Sunday, October 16, 2016

Does Clinton really have this in the bag?

So "conventional wisdom" has spoken. Hillary Clinton is pulling away with the election. For what seems to be about the tenth time during the election cycle, the discussion has moved from whether or not Clinton wins, to how much she is going to win by.

This latest bit of wisdom is fueled largely by stories surrounding Donald Trump's alleged "Chester the molester" type behavior. As many as six different women have come forth to make accusations against Trump (albeit none of them offers a shred of proof). In fact, where there appears to be neutral witnesses or facts surrounding these allegations, those witness or facts seem to back Trump's denials. Of course, in spite of wall to wall media coverage regarding these allegations, those third Party witnesses or facts have (of course) not been widely reported. Go figure?

But to all of this into perspective, the latest NBC/WSJ poll suggests that the Donald Trump story as the "fourth most recognized story" in history of their polling.

Let that sink in for a few moments.

Meanwhile, these events have led to many polls moving in Hillary's direction. In a couple of case (NBC/WSJ and Fox) they have moved fairly drastically. The RCP average is at 5.5 points right now, and most prognosticators have Clinton with enough states to win the Electoral College with extra breathing room. Quite obviously, there is no hope for Trump, and rumors are circulating that Clinton may just not bother to even show up for the third and final debate (in order to solidify the idea that the election is basically over).

However, I am pretty sure that not all is as appears, and I say this for two reasons.

For the first time in about a week I got a chance to update "all" my spreadsheets and recalculate some numbers. What I found was that after putting all of the new cross tabs into my calculations (from the past eight polls released) that Clinton actually dropped a tenth of a point. While her top line polling numbers are improving, the cross tabs really are not (at least not with the pollsters offering them). Clinton is gaining slightly with Independents, but Trump has actually consolidated his support among Republicans. The difference appears (as it generally is with large polling swings) to be with the partisan breakdown with some of these polls. In other words, these polls are showing (right or wrong) that more Democrats will be voting and less Republicans. That "could" certainly be the case, but it could also reflect the fact that a Trump supporter may just be less likely to talk to a pollster right now.

Secondly, there are still several pollsters that still show Trump leading or with a fairly insignificant Clinton lead. Of the last eleven pollsters (I track) who released polls post Trump audio, three of them currently show Trump leading, two of them show Trump gaining, and one of them did not see any change from prior to the Audio being released. That being said, there are certainly other pollsters who are seeing large polling movement towards Clinton... lead by the NBC/WSJ poll that still shows her up by double digits (they have not provided cross tabs).

So to some degree what we have is the tale of two sets of polls. Those that are not reflecting much of a swing due to the Trump sexual allegations and those that are showing a fairly significant swing. This isn't the first election where we have seen this sort of poll "grouping" with almost two different sets of data points surrounding two different conclusions. I might expect that on average that these polls will converge somewhere, but that may not be the case this year.

There is no question Clinton appears to be a in a much better situation than she was two three weeks ago when Trump was closing in on her. I currently show her as the heavy favorite right now as most do.  Certainly, there can be no denying that she is currently winning the "October surprise" contest so far. But I also wouldn't start measuring for new drapes in the White House if I was Clinton (if for no other reason that the stole the originals when they left the first time and can probably use those).

The one thing we can be sure of in the 2016 race is that just when we think we know how this is going, something comes along and shakes things up.



28 comments:

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

His popularity among Republicans is becoming stronger?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/10/16/riggedwashwire1016/
By Stephanie Armour
Oct 16, 2016 2:38 pm ET
2 COMMENTS

Donald Trump’s Claims of Rigged Election Divides Republicans

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s intensifying accusations that the election is rigged is dividing GOP supporters facing pressure to defend the legitimacy of the voting process.

House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin distanced himself from Mr. Trump on Saturday when a spokeswoman said he was fully confident in the election system. Meanwhile, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of Mr. Trump’s most prominent public supporters, said the election is being rigged by the national media suppressing bad news about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“To suggest to us that people who are concerned about honest elections are somehow nutty I think is a mistake,” he said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence on Sunday cast Mr. Trump’s allegations as a denouncement of media bias and said the campaign would respect the outcome of the election.

“The peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of American history,” said Indiana Gov. Pence on CBS “Face the Nation.”

The pressure on Republicans to take a stand on Mr. Trump’s election comments is the latest challenge for the GOP, which is finding its loyalty to its nominee tested over accusations of misconduct and derogatory statements about women. Republicans such as Mr. Ryan have risked alienating Trump supporters and making themselves targets of Mr. Trump’s ire by disavowing his remarks.

_____
If you were right, but it's debatable given his claims that if he loses, the election results will not be legitimate. A lot of rational Republicans are deeply troubled by these comments. His base, yes. The rest of them, not so much.

opie said...

No such thing as in the bag. With trump crying foul before a single vote is counted, one can only guess that his accolades will believe that the vote is fake and we could have a disaster because the right is too stupid for words. His planting of this seed of doubt is bullshit and just proves he is no business man but just a giant blowhard who has an ego that refuses to be wrong.

opie said...

Still waiting for the absolute proof that all those women are liars. Pence said it yesterday and we still wait today. Says a lot of the good governor....Kelly Ann is still laying low.....wonder why???????

Commonsense said...

I think conventional wisdom got another kick in the teeth with this morning's ABC/Wapo Poll.

Commonsense said...

Still waiting for the absolute proof that all those women are liars.

There is no absolute proof that those women are telling to truth.

There is a witness who contradicts Leed's story as well as some timely research on first class seating in use at the time.

Otherwise, it's who you believe and most people believe the timing of the stories are far to convenient to be anything other than a political hit job.

You of course don't but you were never going to vote for Trump anyway.

Just remember, you can only vote for president in one state.

opie said...

I think conventional wisdom got another kick in the teeth with this morning's ABC/Wapo Poll.


Please tell us why menstral child. BTW......absolute was pence's words......And your idiotic comment about where I vote is just that. Idiotic. Can't fix brainwashed. LOL You are typical of a trump voter, ill informed.

Commonsense said...

Clinton is only up by 4 which is the margin of error.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Nate Silver, who has a pretty good reputation, says Trump MIGHT pull it out, but his attempt to trigger a constitutional crisis, isn't making Republicans happy. And the number of undecided is significant. Unless the Russian attempt to manipulate the election, the odds still strongly favor Clinton despite ONE poll that the Republicans usually hate,

2. What’s the degree of uncertainty?

Let me approach this question in two ways. First, there’s uncertainty as our model attempts to define it. The most important factors in that calculation for our model are the number of days until the election and the number of undecided and third-party voters. Obviously, we’re getting closer and closer to Election Day, with early voting already underway in many states. But the number of undecided voters remains fairly high (although it’s declined slightly). In national polls, about 85 percent of the vote is committed to Clinton or Trump, as compared with around 95 percent that was committed to President Obama and Mitt Romney at this point in the campaign four years ago. Those unpredictable undecided and third-party voters are why our models show both a better chance of a Trump victory than most of our competitors and a better chance of Clinton winning states like Texas.

And in a more qualitative sense: Well, this election is totally nuts, with Trump now implying that Clinton is on drugs and alleging that there’s an international conspiracy to rig the election against him. As my editor put it, everything is on the table in terms of how the final three weeks could go, ranging from Trump taking advantage of very low expectations before the third debate on Wednesday, to his giving up on the election to avoid taking responsibility for what will probably be an embarrassing defeat. Our model’s relatively cautious approach seems prudent under these conditions.

Indy Voter said...

Never underestimate the ability of Hillary Clinton to blow a polling lead.

OTOH, the Omaha newspaper endorsed Clinton today, the first time it's endorsed a Democrat since 1932 and the first time it failed to endorse a Republican since 1964.

According to Wikipedia, Trump has one endorsement from a daily newspaper, in Santa Barbara. Johnson has nine, including the Chicago Tribune. About the same number have said vote against Trump but not endorsed a specific opponent. Clinton has well over 100 endorsements.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Clinton leads Trump by 11 points nationally
An ABC/Washington Post poll has Clinton's lead at a much smaller 4 points.

CS said only one matters.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Indy, in 2008 she was competing against a very talented politician.

This time she's going against Trump. His impulsive behavior behavior and personality gives her a chance in the last debate, to show the undesired that she is more stable and less impulsive. But debates aren't her best friend either.

Given the ECV polls, she has to really screw up.

The Wiki Leak stuff is the wild card.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://today.yougov.com/us-election/?state=Georgia

Clinton has a 2.5% lead in Georgia.

Within the margin of error, but???????

The millennial generation and educated white women.

As across the country.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Clinton Up By 20 Pts Among Women

Looking inside the numbers of the two-way horse race, Clinton holds a 20-point lead among female voters (55 percent to 35 percent), while Trump is ahead among men by just three points (48 percent to 45 percent).

Clinton also has the advantage among African Americans (86 percent to 9 percent), non-white voters (76 percent to 16 percent) and those ages 18-34 (54 percent to 36 percent).

Trump, meanwhile, holds the edge among independents (41 percent to 36 percent) and white voters (51 percent to 40 percent). But there is a difference among whites: Those without college degrees prefer Trump by a 56 percent-to-36 percent margin, while those with college degrees break evenly between Trump and Clinton, 45 percent to 45 percent.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

To put Clinton's current 11-point lead into perspective, Barack Obama beat John McCain by seven points nationally in 2008. And Obama's margin of victory over Mitt Romney in 2012 was four points.

C.H. Truth said...

Wow Roger.

You can cut and paste. Maybe in your next class they will show you how to think for yourself.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Don't worry. I'm sure that's almost impossible for Trump to win.

Hillary isn't going to blow this opportunity. Trump has lost it because of who he is.
Succeeding an incumbent of the same party rarely happens. If Trump hadn't won, the Republican candidate would be the odds on favorite.

He's going to suffer an ECV landslide.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I wrote this earlier, all by myself.

A Clear and Present Danger
On the day the United States Constitution became the law of the land, the United States became almost a historical anomaly. We one of the first nation that had an election system that had peaceful transition of power. Historically, the transition of power was characterized with violence against the loser.

For the first time since Civil War, one of the two candidates is :


1 Claiming that if he loses, Trump is claiming that the election is not legitimate, undermines our electoral system. Historically the loser accepts the decision of the people.
2 Encouraging his supporters are threatening the use of violence, because Donald Trump proposed a "second amendment solution".
3 He is threatening to arrest his opponent the day he is sworn in.


He is proposing that we don't accept the vote of the people unless he's the winner. We have done that since the Constitution was enacted.

In 1960 Nixon accepted the results, despite the evidence that the vote in Illinois was probably fraudulent.

This isn't about what I think of how dangerous would be in military and foreign policy positions.

I also understand why Republicans are conflicted because the SCOTUS will probably have several replacements in the next one or two terms in the future.

But this is why I must oppose him.

I don't think that I'm overreacting. This isn't because I support Clinton. I think that this this a historical election, or we could endangering the United States, if we elect Donald J Trump.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I didn't dig around before I posted it, but since then, digging around there are real experts on the Constitution say the same things. Of course they site a lot of thin\gs then I did. Hid conspiracy theory, his statements that it's rigged, and if he loses, his followers should take action. You should comment on that, it's not favorable to your side.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

ew York City's comptroller has found no evidence that Donald Trump gave $10,000 to a fund for 9/11 victims after the terror attack, and concluded that the GOP nominee "may have lied" about making a donation.

The office of Comptroller Scott Stringer conducted a review of donation records to the Twin Towers Fund and the New York City Public/Private Initiatives, Inc., to see if Trump had donated after the 9/11 attacks.

"Contrary to Donald Trump's claims, the Comptroller's Office found no evidence of a donation by Mr. Trump in the year following the attacks," according to an "Information Sheet on 9/11 Donation Review" provided to NBC News on Friday that summarizes the office's findings.

"As first reported by the New York Daily News, Donald Trump may have lied about donations given to the Twin Towers Fund in support of 9/11 victims and first responders. While he claimed to make a $10,000 donation to that fund, the Comptroller's review in response to Freedom of Information Law requests shows that no donation was made within a nearly 12-month window immediately following the tragedy," the information sheet quoted Stringer as saying.

Stringer said it was still possible that Trump made contributions at a later date, and if so he should come forward and show proof.

The Daily News said that in the weeks after the attacks, Trump pledged $10,000 to the Twin Towers Fund as part of a charity effort that radio host Howard Stern was pushing. It linked to an Oct. 10, 2001 interview on Howard Stern's radio show, in which Stern and co-host Robin Quivers thanked him for the donation.

Said Quivers, "He gave us $10,000, that was beautiful."

"Yes he did, to our fund," Stern replied, before asking Trump about other topics. Trump didn't say anything in response to Stern or Quivers, or dispute that he'd made such a pledge.

At the time, Stern was directing people to make out checks to the NYC Public/Private Initiatives, using the "Howard Stern Relief Fund" as a marketing hook, as the website for the charity efforts shows, according to the Daily News. The New York Post reported on Sept. 26, 2001 that Trump, "who often calls in to Stern's show, kicked in $10,000."

The night before his Howard Stern appearance, Trump and then fiancé Melania Knauss had attended a Carnegie Hall benefit for the Twin Towers fund and the New York Police and Fire Widows and Children's Benefit Fund. Tickets for the "Stand Up For New York" event ranged from $100 to $2500. Attendees, including former President Bill Clinton, were told they could also make checks out to the Twin Towers fund.

The Twin Towers Fund and the Public/Privateew York City's comptroller has found no evidence that Donald Trump gave $10,000 to a fund for 9/11 victims after the terror attack, and concluded that the GOP nominee "may have lied" about making a donation.

The office of of the comptroller has no record of the donation

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

ew York City's comptroller has found no evidence that Donald Trump gave $10,000 to a fund for 9/11 victims after the terror attack, and concluded that the GOP nominee "may have lied" about making a donation.

The office of Comptroller Scott Stringer conducted a review of donation records to the Twin Towers Fund and the New York City Public/Private Initiatives, Inc., to see if Trump had donated after the 9/11 attacks.

"Contrary to Donald Trump's claims, the Comptroller's Office found no evidence of a donation by Mr. Trump in the year following the attacks," according to an "Information Sheet on 9/11 Donation Review" provided to NBC News on Friday that summarizes the office's findings.

"As first reported by the New York Daily News, Donald Trump may have lied about donations given to the Twin Towers Fund in support of 9/11 victims and first responders. While he claimed to make a $10,000 donation to that fund, the Comptroller's review in response to Freedom of Information Law requests shows that no donation was made within a nearly 12-month window immediately following the tragedy," the information sheet quoted Stringer as saying.

Stringer said it was still possible that Trump made contributions at a later date, and if so he should come forward and show proof.

The Daily News said that in the weeks after the attacks, Trump pledged $10,000 to the Twin Towers Fund as part of a charity effort that radio host Howard Stern was pushing. It linked to an Oct. 10, 2001 interview on Howard Stern's radio show, in which Stern and co-host Robin Quivers thanked him for the donation.

Said Quivers, "He gave us $10,000, that was beautiful."

"Yes he did, to our fund," Stern replied, before asking Trump about other topics. Trump didn't say anything in response to Stern or Quivers, or dispute that he'd made such a pledge.

At the time, Stern was directing people to make out checks to the NYC Public/Private Initiatives, using the "Howard Stern Relief Fund" as a marketing hook, as the website for the charity efforts shows, according to the Daily News. The New York Post reported on Sept. 26, 2001 that Trump, "who often calls in to Stern's show, kicked in $10,000."

The night before his Howard Stern appearance, Trump and then fiancé Melania Knauss had attended a Carnegie Hall benefit for the Twin Towers fund and the New York Police and Fire Widows and Children's Benefit Fund. Tickets for the "Stand Up For New York" event ranged from $100 to $2500. Attendees, including former President Bill Clinton, were told they could also make checks out to the Twin Towers fund.

The Twin Towers Fund and the Public/Privateew York City's comptroller has found no evidence that Donald Trump gave $10,000 to a fund for 9/11 victims after the terror attack, and concluded that the GOP nominee "may have lied" about making a donation.

The office of of the comptroller has no record of the donation

KD, Hillary Pulls OUT of 3 rd Debate, Health Issues Cited said...

Remember, the #1 Issue to ALL Voting Americans is the Economy.

"Working past retirement age has unfortunately become a reality for many seniors. In 2013, 7% of employees said they plan to stay on the job indefinitely. That's a big jump from the 2% who made the same claim in 2011. "

Why has this O'Hillary failed so many and continues to drain savings and create more generational poverty?

KD, Clinton for Cash said...

The many faces of Hillary Clinton, she is the best liar and criminal money can buy, she is a bought woman.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...

I wrote this earlier, all by myself.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

wow.

you're a BIG boy now.

Indy Voter said...

But Trump has TRIPLED his newspaper endorsements already this week, and it's only Wednesday!

If he triples it again he will catch up to Johnson, who has nine endorsements.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

WOW. And meanwhile he chance of being elected President has surged upward to er... 12.4% on Nate Silver's "now-cast."

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

*his chance