Harder than Ohio and even Florida.
It occurred to me that this election may be the most candidate based election in history. Here you have two well known candidates. I suspect many people vote either Democrat or Republican because they really don’t have strong opinions on either candidate. They default to the party of their preference. In fact, there could be an argument that Trump is more well known than Hillary Clinton. Sure Clinton was a senator, first lady, and Secretary of State , but Trump is a TV celebrity. I mean there are a lot of people who recognize the name Joe Biden but aren’t sure what he does. What I’m trying to say in a nutshell is that party affiliation may go out the window for a significant block of voters.
I wonder if coal lobbyists work to support Congresscritters who support fracking regulations, in an effort to make coal more attractive than natural gas?
One of my colleagues is black, and he just turned republican. The guy is just as paranoid as I am (deplorable? Doubtful for both of us.) I wonder if Trump’s speeches helped to influence his vote?
Now regarding coal, why do I feel as though the whole situation is similar to a scene from Final Fantasy VII?
There’s a serious possibility that Trump could be leading in Ohio and Florida and either leading or within the margin of error in a slew of other states. If Trump trails in the polls by 1-2 percent he still has about a 50/50 chance of pulling off the win because his voters are clearly more committed than Hillary’s. That said, he’s also the higher risk candidate, so I suspect some voters could be inclined to sit the election out if nothing else. No doubt, unforeseen events (or the lack of them) can and will influence the election in that regard.
This will be the hardest race Silver’s ever had to predict. He was able to predict 2008 and 2012 because the race was fairly easy to call as compared to other races like 2004 and 2000.
To follow up on this, Western PA, like Western NY, has always been fertile ground for the GOP. In fact most of PA is outside of Allegheny and Metro Philadelphia. The Philadelphia suburbs and Scranton - Wilks-Barre will be the key areas.
I know, it’s all perception. Reagan “won” by saying “there you go again”. The question is can Trump go 90 minutes without either blowing up or saying something colossally stupid? I think not.
Silver’s polls plus forecast has Clinton at just below 60% to win. The electoral map has only Nevada as a state that’s just barely blue. Even without Nevada the rest of the states are enough for her to win. My current theory (and I could very well be wrong) is that Trump has picked up most of the “low hanging fruit” voters, and it will be more difficult for him to continue to make gains going forward. I’m guessing that PA is probably safe and Trump’s best chance is to win both NH and Nevada. At this point I’m guessing it probably won’t happen, but I’m by no means sure about that. I think the first debate is going to be a lot more important than some people give it credit for, and may decide the election.
The electoral map is only important if it’s close, as in the race is basically tied. Even at Trump+2, the electoral map won’t save Clinton.
Well this period is the test of my hypothesis.
If I am right this period of being outside on the under side of the Clinton +5 to 6 +/- 3 will be just about as brief as being outside it on the over side was. 538 now aggregates the popular vote at Clinton +2.2 on Polls-only and +1.8 on NowCast, so I’ll start that clock.
Dang, I sure hope my hypothesis is right. 
(Shuffles off whistling …)
I think the best short term test of you hypothesis is to predict where her floor is. She’s been losing between 0.2% and 0.4% each day a new poll comes out for the last few weeks. So where do you think it stops?
The only new poll today is that LA times poll that keeps on polling the same pool of people and now they have it at Trump +6. That’s by far Trump’s best poll and I don’t believe for a second that he’s even ahead, much less by 6, but that poll has gone up and down with the others, which means that if there are any other polls today Clinton’s lead in the RCP average 4-way could drop below 1. 2-way she’s down to 1.5.
Just to be clear, your hypothesis is that the current polling showing Clinton +2.2 represents the -3 side of the margin of error of a baseline status that has Clinton at +5.5 with a +/-3 margin of error?
Yes.
I dismiss the LATime as a real poll as much as I dismissed the Reuters/Ipsos. Its value is to that it shows directionality but for actual number it is garbage.
Elasticity and inelasticity do do not correlate with any hypothetical hard floor. They do correlate with how long one stays out of the expected range.
The LA Times polls is accredited a substantial Republican bias by 538, and indeed they have consistently been the Trumpiest major poll going, but still even 538 believe their poll has Trump ahead.
I predicted after the stumble Trump would pull even by the end of the week, and he pretty much has; the forecast has him at 40% to win, which is damn close to tied, and he’ll probably be higher still by the end of today.
God willing, he’ll blow the first debate.
Then how would you know when she’s in trouble? Wouldn’t a result of Trump+3 in early October signal a rather big problem?
But presumably you’re not using “margin of error” in the statistical sense, since an aggregate of many polls does not have a collective margin of error of +/-3, right?
If addressed to me by staying outside that range for a prolonged time and by how far. The longer and the by more the bigger the problem. One week here I can whistle through. Ten days I start to bite my lower lip. Two weeks and I start taking the acid-blockers. Yes, Trump in positive range for more than a week would get both the acid-blockers and few stiff shots of my best Scotch.
So, addie … if it stays like this do you vote Clinton over Johnson (assuming you were in a swingable state)? Do you donate to Clinton to help stop Trump?
MOE in Wang’s sense of how much play the aggregates have moved historically. From the month or so ago the aggregates historically are predictive of the final result within 3% 68% of the time (since '92 I believe) and now within 2%.
The GOP’s undecideds are deciding they can swallow voting for Trump as he behaves less outrageously for bit. Will they stay there? Depends on if he keeps that face up. Will Clinton’s undecideds similarly decide they can swallow voting for her as the race seems to close in and as she adjusts from beating on Trump to selling herself better? I will bet yes.
I also suspect as the polls get uglier for Hillary, her supporters will wake up and start actually doing something to help her win. Pretty polls don’t win elections.
Speaking anecdotally: I run the campaign work for the AFL-CIO in one part of Michigan. That means, as various levels of labor endorse candidates from local through national, we work to get those candidates elected. For the first time in my memory, the presidential race isn’t our focal point-- probably because until recently, Hillary was *very *safe in Michigan.
That said, for the past month, I’ve been going around to local unions asking for them to commit to a day of knocking on doors or phone banking for candidates. The resounding message has been something along the lines of “We’re going to wait until October, September is too early to really think about this.” This was while Hillary had a 85+% chance of winning the race according to Nate Silver. In the past four days, I’ve had 6 of those local presidents call me up to ask when and where they can send people to knock on doors. The race has tightened and so have people’s buttholes.
So for me, the tightening race is a good thing, because it gets people off their collective asses to actually knock, phonebank, donate, and ultimately vote. Personally, I hadn’t donated a nickel to Hillary until last week when polls started to slip for her in Michigan. This is obviously all anecdotal, but I imagine similar things happening at Hillary offices, Democratic Party offices, etc. all across the country right now.
The beast is starting to wake up, and I suspect the Trump side doesn’t have a beast anywhere near as organized as the Hillary side. I guess my point is, large leads in polls can make people feel better at night, but they don’t win elections. I’m glad Hillary’s chances have fallen below 70% on 538.
So my point: A tight race is good for Hillary because she’s not especially inspirational (despite being the first female major party nominee), so there’s less enthusiasm around her. That being said, there’s plenty of enthusiasm around NOT LETTING TRUMP WIN. So when polls were strong for Hillary, people thought “Cake walk. I’m not needed here.” Now they’re tight, and I suspect people are starting to say, “Holy shit. I’m needed here. What can I do to help?” So despite all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth and nervous refreshing on 538 from a lot of people, I’m feeling good about this race today. Two weeks ago we had 7 people show up for a door knocking event in Muskegon, tomorrow we have 60+ already committed to coming.
That’s not to say Trump can’t win, there’s a lot of unforeseeables ahead. But as everyone else sees despair in this race, I’m seeing new life. Just my 2 cents, for what they’re worth.