That was just because the sun and moon aligned briefly. It fell another 1.6 points overnight.
Hillary Clinton
62.6%
Donald Trump
37.4%
At this rate, another week and it will be 50/50. Time to break out the credit cards folks. Hillary needs 5 bucks from all of you.
ETA. That was, of course, 538’s figures.
538 has 3 different sets of odds so it would really be useful to mention which one you’re quoting. But yes, if it keeps going this way it’ll soon be 50-50. It will also eventually be 90-10. You know, if it keeps going this way.
It’s fun to see the image of trump you all have created in your minds. You act like he’s Freddy Krueger mixed with Adam Sandler.
538 IMO adds value in keeping track of the past accuracy of various polling orgs, and in factoring in stuff like how stale the numbers are in a set of national polls v a given set of state polls. You don’t get this looking at the raw numbers in RCP averages.
But, I don’t think the % likelihoods in 538 mean much. Those numbers haven’t been proven by anything. You’d need hundreds of outcomes to have a solid statistical idea whether 538’s say 65% really means 65%. You can do that with a model of the daily chance it’s going to rain. You get 100’s of tries in only 100’s of days and the underlying process of the weather can be presumed unchanged over only 100’s of days. With national elections you have relatively few modern examples and even among those you can’t assume the underlying statistical process hasn’t changed (demographics, political polarization, means of spreading the political message, reality TV, you name it).
Despite the 1st paragraph, if you had to quote one stat for the election it would definitely be the RCP national (four way in this case I’d say) avg not 538’s % win likelihood. You’d quote it with an understanding of the electoral map, but that general map skew can be presumed relatively stationary. Or you could quote really key states, if the numbers were as fresh but they typically aren’t (aren’t right now in PA for example, arguably the key state with Trump very close or ahead in all Romney states plus OH and FL, besides IA, NV, NH but that’s still not enough, PA would be next domino, or else Clinton’s firewall).
Clinton up 1.1 in today’s RCP national 4 way. That’s very close, and in polls unlike say financial markets (with presumed instant info reflection) there’s probably still a trend against Clinton yet to play out fully from ‘deplorables’, illness/cover up, relatively less silly Trump behavior and just general perception Trump has the momentum (some people ‘pick a winner’ in their poll preference or even vote; that makes no sense, but seems to have been true for a long time). Of course the debates open the possibility of a different trend.
I can’t stand either of these people, won’t vote for either. Obviously if you’re working your butt off for one or the other you’re going to look on the bright side for that person. That much pretty removes somebody IMHO from any credibility in commenting objectively on the state of the race.
If that were the case, he would probably be a better candidate than he is now.
I’ll suggest that many of the people who attended Bernie rallies will be voting for Gary Johnson instead of tired ol’ Hillary. Maybe the DNC should have kept their collective thumb off the primary scales?
Which one would think makes it remarkable that between being Bill’s FL and on her own, she has dedicated half her life to having to do just that. But then again Hillary, Obama, Rodney, Bernie, etc. are nor you or me; plus, if they truly viewed it as “begging morons to vote them into office” they’d have never made it. I too have been “in the trenches” and the point when you begin hating your constituents is when it’s over.
But like he said it’s not that bad. Would I have preferred that after 08 she would have accepted Elder Stateswoman/Kingmaker status and together the Clintons had helped groom some good fresh clean Dems who are exciting campaigners to contend the '16 primary, instead of making damn sure she’d be the annointed one? Sure. But I’m not living in that universe.
I assume this is directed in my direction, as I mentioned up-thread that I’m doing campaign work. On the contrary, while our focus isn’t on Hillary (our team is focused on state races right now), our daily discussions, especially conference calls with national, usually highlight the problems arising around the various campaigns (including Clinton). To work a campaign that only looks at the bright side/good news is how you lose campaigns.
I’m not a weekend volunteer who gets pumped up to go knock on some doors in the afternoon with a rah-rah-rah spring in my step, only focusing on the positives. I’m also not a high-level (or low-level or mid-level) decision maker for the Clinton campaign. But there’s no fucking bright side conversations around any candidates dominating this office or, presumably, most other campaign offices. The people working on these campaigns may believe in the candidates they’re knocking on doors for, but after 15 years of doing this, believe me when I say staff don’t wear rose-colored glasses for the candidates or the campaign trajectories. When shit’s fucked, you know it, and you do whatever you can to help.
Take what I say however you want, though. But I will ask: Why does the fact that someone believes in a candidate (or party, or policy, etc.) strongly enough to actually put their rubber to the road remove all their credibility? In your mind, someone can only speak credibly if they sit at a computer screen and read stories and post their opinions on message boards? Sitting on the sidelines and wringing your hands makes you more credible?
(underline added)
While tired ol’ Hillary’s health is a voter concern, I don’t believe it’s as important as tired ol’ Hillary’s repeated refusal to deal with the voters/public in an open and transparent manner. Team Hillary can’t tell the people about her health (until a video showed her collapsing like a sack of potatoes) at the same time her email/server/IT people are pleading the 5th before Congress. I expect tired ol’ Hillary’s poll numbers will continue to take a hit.
I expect your “tired ol’ Hillary” shtick will get old. Quickly.
He eventually gave up on “Democrat collective”–so he’ll give up on this one.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
I’ll suggest that many of the people who attended Bernie rallies will be voting for Gary Johnson instead of tired ol’ Hillary. Maybe the DNC should have kept their collective thumb off the primary scales?
[/QUOTE]
Probably most of the Bernie fans will do as he requested–vote for Clinton rather than risk President Trump. If not, why on earth would they go with the *Libertarian *candidate? Wouldn’t they Go Green?
(And just how did the DNC rig the primaries?)
No, I would believe you, Loach. I just think quantifying our predictions makes them more meaningful and objective. If what you had in mind was a dip of this magnitude, and you believe it was caused by Sunday’s story, then I’d say you should give yourself a pat on the back.
For my part, I see Clinton dropping slightly but steadily in national polls while Trump has been slowly rising for four weeks. I think that trend is a consequence of a lot of different things, including more discipline from Trump and Republicans coming around to their partisan battlements. I doubt, four weeks from now, we’ll see a significant blip from this last weekend even though it also includes the “deplorables” comment. To quantify my own prediction, I expect that when we look at the polling trend line for the eight weeks beginning August 12, the trendline will be as smooth for the period from September 12-September 26 as it was from the preceding two weeks. But we shall see!
On the plus side, I now have a valid excuse to wait another eight weeks before following my Dr.'s advice to cut down to only two drinks per day.
Operaman came to me in a dream and told me Mexicans were bad.
Honestly, I totally hope you’re right on this, but the level of overconfidence I’m seeing from many in this election matches that of Bobby Riggs wearing a raincoat to his match with Billy Jean King.
It’s bizarre to attribute my statement to overconfidence, when I’m predicting that Hillary will continue to decline and Trump will gain for another two weeks.
Just because not everyone thinks Americans will select the leader of the Free World based on a case of pneumonia doesn’t mean they think Trump has no chance. I think–and have thought for months now–that Trump has a real shot. Hell, a 30% shot is basically a coin flip in terms of real life odds.
I tend to agree with you - the most bizarre thing about this whole election cycle is that there appears to be some sort of force that is constantly trying to boost Trump’s numbers, regardless of what vile shit he says, does, or advocates. Any normal candidate who did just one of the many things that he has done would have been resigned to the ash bin long ago. The prospect that he wins is not unthinkable.
That said, it does appear that many of his most infamous statements and actions have been taken at times when he believes that he is winning, which knocks him back. It’s when he thinks he may be behind and does nothing that he tends to improve his standing.
That’s a pretty condescending way to describe a demographic. How’d it sound if someone had said “Clinton is winning the dirty black boy (and girl (and undefined)) vote?”
There is very little evidence that these little episodes that win a media cycle for a week influence elections. Period. They affect donations. They affect volunteers. They affect polling participation. But, in the end, they don’t really move the needle on votes.
These media cycles only matter if they start a long-running narrative. No swing voter knows who Judge Curiel is. But they know Trump is a racist and they either care or they don’t. Maybe Hillary’s health becomes a narrative, but that’s the real question. I doubt it. Despite the efforts of Giuliani et al. to try to gin up the conspiracy machine, normal people aren’t going to change their voting behavior because Hillary came down with pneumonia.
Here’s a good test for you. Is there even a single person on this board who says their own vote or willingness to vote is affected by this? Now contrast that to things like whether Trump has the tempermant to be commander-in-chief, or whether Hillary is too much of a hawk. We could find a dozen posters who say their votes are affected by those things–and that’s because those are the real issues that actual voters care about.
Hey doorhinge, you wouldn’t happen to have a copy of Trump’s tax forms handy, would you? Or maybe his medical records? Or how about his master plan to beat ISIS? How about any of his policy details?
Clinton is not entirely transparent. Fine. But she’s not the one running the truly opaque campaign.