So from what is out at this point, here is what we have seen:
- Reuter/Ipsos tracking poll - from an eleven point Clinton lead through the 16th, to a one point lead through the 22nd. (+10)
- LA Times tracking poll - from an even race through the the 16th, to a four point lead for Trump as of yesterday. (+4)
- CNN poll - from a five point Hillary lead in a four way race, to a five point Trump lead through yesterday. (+10)
- CBS/NYTimes - from an even race to a one point Trump lead through yesterday. (+1)
- Gravis - from a two point Hillary lead prior to convention, to a two point Trump lead through the 22nd. (+4)
- Morning Consult - from a two point Hillary lead prior, to a four point Trump lead through the yesterday. (+6)
- YouGov - from a three point Hillary lead in a four way race, to a two point Hillary lead. (+1)
- Rasmussen, ARG, and Dem Corps released polls that took place "during" the GOP convention, but I would not see these as relevant to a post convention bounce.
A quick bit of remedial mathematics and we come up with an average bump (so far) of 4.5% increase for Donald Trump. This is within the expected range of conventional convention bumps. In fact, at this point, it may actually be on the high side. Considering all of the negative press surrounding the convention, with the entire MSM (sans FOX News) declaring the convention something out of a Hellraiser movie, the bump is likely higher than one might have expected.
 |
| Trump now leads in post convention RCP average |
On the flip side, one may argue that Trump has the most room to "bump". Hillary is not only a known quantity politically, but also personally. We know more about the Clintons than most of would ever care to know. Whereas, Trump may be an iconic business figure, what we knew about the Trumps as a family came mainly from a reality television show. But watching them during the convention, it was hard "not" to like the Trump kids, especially Donald Jr and Ivanka. It was also hard not to see how much they love and respect their father. Every last one of them referred to him as both their mentor and best friend. Psychologically, we make an automatic correlation between how children turned out and what type of person raised them. If the convention did nothing else, it humanized Trump and his family... and that was a very good thing.
 |
| Nate Silvers Now-cast Updated 7/25 |
24 comments:
As Damon Linker said: If Hillary doesn't get a bounce out of her convention then it's time to panic. (He is of course a liberal).
I think there is a broader overall picture that will blunt the whole concept of bounces. Hillary had been up by an average of around seven points. Which then turned into an average of six points. Which then turned into the five. Which then turned into to three-five points she was leading by when the conventions started.
So say Trump get's a bounce that may draw him even (or even up a little). The problem is that many of the pollsters that still had her up by four, five, six or even more... have not polled in some time. So the next time they poll (say after both conventions) - it may actually "look" like a convention bounce for Trump (when in fact it represents more of the natural closing).
In order for Hillary to effectively "appear" to have blunted the Trump convention bounce, she will probably have to effectively have garnered a larger bounce (to make up for pollsters that are 3-4 weeks old).
My average last week was about a four percent lead for Hillary. My projection was about two and half percent for Hillary. I am guessing both numbers will be closer (if not fairly even) when all the dust settles over the next couple of weeks.
On the other hand...
FiveThirtyEight
2016 Election Forecast
UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO
Who will win the presidency?
Chance of winning
Hillary Clinton
53.5%
Donald Trump
46.5%
_____________
Ch, can you help us understand this change?
James - did you look at the "Now-cast" Link?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
Obviously not.
No, I just was surprised to open 538 and find what I found.
So the nowcast reflects the convention bounce for Trump, which was stronger than expected,
while the forecast indicates that Hillary still has a good chance of winning. Thanks.
I sure am glad Wasserman-Schultz has abandoned her determination to gavel in the Dem convention. I guess it was her getting roundly booed by the FL delegation that opened her eyes.
I was dreading it all along, so I'm glad she won't be putting in an appearance.
So the nowcast reflects the convention bounce for Trump, which was stronger than expected, while the forecast indicates that Hillary still has a good chance of winning. Thanks.
But apparently not the 80% chance you were touting last week?
- Truth is that current polls show Trump winning.
- Consideration for older polls shows Hillary winning.
- Nate Silver's personal preferences for alternate factors (as it usually does) shows a bigger advantage for the Democrats (which is why he always misses left when he misses).
Personally I take very little stock in "older polls" that have been replaced as being a factor. Especially this far out. I think most people would argue that with a candidate running for a third term, when the wrong track percentages are near 70% - does not actually have inherent advantages. Silver is one of the few who see it differently. But that's the danger of using hard economic statistics (rather than looking at how people are feeling).
The Democrats have a two prong challenge at this point. Before anything else, they need to convince Americans that what the "feel" is wrong. Generally speaking, citing economic statistics is not a very good way about changing how people feel.
Even if they can do a reasonable job of convincing people that it's not as bad as they feel it is... they still have to convince them to stay the course with the status quo. I think it makes it fundamentally more difficult.
You're cold James, even for a Democrat.
Congressman: Jewish Settlers Are Like Termites
A Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee compared Jewish Israeli settlers to termites on Monday while speaking at an event sponsored by an anti-Israel organization that supports boycotts of the Jewish state.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) launched into a tirade against Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians, comparing Jewish people who live in disputed territories to “termites” that destroy homes. Johnson also compared Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, a remark that drew vocal agreement from those in the room.
Yeah, this is going to be a fun convention.
As Shepard Smith said; "Trump just didn't get a little bump, he got a big bump, a real big bump."
He'll soon be getting an even bigger bump,
only not the sort he wants.
He'll soon be getting an even bigger bump, only not the sort he wants.
Coming from someone who insisted that the Trump would probably "lose" support from his convention. Perhaps we would all have a little more respect for you if you didn't "knee jerk" assume that things always go the way you want them.
Oh, and if you would actually admit you were wrong?
The reality James, is everyone expected the GOP convention to be a mess, and that is exactly how it was reported by the MSM the entire time. In fact, there is evidence that the Clinton campaign actually coached people within the media to use terms like "dark" and "dangerous" to describe it (even before it happened). Generally you don't see the same use of the same words by so many different media outlets (especially when it turned out to not actually be what the public saw). Everything even remotely negative was amplified as "another example of what a mess everything is." From a couple of line copied from another speech, to Ted Cruz doing exactly what most everyone expected... it was all the end of the world.
Then to listen to an actual CNN panelist call a speech (that 75% of their own audience thought hit the mark) *&^% garbage and have others literally show visible anger over it... shows a lack of professionalism beyond comprehension.
The problem is that it didn't work.
Now we walk into the rainbows and unicorn everything is awesome happy family of the Democratic National Convention, that every media outlet will be happy to tell us how well it is going, only to have the first day be a complete fiasco, complete with the Chair resigning before it started.
Expectations James. Everyone "expected" the GOP convention to be a disaster. It wasn't. Everyone expects the DEM Convention to go off professionally and without a hitch. It's already gone south.
This is what a public ass kicking looks like, turn away if you don't like to see it.
"Perhaps we would all have a little more respect for you if you didn't "knee jerk" assume that things always go the way you want them.
Oh, and if you would actually admit you were wrong?
The reality James, is everyone expected the GOP convention to be a mess, and that is exactly how it was reported by the MSM the entire time. In fact, there is evidence that the Clinton campaign actually coached people within the media to use terms like "dark" and "dangerous" to describe it (even before it happened). Generally you don't see the same use of the same words by so many different media outlets (especially when it turned out to not actually be what the public saw). Everything even remotely negative was amplified as "another example of what a mess everything is." From a couple of line copied from another speech, to Ted Cruz doing exactly what most everyone expected... it was all the end of the world." CHT
Don't forget the fake story of those "Bitter Clingers" that were going to be exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights, Jane repeatedly posted that people were sure to get shot.
Fact, not one person was shot at or around the Peacefully Held and extremely well run Businesses Meeting of the RNC.
Thanks to the Cleveland Police for keeping the peace, god sped to those Men/Woman that maintain the thin blue line in a great city Philly.
I will freely admit I thought Trump's convention hurt him, including his acceptance speech. And btw, it didn't take the news media to convince me he was too negative -- or "dark."
He did get more bounce than I expected, but... we shall see...
CH is dribbling down his leg with the latest polls showing a bounce, a normal occurrence. with the raucous kickoff of the D convention, I believe time will calm things down since voters will realize the danger is people like you and trump.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.)
Amazing, the south remains a bastion of stupidity with comments like that. He's the same idiot that predicted Guam would capsize.
CH doesn't put any stock in convention bounces opie, he's just yanking your chain. After Clinton gets her bounce, which may or may not be as much as Trump's, the polls will gyrate for a week or so and settle down to the same trajectory they had previously. The trend favoring Trump.
The DNC has made a huge mistake. Obama made a huge mistake with his politically tone-deaf timing of his endorsement and his earlier off the cuff support. I know, I've been like a broken record on this but surely by now you're starting to believe me ...
Sure looks like a bounce to me, aided by the Wikileaks revelation no doubt. And it doesn't look like there's going to be much brotherly love at the Democrats' convention this week for their candidate to get a bounce from.
Indy, much as I'd like to see it continue - I look at it as disruptive innovation - I expect the Democratic powers to get control of their convention. They've been doing it all year after all. If they can rig an election, they can "rig" the convention and make it look more or less how they want it to. Clinton will get her little bounce, the media will crown her Inevitableness as back on track given the slightest excuse, but she'll still be slipping. That's how I see it anyway.
Of course the inevitable next Clinton scandal may sidetrack that, depending on how severe it is.
Or how quickly it erupts.
I guess the convention you guys saw took place in a different universe than the one I inhabit.
The trend will continue to be UNITY.
The convention isn't trying to appease the Bernie crowd because they've already written them off. Those who aren't going to vote for Trump or one of the independents, aren't going to make any special effort to get to the polls to vote for Clinton, and those final few who do vote with a "holding their noses" certainly aren't going to do it with the enthusiasm that bring other voters with them. Not for Clinton, and the DNC obviously knows this.
So your facade of "unity" is in reality a silencing of voices. The question arises, can Clinton win even while suppressing her own party's vote? Would it really be worth it to you if she did? Would you sigh with relief and think to yourself, "Good job, Democrats" with a Presidential victory achieved by casting out the votes of millions of Democrats, at the expense of the next generation of the Party core?
Because with this convention, and those emails after this Primary, that's what it's looking like.
Our friend Sean has a pretty good post up at RCP.
Where the Race Stands -- Post-RNC Edition
All it means is that people who thought he was such a bad candidate that he could never get a bounce – or that he was forever stuck at 40 percent – were off, once again. It doesn’t mean that the naysayers will continue to be off, nor does it mean that Trump has some sort of magical powers that we mere mortals can’t understand. It simply suggests that our internalized biases continue to skew our analysis, and that we have to come up with some way to correct for these.
No one really knows where the race is going to be in a week, to say nothing of where it will be in November. What I do know is that if you still don’t believe Trump has a very real chance of winning this, you are deeply in denial.
Post a Comment