Dead cat bounce.
Liberals need to stop saying scary and terrifying and horrifying, it makes you sound like pussies. Next time you catch yourself about to say it, say “disgusting” instead.
No, I’m not wrong at all. I correctly predicted that there would be a virtual tie by midweek and there already is even before we got to that point. However you want to label it, the race is not just reflecting a reinvigorated Trump, but Hillary’s numbers are also trending downward. The next wave of polling data will confirm it.
Oh I agree that nobody who was voting for Hillary is actually going to vote for Trump – on that we agree. But the bad news for Hillary is that the FBI bombshell is a vote suppressor. What really matters is what the electorate looks like on election day and which candidate and which party is going to get voters out to the polls. There is a lot less enthusiasm for Clinton now. You’re asking voters, particularly less committed voters, to cast a ballot for someone who is now, again, under the microscope of the FBI. A voter could be forgiven for asking, “What do I get if she wins - 4 more years of investigations? Impeachment?” I hate to say it but in some ways she has been politically ‘hemlocked’.
For now I agree that she still holds the advantage, but if her poll numbers dip further or if she sustains more damage, she could actually lose, which didn’t seem even remotely possible a week ago.
Nobody declines to vote for someone because they feel that person will be tied up in investigations. They may decline to vote for someone because of the actual underlying “offense,” but not because of the potential fallout.
You know, prefacing a post with “I correctly predicted” doesn’t actually mean anything. Is there a reason you keep saying it? And you are wrong, her national polling numbers have not collapsed. Just because Trump’s pulled closer does not mean her numbers have collapsed.
From where I sit, doing actual GOTV in rural Michigan, enthusiasm on the doors and phones is just fine for Hillary, as fine as its ever been. People that we’re talking to are as determined to vote for Hillary now as they were a week ago. Is your claim that enthusiasm is down a fact, or your own projection of how things now stand? In other words, cite?
Her numbers have not dipped. One month ago her RCP average in a four-way was at 43.7%. Two weeks ago, she was at 46.2%. One week ago, she was at 45.3%. Friday she was at 44.9%. Saturday she was at 44.9%. Sunday she was at 45.3%. Monday she was at 45.6%. Today she is at 45.3%. To say “if her poll numbers dip further” incorrectly assumes they have dipped already. They have not. Could they? Your guess is as good as mine is as good as anyone’s, despite your many announcements for how correct your predictions are. I predict, they will not dip much beyond where they are now.
At every point in history where things went very, very wrong, someone was saying the functional equivalent of this statement just before it.
Sure, things go wrong, but we always come out all right. I’d even go so far as to say that Trump won’t be as much of a disaster as Bush was. Maybe.
Limited government rules. Limited government=limited damage.
I wish iiandyiii had started an asahi prediction thread. I’d love to see them all listed together.
I have not yet predicted a Clinton win(except jokingly in the Stretch Run thread I believe), so there’s still hope for her.
If this table is accurate (comparing 2012 to now at this point in the election for early vote registration #s), looking good for HRC – doing better in AZ, CO, MI, PA, VA, and WI; doing the same in FL; and doing a little worse in GA, IA, NC, and OH. If it holds up, that adds up to a solid victory – only losing IA and OH from 2012, while possibly gaining AZ.
I’m not sure that “based on Lendervedder’s personal GOTV experience” is a metric anyone ought to take seriously, but to answer your request for a cite, this one is from this morning:
Washington Post: Post-ABC Tracking Poll: Trump 46, Clinton 45, as Democratic enthusiasm dips
I’m not sure that you’re really looking at these numbers right. Just looking at Arizona, the table shows that in 2012, one week before the election, early ballots had come from 33% Dem, 43% Rep, and 25% other. The final result there was a Romney +9 victory.
In 2016, the table shows 35% Dem, 40% Rep, and 25% other. That’s still only an improvement of 5 points (+2 Dem and -3 Republican) over BHO in 2012. That would be good enough for a 4-point HRC loss in Arizona.
I haven’t bothered to analyze the rest.
Obama won all the other states listed except for NC and GA – so if Hillary doesn’t win AZ, and wins the rest of the ones she’s improved over Obama in 2012 (CO, MI, PA, VA, and WI), then she wins the election.
So far, maybe. That’s no guarantee on the future. Unless you think the USA will exist until the end of humanity itself, at some point something is going to happen that’ll be looked back on by the historians of the future and identified as “the moment it all went wrong.”
Maybe a Trump presidency is that thing, maybe not – but the American public putting the reins of power into the hands of a man like him sure doesn’t set a very good precedent for future elections. 
Is there such a thing as an internal outside context problem?
This article takes a big, big load off my mind: The Early Vote In Nevada Suggests Clinton Might Beat Her Polls There | FiveThirtyEight
In short, by the early voting numbers for NV, Hillary is just a point or 2 off from where Obama was in 2012, and Obama won by 7. This would also be 3 or 4 points above her polling in NV.
Trump will have a very hard time winning without NV.
As a country, this might be true. But for certain individuals – say, Muslim-Americans, Hispanics, women – the potential outcomes can be hugely different, and at the personal level these people might not come out all right.
Saying “we’ll be fine, we’ve always been fine” in a country that’s fought a civil war is setting a pretty low bar.
Indeed it is.
In the updates of 538 today we got Red Oak/Google (B) Clinton +1, and RAND (B-) showing Clinton by +9.
Not mentioned yet is another one, Ipsos/Reuters with Clinton +5