Texas now toss-up in Real Clear Politics electoral map.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
I think that Clinton and the Democratic team really needs to start pushing the Clinton + Congress message. For one thing, it would ensure that voters would actually do the important part of actually showing up at the polls and standing in line to vote. This can’t be taken for granted, particularly when vote rigging in North Carolina has so badly damaged the early voting process for minority voters that we cannot be confident about poll results alone – people have to be motivated to vote. Pennsylvania voting is another potential problem on voting day. Though friendlier territory for democrats, there is NO early voting and there is a real possibility of attempted voter intimidation and election day chaos in some areas.
Clinton has a strong lead nationally, but it’s ultimately a race that comes down to electoral math. If Trump somehow recovers in Arizona and keeps the other traditionally republican states, then it comes down to 4 swing states: Florida, Ohio, NC, and PA (possibly five with Colorado though that’s looking pretty bleak for Trump right now). Clinton has leads in all four states but they’re not the kinds of leads that can allow us to rest easy. Clinton probably won’t pull ahead by more than five percent in Ohio, NC, and FL, and it could be closer to a 2-3 percentage edge in these states. Pennsylvania is going to be the toughest state for Trump to flip. There’s evidence that this state is increasingly out of reach but at times he has come to within 2 percentage points in polls.
Beyond that, I really, really think we need a victory that sends a clear message of decisive victory. An electoral college squeaker is not what we need right now, especially considering Trump has indicated he might not pull the plug on the election after November 8. If it’s close I could totally see Trump and the RNC trying to work individual electors in more republican friendly states that Clinton has technically won. We need to finish the job.
Asahi, they have been - it’s been the phone bank message for the past month.
(my bolding) What do you mean? That the RNC will try to get Democratic electors to vote Trump instead? The electors are picked by the state party ahead of time, generally as a reward for loyalty and work for the party (among other things). The odds of one of them switching their vote because the other party convinced them to is essentially zero.
Why do you say 538 has not been paying attention to it? They have a lot of uncertainty built into their models, I see no reason to assume they exclude this type of uncertainty.
Well, looking at that RCP map, he’s right. Trump has 126 leans/likely EC votes, which means he needs every single toss-up state except Iowa or Nevada (or Maine’s second district) to win the election.
What I see as the greatest source of uncertainty is the… well, let’s call it the anti-Obama effect. Obama was predicted to do slightly worse in the 2008 general election than his poll numbers indicated, because people didn’t want to admit that they wouldn’t vote for an African-American candidate. I’m not sure whether that panned out or not, but I bet there are plenty of poll respondents who don’t want to admit that they’re voting Trump.
Obama only ended up under performing the final RCP avg by 0.3% points in 2008. He over performed by a relatively large margin in 2012 but that’s not as relevant to ‘shy voter’ theory either way.
Many entirely discount ‘shy Trump voter’ noting that it didn’t show up in the primaries net (Trump did better than polls sometimes, worse other times). While they are correct that’s the only actual evidence, it is possible IMO that there is some ‘shy Trump voter’ effect because many or most of his voters in the general won’t be positive supporters like they were in the primaries, but rather people who just think Clinton is worse. They might actually not want to be associated with Trump outside the voting booth. Is this a large effect though? I doubt it. Again, the ‘shy anti-Obama’ theory was quite plausible in 2008, but still turned out not enough to show up through everything else going on between polls and outcomes. In this case even if ‘shy Trump’ exists, it’s going to be up against better GOTV for the Democrats which also probably doesn’t fully show up in polls.
But no reason IMO for fiery strong opinions about stuff like this. In two weeks we’ll see.
Funny nobody thinks about a “shy Clinton voter” - people in Trump households who will vote D. It’s always the other way around.
Indeed, “shy Hillary” voters seem just as likely to me.
There were articles run during the Democratic primary about Clinton supporters being fearful of displaying their support because the Sanders supporters could be vicious and destructive in their antagonism. Women, especially, were often intimidated by “Bernie Bros.” I wish I was making this up, but it’s true.
I see no reason why such supporters would not remain quiet and show up in force on November 8 - at least, I see no reason why it would not be as true of them as it is of alleged “shy Trump” supporters. I really don’t buy there are many of either who are so shy that it changes the results of anonymous polls, but both seem equally likely.
He discusses uncertainty lots and focuses his discussion mostly on the undecided voter and then the other party vote. Little discussion about particular difficulties with LV screens or why the polls are more widely spread this time. There is no reason to assume. There is reason to observe.
Obviously math has a liberal bias.
He published a blog post last week specifically on likely voter versus registered voters and why it often isn’t a big deal in presidential elections. There is also reason to think that the usual trend of Republicans doing better with likely voters won’t necessarily apply to Trump supporters.
Trump just might have been given new life.
This looks horrible for the administration. It might not be their fault but someone was a bonehead for not flagging this problem earlier and dealing with it.
That’s certainly not good, but it looks like it’s a California problem, not a federal problem. Not that some won’t try to spin it that way, of course.
I’m not sure that this won’t end up looking bad for Congress - they could fix it if they wanted to and it doesn’t seem like the President has the authority to just waive the payments. Wouldn’t hurt for him to give a press conference saying that.
Even if this does affect anything, the big issue for any new scandals or events is that voting is already substantially underway, so if you’re going to change anyone’s mind you probably needed to do it already.
It’s a problem extending from the Bush years that needs Congressional authority to fix. Given this was announced 3 days ago and Trump hasn’t bothered to say anything about it, I doubt it will give him any life.
Well, anything is possible but I have a hard time seeing where Trump gets much traction vs. Clinton on this one. It basically is the result of criminal actions by an individual in one state ( a deep blue one at that ). Even if Obama somehow gets completely illogical blowback, it is pretty late in the game to try and push that on Hillary. They really need a powerful personal smear in the last few weeks, not a vague “here is another reason big government sucks.”
Another bit of bad news for Obamacare.
Now the latest 528 Polls-plus has Iowa AND Arizona slightly pink, the Polls only still has them both pale blue, and the Now-cast has them both slightly blue even though Iowa was pink just a couple of days ago.