Always a good sign when Rasmussen crosses over to blue.
A month and two debates is an eternity in politics. The town hall could seal the deal for Clinton or put Trump back at her heels. You just don’t know.
Silver is a sabermetrician at heart. His models will always assume the Law of Competitive Balance remains in effect. Frankly, that’s the safe bet.
Currently, Now-Cast is at 86.5% and Polls-Plus at 75.7%, for a 10.8-point difference. At Hillary’s previous peak on August 8, it was 96.4% vs 79.5%, for a 16.9-point difference. So the difference between them has dropped by about a third.
Really, no it is not.
Oh there could be some asteroid strike at any moment, but we are beyond just sighting a never before seen Black Swan, it would have to be a heckuva lot bigger than a freakish swan.
At the most favorable point in the news cycles, Clinton literally collapsing and being off the trail for nearly a week, he could not get solidly beyond that Clinton +4 +/-3 range. Again, that’s the polling center of gravity. Not so hard to jump two off that surface one way or the other, three required the magnitude of Khan on top of convention one way or the collapse/pneumonia/appearance of hiding it in the other, more than that would require a major confluence of major events. Debates are at best for Trump something that he doesn’t completely fail in (“exceeding expectations”). And there are fewer people who are swayable now, even 538 is coming round to acknowledging that there is very little chance that “undecideds” and “other” will break all one way or the other instead of either breaking mostly even or staying home.
A four point lead (and it would actually be a 6.2 point popular vote spread if the election was held today per NowCast) is very hard to overcome. Against that a month is far from an eternity. He needs a helluva final two minutes.
In a Presidential race? Not usually, not at this point in the game. When’s the last time the lead changed in the last month? There are few who haven’t been paying attention, few who don’t have a pretty good idea of what’s on offer. And lately more than back in the late 20th century, there’s little overlap between the parties, so more people are locked in from Day 1 than there used to be.
I remember Bush and Kerry debating in 2004. The general consensus was that Kerry won all three debates, but all it did was close the gap a little bit; Kerry never did catch up.
It’s not a month, though, in most places. Early voting has already started in some states, and will be gathering steam over the next couple of weeks. Probably a third of votes will be cast before Election Day, including majorities in some battleground states. For example, in 2012, more people voted early or absentee than voted on Election Day in Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada ( cite ); early voting starts Oct. 24 in Florida, and North Carolina absentee ballots started being mailed nearly a month ago.
And remember that was in a context in which the lead had flipped back and forth a fair amount before then. Kerry was ahead most of July and August. Swiftboating worked and Bush had a lead most of September, up to 6 (RCP rolling average) on September 30th.
There was a shift after the first debate back to the middle such that by this date it was back to Bush +1.8 nearer the long average of the polls, most of October it stayed between Bush +2 and 3, and it ended Bush +1.5 with election result of Bush +2.4. The two other debates did not move the needle off that long term average at all.
Polls only just broke 80%. Woo hoo!
What’s actually relevant to the discussion is that she was at 52.1% on September 22nd and has increased to 86.7% as of this writing. In two weeks she has gone up exponentially.
To be more precise - the 538 models’ assessments of the probability of her win has gone up dramatically.
Other models have not had to change so much.
PEC’s Bayesian I don’t think ever went below the low 80s if that (not sure the exact number). PEC’s states-based meta-margin has varied from a low of something like Clinton 1.8 to a high of Clinton 6.2 (+/- 2 around 4, and is now 3.3). Since March 1 the closest Pollyvote.com put it was Clinton +3.9 and mostly has had it running about +5. Since late July the closest The Upshot has placed it was a few times getting to Clinton 70% probability (and since 9/22 has gone from 73 to 82%)
538 was the outlier and are now coming into line with the others.
Never mind.:mad:
…and a regular reminder, this time courtesy of 538, that Clinton’s ground game is wiping the floor with Trump’s. As I understand it, polls can’t really account for ground games; if anything, Clinton’s victory is even more likely.
This is all barring some genuine October Surprise. If someone releases some emails from Clinton that show an actual quid pro quo with donations to the Clinton Foundation and US foreign policy during her tenure, that’s gonna change things. Short of that, though, I’m gonna sleep well November 8.
@DSeid:
PEC’s Bayesian definitemy dropped below 80 for a period. I mentioned it back on September 23rd.
Like I said I was not remembering the exact number so thank you for the reminder. It certainly was not there for long.
I thought it’d be a bit of a hijack in the election stretch thread to continue this conversation there. It more belongs here, imho:
(Post shortened)
Here you are basically assuming you’re right and Wang is just lucky if he’s right. What if the middle stuff does in fact have little impact? It’s not like he pulled that idea out of his butt. He’s looked at previous elections and came to the conclusion that this one seems to be following the pattern of other recent polarized elections. And he doesn’t assume nothing could possibly change - that’s why he doesn’t give 100% probability months out.
As it happens, Wang has an article today in the American Prospect, talking about the lack of volatility in the race.
His conclusion is that Trump’s support, despite all very very frighting, thunderstorms and lightning, is functionally identical to the sort of support that Romney received, thanks to the entrenched hyper-partisan nature of today’s political scene.
And back up again.
Do you follow your stock portfolio like this too? 
No, he’s pointing out that your criteria for determining that Wang’s is the better system is wrong, by presenting an alternate hypothesis that fits the data just as well.
That doesn’t mean that Wang’s system isn’t better. Your criteria of less movement isn’t necessarily accurate, however.
Now, quoting other systems and finding that they moved less and are just as accurate–that works better.
After today’s disgusting revelations one can assume Trump just lost a week of his comeback time. At least.
The guy was disinvited from a campaign event by the Speaker of the House. He’s the Republican candidate for President and a Republican legislator literally said he’s not welcome at a campaign event. Let that sink in for a moment.
Yeah, RickyJay, you needn’t fix up the guest room…looks like me and the missus won’t be moving to Oakville in a month, after all. 