But she hasnt.
The need is not equivalent because the situations are not equivalent: Clinton is not a dangerous loony threatening to destroy the Democratic Party and/or fuck up our country’s reputation(absolute best to be hoped for when it comes to Trump). The only thing starting over with a new candidate at the DNC would do is throw the election to Trump.
Y’know, for someone who is supposed to be against Trump, your “helpful” suggestions really aren’t.
Not faulting you here for the shorthand, but I think this type of language is what confuses a lot of people. The poll is not saying that Hillary would win the election 53.5% to 46.5%. It’s saying that the chance that Hillary will win by any percentage is 53.5%, and the chance that Trump will win by any percentage is 46.5%. It’a a subtle but meaningful difference. It means that according to the prediction, in 46.5% of possible outcomes, Trump would win.
NBC is reporting that Bernie Sanders has confirmed he is specifically turning all his delegates over to Hillary tomorrow.
Again, a discussion with no basis in *this *world.
Certainly. If she loses, I will agree that she was the wrong candidate.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is a very significant difference. I’ve been very troubled for some time now about the 538 predictions. Trump went from a one-in-five chance of winning the election to almost an even chance. Not only that, the trend lines are extremely monotonic, meaning Trump has been consistently gaining support and Clinton consistently losing support. I don’t know if the Polls-Plus model takes that sort of trend into account, but It seems very clear to me that unless something happens between now and the election to dramatically change that trend, there will be excellent chance of Trump winning in November.
Eh. There goes my scenario that Bernie might be picked.
Sure, the vast right wing conspiracy. I’ve heard all about it. Couldn’t possibly be her fault that she is now losing ground to Donald Fucking Trump.
You do realize we almost just had a third party candidate win the Democratic nomination and essentially did have a third party candidate win the Republican nomination, right?
This is not a normal election. If Johnson gets to the 15% mark and participates in debates then he has a legitimate chance.
Trump is certainly in better shape than I expected a couple of months back. I thought his convention was a mess but clearly his central message is resonating and Hillary is struggling to make a connect with the electorate. The DNC e-mail issue has cast a shadow on the convention though my hunch is that after strong speeches from Bernie and Warren it will largely be forgotten. We should have a clear idea of the state of the race in a couple of weeks with a full set of post-convention polls in all the key states. I suspect that Hillary will be back up by 3-4 points nationally and up 2-3 points in most of the key states.
If you want to feel a bit better about the race check out NYTimes Upshotpage which has its own model and reports the prediction of the other models including 538 and Princeton (Wang) as well as the betting-based number from Predictwise. I think an average of the four numbers is the single best objective measure of the state of the race and that gives Hillary around a 68% chance of winning right now.
Gary Johnson is not winning 270 electoral votes. I’d say he’s not going to win a single, solitary electoral vote, whether or not he gets to 15 percent and participates in the debates.
It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Additionally, not Jill Stein, nor Vermin Supreme, nor anybody not named “Donald Trump” or “Hillary Clinton” is going to get 270 EVs. It’s possible (although damn unlikely) that neither Trump nor Clinton gets 270 as well, but the House of Representatives is damn sure not selecting Gary Johnson in that event.
You don’t like the way the system works? The way to fix it is not by crying foul every four years when third-party candidates can’t make headway in a national presidential contest. The way to fix it is to vote more often than every four years. Get out and work for candidates you believe in for county supervisor positions, for city council posts, for state legislature. Once your movement gets some steam going, campaign for and vote for your candidates to the House and Senate. You gotta stop with this notion that a “third way” for President is going to sweep the nation and change everything. Get the policy changes started on the local and state level, then change Congress.
Again, that requires paying attention, campaigning, donating, and voting more often than every four years.
Just to get back to the OP:
It’s a damn good thing the election isn’t being held today, then, isn’t it? (You do know the “Nowcast” is a prediction of what might happen if the election were today, right? It’s a snapshot of today’s electorate, not a prediction of what might happen in November.)
A Nowcast from late July isn’t worth much, except to get riled up over. I have to remind myself to stop looking at polls very often at this stage. Lots of things are going to happen between now and November.
How can Donald win without blacks, hispanics, women, gays and handicapped? Not to mention the thoughtful.
What kind of poll could this be?
FYI - Sam Wang says it’s too soon to know if this is a bounce or a trend. He still has Hillary solidly for the win.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/07/25/the-polls-are-always-bouncing-to-the-left-and-to-the-right/
The handicapped probably aren’t a monolithic voting bloc. Women are certainly not–there have always been large numbers of female voters. In fact, I frequently object to referring to women as a special demographic. Women are 52% of the American voters, they aren’t a demographic, they’re half the species. While there is a margin of advantage for Democrats among women, something like 40-45% of women vote Republican every year.
I think the answer is that if Trump hits like 65% of the white vote, he only needs a very small number of anything else to win. Romney only won 59% of the white vote (I say “only”–a similar margin won Reagan a monstrous landslide in 1984, but the population was much less white in 2012 than in 1984), but if you push that 59% to 65% then there are still enough white people in the country that starts flipping a lot of states, like Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania.
Trump is likely to get some minority votes, a few % of blacks, maybe 15% of Hispanics.
So to answer your question, if Trump wins it’ll be because of a historic win among whites.
Also to your specific question “what kind of poll could this be?”, this isn’t a poll, this is 538’s Nowcast. It’s based on a lot of polls state-by-state being aggregated and it’s also based on the premise the election is held today (their long run poll brings in other factors and shows Trump as “only” having around a 42% chance of winning–I put 42% in quotes because that’s still closing in on coin-flip territory.)
Sure, I highly doubt that he’d get 270 as well. If he gets into the debates, I think it is possible that he gets a plurality.
What if you have a situation where Trump continues to do Trump like things and Romney, Ryan, McCain, Bush, and other prominent Republicans come out in favor Johnson? Honestly, if Weld was at the top of that ticket, I would guess Romney would already be endorsing him.
I’m not saying I think these things are likely. I’m saying Trump and Clinton have opened a window. I’d put the chance at something like 3-5% right now. I think Clinton is still the heavy favorite.
-
Not possible.
-
Then the GOP will just lose bigger.
-
Assuming Trump & Hilary arent revealed as Lizardmen days before the election, the chance is zero. A vote for Johnson is just a vote for Trump.
Following the primary season we just saw, I’d say it’s clearly a possibility.
Good, that’s what I would hope for. However, I’m talking about a situation where they throw their support following a hypothetical where nobody gets to 270 and it is in the hands of the House. If it got to that point it would seem to be either Trump or Johnson as the winner.
Funny, but if you asked a Trump supporter they would say a vote for Johnson is just a vote for Clinton.
As others mentioned, Gary Johnson’s chance of winning any electoral votes is virtually zero and Jill Stein’s is less than his. It takes more than bad major party candidates for a non-major party to win states. They need a regionally concentrated issue (Strom Thurmond/George Wallace), or some big national issue they own…to make them a major party (the GOP in the 1850’s). Or perhaps some really (amazingly) compelling individual, but with apologies to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein fans that’s pretty obviously not the case with them.
The effect Johnson/Stein could have like Nader or Perot or others in the past is to siphon more votes from one major party than the other, not win states. Nader got pretty votes but arguably skewed enough against Gore to make him lose what came down to a few 100 vote margin election in FL. Perot got a lot more votes and definitely helped Bill Clinton.
Until recently most times the same polling org took two and four way polls at the same time, Clinton lost slightly more support than Trump in the four way polls. In some recent polls it was the other way around. Anyway it’s not clear who the ‘none of the above’ effect helps more this time, and it’s likely to shrink, as it usually does, as the election approaches.
According to the polls Johnson has eight percent support, no more than 15 in any state (and they’re all tiny states where he’s doing well) and the reality is most of that support will slink off and vote something else. His odds are probably ten thousand to one. If you really think his odds are 3%, I will totally give you 100-to-1 odds on him and bet any amount you care to wager.