I don’t think the VP pick needs to or should be a spectacle considering most studies show it makes little difference. Personally I don’t mind Kaine, it certainly isn’t going to make me vote for Hillary but he seems reasonably capable, probably more so than either of the names up-ballot.
You can select someone as your running mate who (1) you think will help you win the election, or (2) you think will be helpful to you once you’re in the White House. Bush picked Cheney under option (2); Obama picked Biden for both options (1) and (2). I think Hillary has done the same with Kaine.
Just wanted to update this thread with the reminder than those who live by the nowcast die by the nowcast, i.e. that looking at polls after one convention but not the other will invariably give a slanted result if straight-line extrapolated.
Nate Silver’s nowcastnow (5pm 7/30) has Clinton with an over 50% chance of winning. There will be a number of major polls released over the next day or two. Those undoubtedly will continue the swing back that has already started to appear. Nothing in Silver’s columns have given much hope for Trump supporters, but Silver himself is waiting to see whether a true bounce will occur and if so how large that will be, which is the proper stance for him to take.
He doesn’t, however, mention that Clinton now has three months without opposition, during which Sanders and Warren and every other progressive whose head is not three inches above their shoulders will be working to convince progressives to vote for Clinton or at least against Trump. That alone should contribute to her percentages above and beyond everything else.
BTW, Slate reports that the first poll released since the DNC has Clinton with a 15 point lead. My point is that I don’t believe that either, and don’t care.
I think I know what you’re referring to here, but just in case: what do you mean she has three months without opposition?
She only has to worry about what is in front of her, not behind her back.
She has *always *had to worry about who and what’s behind her back. Because there’s always *been *somebody there, trying to knife her. If she seems overcautious, which she does, she has good reason to be.
Three months without opposition may mean Trump is going to take that long to get an effective campaign organized, if indeed he ever does. He still hasn’t run one damn TV ad.
Without Democratic opposition.
Lol, from the Slate article:
***For its reliability, we turn, as ever, to Nate Silver.
@dandrezner: They're new-ish so don't know much about em. They polled the Missouri primary and did fine; hadn't heard of them before that.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 30, 2016***
From the front page of the RABA website:
Featured in media outlets such as NBC News, Politico and FiveThirtyEight.com.
Is it that odd though? It seems in many issues, like gay rights or gun control, general public views have changed. Politicians are part of the general public too.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Didn’t he have her at a 70% chance of winning just a few weeks ago? This isn’t too reassuring.
They run ads on TV so people talk about them. Why would he bother?
I’d note that Tim Kaine is also now against TPP, despite being for it a few months ago.
Of course, when elected, both Clinton and Kaine will magically flip back on that one.
I was responding specifically to Corry El who made numerous remarks about Trump’s possibilities when he was at a high before the Democratic convention. However, Silver’s nowcast also sparked another thread when Trump went into positive territory.
Overnight, the new after-the-convention polls have put Clinton up another 5 points to 56.8%. Six days ago, the nowcast showed Trump with a 57.5% chance. The swing was expected by everybody but it became useful propaganda for those few days.
This is not inherently a flaw of the nowcast for those who understand it. However, it’s a device so easily and deliberately misused that I hope he discontinues it for future elections.
The TPP keeps changing so why shouldn’t peoples views on it? It was supposed to contain measures that would crack down on nations that manipulate currency, and the negotiations have been super-secret and ongoing. It’s not the same agreement from 2005, having been changed and watered down. It has some good points, but since it wont contain China much anymore, it’s not worth it.
Feel reassured. The nowcast is up to 82%.
You should remember all the people who made forecasts after just one convention and downgrade their future comments accordingly.
I wouldn’t have expected that much volatility in those numbers. I thought it’s about the long view and what’s supposed to happen on Election Day, as best he can determine, and not just a reflection of the ups and downs of daily or weekly polling.
He gets an entire network for free.
It’s about both. When people cite poll numbers from 538, I think it’ll be helpful to specify which of the three forecasts we’re talking about. There are three:
- The nowcast, which is where the 82% figure comes from. This is “likelihood of whether the candidate will win if the election were held right now.” This can and usually does change multiple times a day.
(Nate Silver describes the nowcast as being ADHD. 
For example, this morning the figures were at 61% Clinton, 39% Trump. This kept shifting the [del]more egregiously offensive Trump got[/del] more information became available. And now it’s a kind of crazy 83.8% Clinton, 16.2% Trump.)
- The polls-only forecast, which is what it says: a prediction for Nov. 8 based on current polling only. It changes only when new polls come in, which could be once or twice on one day, then nothing for another couple of days or longer. So it’s much less skittish than the nowcast.
On Sunday (post RNC bounce but before any real post DNC numbers came in), this was IIRC 52% Trump, 48% HRC. As of Monday night, with a bunch of new polls in, that figure is 64.8% HRC, 35.1% Trump. That is what you call a major bounce.
- The polls-plus forecast, which includes polls, financial and historical data. It’s the most stable by far, and also the most accurate. Three weeks ago it had Clinton at 63%, Trump at 37%; today it’s 68% Clinton, 32% Trump. Still a pretty big move for this one.
You can read Silver’s more definitive explanations of each set of numbers (and his amusing personification of each forecast, which is where I got the ADHD comment) in this post about Clinton’s post-DNC bounce.
Hope that helps!
It does, thanks.