Putting together the current state polling in aggregate and aggregate of national polls it looks like it is currently Clinton +6 or 7 over Trump. Wang churning the numbers for the past 20 elections gives polls this far out correlating with November result with an SD of about 7% (and 4% SD looking at the past 4 elections only). Short version either way is such gives by a polls only approach equal chance for a Trump win by 3 and a Clinton blow-out by 17.
So the poll is for one bet, a simple over/under one. Call it currently Clinton +6 by aggregate of a polling approach. Over/under that result in November: pick one.
The second without a poll is a request for what odds you’d take on two improbable outcomes.
What odds would you take on a bet of Trump wins by 3 or more?
And what odds would you take on a bet of Clinton by 17 or more?
I wouldn’t make a bet right now, but if I was forced, I would pick the over for Clinton at +6. I’d probably give a Trump +3 win about 20 to 1 odds, and a Clinton +17 win about 33 to 1 (that is, Trump +3 or more is about 5% likely, and Clinton +17 or more is about 3% likely, IMO).
I suspect Clinton will win, but wouldn’t bet on a blowout. Trump has surprised me time and again. In January, I would never even have bet that he’d get this far.
Under. Trump has consistently found a way to win when he shouldn’t have, and Clinton has consistently found a way to lose when she shouldn’t. While she will probably win the election, I’d expect Trump to close the distance in the polls. Which means it wouldn’t take much for him to steal a win: terrorist attack, recession, new scandal, negative FBI report on the old scandal…
She won the two Senate elections she ran in…2000 and 2006. She looks pretty clearly like the winner in the primaries this time around. Seems like losing one out of the four races you’ve ever run in doesn’t qualify as consistently losing.
I’ll take the under. Trump is going to walk back on a lot of his stupid this summer and by the fall it will no Mexicans aren’t bad people I love them and they love me. He’ll still lose but people have short memories for outrage.
As far as the fringe bets I think a Clinton blowout is more probable then a Trump victory. He may not be capable of keeping his mouth mostly shut for 4 months and that could get every non white male to vote for Clinton. The only way Trump wins is if Clinton gets indited or there is another major terrorist attack on us soil.
Chosen on the basis of Wang’s long look analysis of 1 sigma out each way, which if I am not too confused (always a possibility) means a 1 out of 20 chance of one of them occurring by that analysis. (+/- 1 sigma) Long shots outcomes but not playing Powerball here. Of course lower if you think using the SD of the last 4 makes more sense.
That’s pretty much what a data driven only approach would say it seems. And of course being this far out many are less confident in a data only approach and feel more willing to add in their own secret sauce or call it “fundamentals” ingredients.
I went with under myself and would rate either tail as less than one in fifty. Each however would depend on some “Black Swan event” and I think Clinton has more to lose in a Black Swan sighting than Trump does, so 1/100 on the Clinton +17 blow out and 1/75 on the Trump + 3.
New York was a gimme. She chose it precisely because it would be easy. WInning nationally is a lot harder and so far she’s 0-1, and about to beat a 74-year old Jew who isn’t even a Democrat by a smidgen. She’ll have just as much trouble with Trump.
I’ll take the under – a six-percentage-point spread in the national popular vote total (That is the metric, right? You don’t exactly spell it out.) is unusual for a US presidential election even with a weak candidate going up against a strong one.
Except it was far from a gimmee. It started as likely Clinton v Giuliani and polls were swinging back and forth. Giuliani was up by 7 in March 2000.
Okay though you don’t want to count her Senate victories. I think you can agree that the primary is for all practical purposes long over, so she is 1 for 2 at a national level so far. You want to spin that as “consistently losing”?
So she’ll be quite far ahead for most of the race and many of her opponent’s supporters will be in denial of his extremely low chance of victory? Sounds great!
I be over. Six percentage points (47 vs 53) was about the difference between Romney and Obama in the previous election. I don’t see Trump getting much more of the white male vote than Romney did, and he has done everything in his power to alienate women and minorities, so I think the final talley will be larger than the 6 points. I also think that having Clinton fully win the nomination and getting Sanders’ full endorsement will improve the current poll numbers.
I’d give the Trump 3%+ win about 5% probability, while a 17+% blow out a 15% probability.
Far ahead? She’s never been far ahead of Sanders unless you count superdelegates, which she won’t benefit from in the general election.
I think it’ll be more a case of Trump getting to within 2 and a lot of handwringing and bedwetting among Democrats, but the end result will probably look a lot like 2012.