« " ... the civil war suddenly seems far away." LA Times | Main | The Russians are coming! - Not. »

03 November 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Swami

At this point I think anyone can find a poll that supports their leanings. What matters are not national polls but rather state-by-state polls, as electoral votes are what will determine the result.

Fortunately we don't have long to wait.

LondonBob

Looking like Trump is now edging the toss up states (CO, NH, VA, NV, PA) and will take most, if not all. Not sure if he will quite take MI, WI, MN but he has a chance. IA, FL, NC, OH and ME2 were always in the bag.

Putin has asked is America a banana republic, we find out Tuesday. Hopefully VA and NH go Trump big enough to be called early, I have work the next day.

Matthew

Tyler's Christmas came early this year.

kao_hsien_chih

A few additional observations, from what I've been following:

It still seems rather implausible that Trump will win a majority or a plurality, given the existing polls. It bugs me quite a lot, though, knowing how much subjective judgment goes into extrapolating from the polling data and the extent to which subjective judgment is clouded by the evaluators' bias and preconceptions, but an inability to win majority/plurality does not mean Trump victory is implausible.

Early voting results, or at least what we know of them--we know turnouts among diff demographics, even if we do not know exactly how they voted--suggest fairly heavy advantage (larger than in previous years) for Democrats. It could mean that Trump will be going down in flames, but it could also mean that the voters who are voting early are different. Early voters tend to be of two types (that are heavily overlapping): they tend to be relatively well off and they have made up their mind early. The well-off Democrats are definitely for HRC. The well-off GOPers are, at best, very unsure about Trump. It is not too surprising, then, that the former should significantly outnumber the latter.

The skepticism towards Trump among conventional Republicans is very substantial: it is reflected in polls showing Trump not doing as well as he might be expected in strong GOP states like TX, GA, and KS, and I've run scenarios where HRC actually carried GA and/or KS under not unreasonable assumptions, given the polling data (which is admittedly a bit old now). While I don't consider such scenarios too likely, it should be expected that Trump majorities in the usual GOP states will be much thinner than in Romney's in 2012.

Trump enjoys enough popularity among working class whites to threaten throughout the Midwest and parts of Northeast. In several of the scenarios that I ran, Trump carried ME and NH (actually more often than HRC carried GA), along with IA, MI, PA. In fact, the numbers that I worked with suggest that Trump had better odds in Maine than Wisconsin. We shall see how that pans out.

Between these two, the odds that HRC carries big majorities in bicoastal states while Trump carries narrow majorities in most of "flyover" states are relatively high. I would be honestly quite shocked if HRC fails to capture a plurality, even if a small one, (I don't expect a majority), but I will not be surprised if she loses EV. I still don't think it's too likely--but it's not too far out of the realm of possibilities.

I will confess that, in this election of numbers beating theories, I remain somewhat attached to one theory--that the "regular" partisans tend to remain partisan. The magnitude of defection and/or abstention seen in the polls among the regular Republican voters seem rather implausible so I am systematically weighing more heavily (in non-statistical way) the scenarios where they stay loyal to the GOP in larger numbers. Maybe this will be another theory that will be felled by the actual results, but the shift in polling numbers do seem to suggest, even if the "predictions" may not be trusted, suggest that a lot of regular GOP voters, even if they might not like Trump, will show up and vote for him. If they do often enough, that could be enough for him to pull off a narrow win.

gowithit

Single poll watching very unreliable, especially with Rasmussen that historically has favored Republican candidates. That being said, though, Trump sure is creeping upward. Gonna be more and more interesting. My personal formula continues to be "ether/or = neither" What a sham/blight on our political process with a Clown and a Corruptess!

Sam Peralta

Col. Lang

Polls from several key states show they are tightening and several are in the margin of error.

It looks like even states that seemed like a certain win for Hillary a week ago are much more competitive now including Colorado, Pennsyslvania, Virginia and Michigan.

Trump seems to be pulling away in Arizona, Ohio, Florida, and even North Carolina.

Obama is flying Air Force One to campaign in many states and apparently has more campaign stops than even the Crooked One.

Tyler

Look for the Trumpslide coming.

Trump up in NH, PA, VA, NM. We're seeing the rout stage of the campaign now.

Peter in Toronto

This is unprecedented, at least in the context of the last 30 years. States which have been blue bastions are now being contested.

This is very encouraging, even though Trump is not remotely close to what I would consider an ideal candidate, but it does indicate that the people can still wrest control from the stratified upper class of owners and high net worth individuals who decided amongst each other which candidate that either of the parties nominate will fill the leading slot.

Eric Newhill

Looks like Trump has Ohio, Florida and North Carolina and all the other typically red states.

If he can capture one of the following - WI,MN, VA, PA,CO then he wins.

If present momentum continues, he should be able to squeak by in at least one of those and come out on top in the EV.

Tyler

Matthew,

I will be a firm yet fair Archon of Emperor Trump.

All is forgiven, none is remarked on. As long as you bend the knee.

Tyler

LAT has him up almost by six.

ABC/WP which was still oversampling D by double digits has him tied or up by one.

IPP had him up by 3 or 4.

The reason so many pollsters are stumped is kind of the inverse of why Romney thought he was going to "win" and ended up losing: they're applying the modeling data from 2012 to 2016, assuming record minority turnout for a sick old white woman that a young black man got.

The Romney campaign used 2010 methodology (mid term elections in which whites and Republicans tend to vote more) to justify its results. This is what is flummoxing Kao, who I attribute charitable origins to.

Nate Silver and all the other "pollsters" are just more heads of the Leftist hydra, and are intentionally screwing the pooch here.

Tyler

HRC and the Dems trying to claim Trump is a Russian agent was the cinematic equivalent of throwing your pistol at the monster after your weapon has slide locked to the rear.

Joe100

Of interest the Washington Post indicates there are two possible 269 to 269 scenarios that would shift the election into the House:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/02/4-electoral-maps-where-donald-trump-wins/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

different clue

Sam Peralta,

If Michigan is competitive, then the best way for "the Left" to defeat Clinton in Michigan and force the Democratic Party to pay respectful attention to "the Left" would be to vote for Trump in Michigan.

This isn't about getting a "good President". We aren't going to get one.
This is about respect and revenge and a stick in the eye with a red hot poker.

Voting Trump is very hard for a semi-Leftie to do. It may be a bridge too far for most of us. It may be a bridge too far for me. But Clinton-rejecters should remember that two usually-Democratic votes for the Green Party, or for the Working Class Party, or for some other little Party is just as effective at attriting Clinton's numbers as one usually-Democratic vote FOR Trump.

If Clinton could lose Michigan due to enough usually-Democratic vote-leakage to various Third Parties such that Trump just happens to take the state, we wouldn't have to brag about it. We could act suitably sad and then say: " Sorry about that. But you really should have given us a candidate we could vote for." It could be the start of a movement to purge and "bern" the Clintobamacrats from out of the Democratic Party.

Bobo

Should Virginia go Trump, which I have a hard time believing, then the noise of the Draining Swamp will earth shattering.

different clue

Eric Newhill,

All it takes is enough Bitter Berners in just ONE of those states to switch their votes aWAY from Clinton to default-throw that state to Trump.
Are there enough Bitter Berners in just ONE of those states? Berners tough enough and mean enough to deny Clinton a victory in that state?

Those who just can't vote for Trump can still vote against Clinton. Two votes from Clinton to "something else" is just as effective as one vote from Clinton to Trump.

johnA

I don't think there is any way to predict this thing now.

There will be something coming out Friday night or over the weekend.

I have to believe that either a Hillary or Trump bomb will shift the flow.

I would look at where the Obama is deployed. That is where Clinton thinks they are in trouble.

I still quess Hillary a 70% fav.


Eric Newhill

DC, I agree and am counting on it; as I'm sure Trump is too.

Lot of Bernie Bros in CO and way up North.

Jack

It seems if the polls are to be believed that we now have a real race in many of the swing states and even in Democrat leaning states. Next Tuesday night could be a long one. I am particularly interested in how Democrat leaning states like Michigan, Colorado, Virginia and Pennsylvania vote. And of course traditional swing states like New Hampshire and Virginia which have leaned more Democrat recently.

Whatever the outcome next Tuesday, as I have noted here frequently, half the country will not consider the next president legitimate. The divide between the coastals and urban population relative to Les Deplorables is a chasm that spans culture and perceptions of reality.

If the Borg Queen prevails, then we should expect the long knives coming out as the Clintons seek retribution. The FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation will soon be on the street and the DOJ will be packed with the coterie to quash any further investigations. The House GOP will be in a civil war. The representatives that represent Les Deplorables will be in open revolt and demanding investigations of Clintonworld based on all the exposed written communications of the key people. The Borg will use the Borg Queen's office to consolidate power and further manufacture consent to all the Borgist policies that will be tried to be pushed through the Congress over the opposition of the minority in the GOP.

If Trump wins despite the Borg's attempt to manufacture the election result then it will imply that many joined Les Deplorables to give a big fat middle finger to the Borg. There will be an epic meltdown among the Borg. We can then be certain that the Borg will quickly reposition to be all over him like a bee to honey. The traditional GOP establishment will be doing everything possible to snow him to ensure their gravy train is not lost. The probability is very high, IMO, that the Borg will be more successful than it would seem today considering how they pulled out all the stops to trash him. I believe however that where Trump will override the Borg is in our relationship with Russia.

The next few days will be very interesting to see what surprises these campaigns have up their sleeve.

crone

Obama is campaigning in FL today... Jacksonville. He was in NC yesterday.

Fred

Jack,

"If the Borg Queen prevails, then we should expect .... retribution."

Sultan Erdogan set the tone in Turkey.

Fred

So does an overflowing basket of deplorables outweigh an overflowing cornucopia of corruption?

MasterSlacker

Here's a well reasoned take on population distribution from Martin Longman's personal Blog. Demographics assumptions are putting the test to every level and type of polling.

kao_hsien_chih

There's the demographic distribution of the eligible electorate and there's the electorate that will turn out.

In 2012, turnout among minorities was higher than usual, thanks to Obama's presence on the ticket, while the working class white turnout continued on the downward trajectory that it has been on for some time. While the base numbers for each has changed, there is a notable lack of enthusiasm (if anything, relatively speaking) among minorities for HRC and significant upbeat in enthusiasm among large swaths of working class whites for Trump, relative to Obama and Romney respectively. Taking these into consideration, the demographic distribution of the voters who will actually turn out is more likely to be closer to, or possibly, even whiter than, the demographics of 2012 than what'd be expected simply based on aggregate demographic changes overall. But anticipating turnout by different demographics, across multiple geographies is a tricky business where pollsters are liable to get more subjective than they should.

Haralambos

With all due respect to those analyzing the polls, my thoughts derive from two quotes: thanks to my better half, who loves opera,there is this, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." In 2000, the Supreme Court sang the final aria.

From my philistine background, there is this, "It ain't over till it's over" (Yoggi Berra). Yesterday, it took seven games and extra innings to decide it. I can just hear Harry Caray singing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxyjkXrUzdE

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad