2 points.
If Trump can win NH and all the states where he is ahead on RCP it will be a 269-269 tie which probably means a Trump win through the House.
Hillary still has multiple paths to victory outside the blue wall of course. Her very recent polling in Florida looks quite good. She has a huge advantage in ad money, ground game and surrogates and which should be worth a point or two beyond the polls. And it’s quite likely Trump will say or do something very stupid before the end.
Still the very comfortable win that looked likely just a couple of weeks back is gone. Unless the polls turn around quickly it’s going to be an anxious final stretch.
It depends who you believe. Several poll aggregators still find the blue wall intact. You can find a bunch of forecasts and how they compare on the NYT’s site:
This election has been pretty freakish in many ways. Trump has alienated many traditional Republicans, yet has some reach beyond traditionally Republican constituencies. Hillary has suffered mightily under the weight of tons of allegations, albeit absent an ounce of proof. It’s been a lousy year all around, I just hope that election night doesn’t continue the pattern.
Huh? There seems to be plenty of evidence that she mishandled classified information. The FBI recommended against prosecuting her for it, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have any evidence.
One problem with CO and NH is the relative scarcity of quality polls. In PA by contrast there are three recent quality polls (A- or better on 538) which show Hillary up by 4-5 points and also a healthy 48% average. That gives me confidence that she will pull out PA reasonably comfortably.
With CO and NH, Hillary’s averages are also on the low side, around 43 with a lot of undecided voters relative to diminishing lead. There is just a lot of uncertainty.
While a Nevada win would be great it wouldn’t get her out of the woods if she loses both CO and NH. Also I am a little wary of relying too much on early vote numbers. It had good predictive value in Nevada in 2012 but not in several other states. It’s premature to say that early vote numbers are a better predictor than polls though we will have a better idea after this election.
No. Not even the relatively highly Trump leaning FiveThirtyEight has any firewall states flipping. They had an article about New Hampshire, but their model still has Trump winning 60% of the time, and a 1.9% lead.
No, that’s not insurmountable for Trump, and you could extend the trend lines and flip the percentages, but this is basically the bottom. Everyone else has New Hampshire better for Clinton.
Though I admit it is concerning how low the PEC has it. They are the one most bullish for Clinton.
I find all these shifting polls very suspect. Don’t the same outfits that publish the polls have a vested interest in making the election appear close? I just don’t see a lot of people changing their mind at this point. Republicans don’t strike me as “coming home” they seem more like “given up” and don’t want to vote for either.
I think the polls are real, but they have to be taken as a whole. Moreover, they’re just general samples of the electorate and don’t really get down to the brass tacks. I’m guessing it’s the Clinton machine that has the best information of anyone on the planet right now. They more than anyone else can probably sense where this election is headed. Wherever Clinton travels to over the next few days are the states that they believe they can win and simultaneously fear losing.
No, it’s a real thing. You might be misunderstanding the implication of the word “wall” in this case. Think of something that can tumble down. Jericho. Pink Floyd. That stupid thing that some idiot wants to put in the freakin’ Sonora Desert. Heck, even Berlin.
I think a more accurate way to put it is “Obama coalition”. A wall would imply a long term Democratic lock on enough states to make victory close to a sure thing every 4 years. Even if Clinton wins, it looks like she’s going to give up some Obama states, while making inroads into some McCain/Romney states.
Well, the way I’ve seen it used, it’s simpler than that:
Five to seven states that, in 2016, have polled pretty consistently for Clinton, but if she were to lose a big one of (or a couple smaller ones), she’d probably lose the election. You know, the *medium-*blue ones in (say) Nate Silver’s maps.
Not the palest blue ones (they sometimes go pale pink, and that’s probably okay), nor the darkest blue ones (if any of those come into play, we are truly in another universe)…just the medium-blue ones.
You have partisan polls being released (Strategic National, a Republican consulting firm, saying MI is tied with DailyCaller and Breitbart run breathless stories about it), polls from infrequent pollsters without much experience and polls from outfits that just aren’t very good (Trafalger).
I don’t know if much of it is intentional (sure some is) but I think there is a lot of noise just from people trying to promote with a quick poll result.
No. The term “blue wall” has a specific history in recent American politics, based on outcomes back to 1992 (exactly, and no further), though the concept and term itself had to have arisen some time after 2000. It certainly predates 2016, and it certainly includes all of what you’re considering the “darkest blue” states.