Friday, September 2, 2016

Silver agrees...

As The Race Tightens, Don’t Assume The Electoral College Will Save Clinton
But what if the race continues to tighten? I’ve often heard Democrats express a belief that Clinton’s position in the swing states will protect her in the Electoral College even if the race draws to a dead heat overall. But this is potentially mistaken. Although it’s plausible that Clinton’s superior field operation will eventually pay dividends, so far her swing state results have ebbed and flowed with her national numbers.
This is a basic argument I have made all along.  While our Electoral College system technically turns our election into 50 individual state races, the reality is that  how a candidate is doing nationally is how a candidate is doing (within a fairly narrow margin) in the swing states. Simpy stated, if one candidate or the other moves the national polls five point, then the battleground states will generally move in that same direction, and generally by around the same amount.

Yes, some states have different demographics and those differences can effect how a state delivers. One might argue that Trump's immigration speech was aimed at disillusioned white people, and would be more likely to move the needle to his favor in the rust belt than in states that have larger Hispanic populations.

Undecided swing voter in Florida looks pretty
 much like undecided swing voter in Ohio

But Presidential elections rarely are decided on specific policy, and more so are decided on the general perception of the two candidates. The biggest question people have had about Trump is whether or not he could be a serious President, and deliver serious policy proposals. So the Donald Trump trip to Mexico and his subsequent immigration speech, was likely about whether Trump could look Presidential in Mexico, and whether he could deliver a specific policy proposal. The wonks and pundits can spend hours arguing the specifics of the plan, but rest assured most of the country is not paying very close attention to that.

Lastly, the demographics of the states are generally built into the initial polling, and generally the obvious (disillusioned working class whites or first or second generation Hispanic immigrants) have already made up their minds. However, the undecided voter from Ohio probably has a lot in common with the undecided voter in Florida. Logically, they are probably undecided for very similar reasons. Thus something that moves the undecided voter in Ohio, is likely going to move the undecided voter in Florida as well.

At the end of the day it's easy to get wrapped up in "how many states" would have to move in order for Trump to win the Presidency. But the number of states is actually an illusion. 538 shows Clinton up by 3.6%  3.5% in the polls plus forecast, and shows her up substantially in the electoral vote college (306-231). But in theory, if Trump were to move the needle by 3.5% across the board - he would move Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Pennsylvania into his column (enough to win). If he moved it a percent or two further, he could also pull in Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia... and suddenly you are looking at a fairly substantial Electoral College win for Trump.


James said...

Oh no, Ch. Silver today for the first time in a long time has a slight IMPROVEMENT in his forecast for Hillary beating Trump.

What can explain this? Trump's stiff arming of Latinos?

C.H. Truth said...

Silver moves everything based on national and state polls. I didn't see any polling other than the Suffolk national poll that would have helped Clinton. But then again, he looks at some obscure state polling that others tend to ignore.

C.H. Truth said...

It will move back up in Trump's favor after the latest release from IBD/TIPP showing the race tied in a four way match up.

James said...

Krauthammer seems to think that Trump has greatly softened his immigration position to: They can stay.

Where does Krautie get that? Didn't Trump say that EVERYONE of them would have to LEAVE and go back home in order to apply for citizenship from their original country?


C.H. Truth said...

Trump stated that he would only address those illegal aliens who have otherwise not broken the law "after" the border is secured and the criminal element has been removed.

That could take years.

They will not be given citizenship unless they go back and reapply. But they will also not be rounded up and deported. Which is at least a semantic softening of his position.

It also leaves "open" the possibility that once the 4-6 million criminal illegals and Visa overstays are deported, and the border is secured, that some sort of deal could be worked out for the remaining.

I feel to some degree that Trump is moving out of campaign mode a little bit on this issue. This is designed to make sure those who are here and minding their own business that they can "probably" stay, but that they shouldn't just expect to be rewarded with citizenship because they hid well for so many years.

The entire purpose to everything (from building the wall, to deporting criminals, to keeping those here illegally at least on edge) is to make it less appealing for people to sneak over the border. You make it harder (by building the wall and ramping up security) and you do not provide the incentive (legalization) for those who want to sneak in. You up the risk and lower the reward. It sends a message to those thinking about it.

Myballs said...

Remember negotiation 101 Trump has discussed is to always begin from a position you know will not be the end result.

He literally wrote the book on successful negotiation.

KD, open Border Jane said...

James at one time was for less illegals being employed in the USA< his point was to blame business for hiring them, so why did he do his ALT-Leftist best to change?

James why do now want as many illegals here as possible?

James, let us talk about your own home, do you have a welcome mat at the front door and the door open for all to come an live with you , use your yard as a toilet, break down any fences you have around your yard, eat your food , drink your water , use your rooms and then leave with out ever contributing, IF you don't you are a typical ALT-Leftist, NIMBY

Indy Voter said...

I haven't researched this but it seems like there are far fewer state polls this year than in the previous three presidential years. I hope this changes after Labor Day.

James said...

10:43 No, the whole purpose is an unworkable attempt to get a few votes by a softening that is no real softening yet still keep the votes of his hard liners.

James said...

Ch, what's going to happen after Labor day? I mean, already downballot Republicans are quietly dumping Trump. So what's going to happen after Labor day when just about every Dem in a House or Senate race will be spending millions of dollars underlining their opponents' ties to Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump?

C.H. Truth said...

Well James...

In the past eight polls released that I track:

Trump leads in three of them.
One of them is tied.
Hillary leads four of them (none by more than three points).

The average of those eight polls is Clinton +0.5%

Now I can understand why someone in a deep blue state might run away from Trump. But Rubio is on his side, Portman has stated publically that he backs Trump. In fact, I don't know any Senators in any Battleground states who have suggested anything of the kind (running ads against Trump).

In fact, by all logic, the better Trump does in these states, the better these Senators and Congressmen have to win. The only way they would abandon him is if he was so far behind, he becomes a drag.

Obviously... the gap is closing and there is no signs that it's going in any other direction at this point. So calls to run against him at this point don't make any logical sense.

So perhaps if you had some specific details of exactly what Prominent GOP Senators or Congressmen are running ads against Trump in battleground states... your question would have some meaning.

But my guess here is that you are reading something from someone who is suggesting generically that something like this is happening, but are not providing any actual specific examples of it.

C.H. Truth said...

But of course James...

If there were to be negative ads run against Trump after labor day. That would be the first time in history anyone has run negative ads against a Presidential Candidate after labor day. Unprecedented and only allowed because it's Donald Trump.

One would have to assume, of course, that he stands no chance to win... if in fact negative ads are run against him.


KD, FBI puts Red nose on ALT-Leftist Hillary said...

The C in her case stands for stupid C**t.

"Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. The emails that were sent and received from her server containing these markings became the subject of intense debate on the Hill, as her critics seized on them as evidence that she mishandled information.

But Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant.

"Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. "

Are you freaking kidding me?

C.H. Truth said...

James - if you are too lazy to look at the spreadsheet on the sidebar or if it is too confusing... you can check Nate Silver's graph. You know, more of a picture.

He ignores a poll or two I might add, and there is a couple of polls he uses that I ignore, but it's generally the same thing. We both use the four way race, unless the pollster doesn't supply it, then we settle for the two way. But in our cases all the polls are in one chart/spreadsheet rather than two.

Much more inclusive and accurate.

He shows the average at 3.5% and he shows it moving in Trump's favor. Of the ten latest polls he has on the first page, the most recent seven of them are within 3 points. He also shows two of the three polls I have where Trump is leading (although he "adjusts" the polling - which I do not do) and the poll where it is tied.

btw... TIPP was rated the most accurate pollster over the past three elections, so it would be foolish to demean or otherwise ignore it.

rrb said...

Silver moves everything based on national and state polls...


...and his own inherent liberal bias.