Looking at a chart I made with 538’s data, Trump is doing a pretty good job. Chart Here.
If he’s taken off 16.8% off Clinton’s lead, then he’s going to make it highly close. New Hampshire is fading towards red quickly, and if that falls, then Trump wins.
EDIT: I was off by 0.1% off the “November remaining lead” marker, so it should actually be 16.9% for the marker.
I can’t read your chart without some Google login but Trump has most certainly not taken 16% off Clinton’s lead. So I suppose you must mean one flavour of 538’s “chance of winning” probabilities. Meh. Trump hasn’t taken that much off other reputable site’s probabilities.
Suddenly, Il Douche has finally pivoted. Been days since he said anything galactically stupid. Guess Ms Kellyanne finally drilled into his stainless steel skull.
Trump thinks he’s losing, so he pivots and tries to look all Presidential OR he thinks he’s winning, and heeds her advice not to rock the boat. You gotta be cautious when trying to guess the motives of a sociopath. For one thing, its not good mental hygiene.
Sorry about that, the forum isn’t good with image hosts (nor can I find one, to be honest with you). Did you see the title that says “Polls Plus”? That’s what the data I was looking at.
I think 538’s doing a nice job in how they’re reporting / tracking the race.
Well, how many commentators or new outlets of any kind base everything they report solely on facts and a mathematical model?
That right there is a striking difference.
Nate Silver doesn’t do that either. Just go back and read his “mea culpa” about Trump during the primaries.
However, overall, I agree that his approach at least has some logical consistency and factual basis to it.
Did Wang have primary predictions? How did his do?
My impression is that his ‘‘mea culpa’’ was basically, ‘‘I stopped doing everything based on facts and mathematical models and that was wrong, so I will go back to doing that now.’’
That’s what he said during the 3rd debate podcast.
IOW, facts and math seem to be his standard MO, and he screwed up in the primaries by abandoning them.
I was trying to figure out WTF a person who makes books would have to say about the election.
I learned a new term today. 
Yup. I totally agree with this post.
You’ve never heard of a bookie? 
Sure. I never heard of a ‘‘bookmaker.’’
Sorry my gambling lingo is a little rusty. It’s a world I know nothing about.
Right now the odds favor Hillary, but Trump has the momentum and I don’t think it’s just fickle voters – it’s real momentum that is the product of unprecedented information warfare against Hillary Clinton’s campaign from multiple sources.
Some polling pundits – Wang in particular – have been saying for months now that the numbers are stable and there aren’t enough undecided voters to make a difference. I’ve been pretty much on record as saying that I’m a skeptic in that respect, particularly given the fact that we have two historically unpopular candidates.
Moreover, even if the polls over time have been stable, there have been at least two points at which Trump held a lead. It matters little that Hillary has lead the race for practically all but a week out of the last 3-5 months. Trump has the final possession and he’s moving the ball down field. The question is, will he be the political version of Colin Kaepernick and miss his final pass in the end zone, or will he end up like Eli Manning and score on the final drive?
Well, Wang would disagree even about that. According to his figures there was never a time during this campaign when Trump had the lead, or was even close.
I guess we’ll see on Tuesday.
Ok, no worries.
The problem is that Silver’s probabilities are so volatile I have trouble taking a 16% gain seriously. Go to the forecast page and scroll down to the “how the forecast has changed” graph and compare the swings in the win probability and the vote percentage estimate. Three gentle curves show how close the popular vote percentage is and three massive bulbs showing the win probability.
Wang … and Silver … and even RCP would disagree with that. Mainly because it is factually incorrect.
Silver and RCP each had a short time immediately after the GOP convention that had Trump ahead in polls. For Silver one day I think in PollsOnly, never in PollsPlus.
Here’s how I’m thinking about it at the moment: compare Clinton to Obama 2012. How many voters do I think she’ll gain compared to him? How many do I think she’ll lose (to someone else, personal hatred, whatever reason)? Then I compare Trump to Romney in a similar way. I think about, for example, how the number of Never Clintoners would balance out against the number of voters who skipped last election, but are now voting just to get rid of Trump.
Seeing the results of the last election, and given that I may be missing major somethings, I’m not seeing right now how the balances would reasonably shift to give Trump the win. I may be wrong, but that’s my current instinct.
I still think Clinton is the favorite but there are some things working in Trump’s favor.
Clinton is weaker than Obama, especially among African Americans.
Trump has lost some of Romney’s GOP voters but it’s not clear that they’re supporting Clinton.
Trump is probably going to bring out angry, feisty republicans of all stripes in larger numbers than Romney.
Clinton’s campaign is fending off an unprecedented information assault of leaks and data dumps on multiple fronts. Leaks are part of dirty politics but the scale of it is something that wasn’t foreseen.
Republican vote suppression is probably going to be more effective in this campaign. I’m in agreement with Dopers that there are no shy Trump voters, so I reject that theory. But there is a real threat of voter intimidation, misinformation, purging, and nullification. Very real. I don’t know if 538 or Wang can account for this. Clinton needs to win by a full 1 percent or more in some cases to be clear.