by Nate Silver
There has been a lot of polling over the past few days in advance of the Republican National Convention, which got underway Monday in Cleveland. But it mostly confirmed the conclusion our election forecast models had arrived at late last week: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points. That’s down from a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points a few weeks ago.
As a result, Trump’s odds have improved. He has a 36 percent chance of winning the election, according to our polls-only forecast, and a 38 percent chance according to polls-plus.
I’ve nevertheless detected a lot of consternation among Clinton voters: Why isn’t her position safer? There’s really about a 35 or 40 percent chance that Trump will become president? Based on the polls, we think the model is setting those odds about right.
So, the man who the left refers to whenever they need a statistical mind to justify their overconfidence is stating that Trump's chances are now within a few percentage points of being pretty much a coin flip. This, cannot sit well with those who are not only convince that Clinton has an assured victory, but that her coattails will be long enough to carry both the Senate and the House to victory.
 |
| Silver: Trump drawing four cards to a flush after the flop |
Personally I have not cared much for convention bounce polling. Quite honestly, it comes too far out from the election to be taken seriously. In my experience, much of the polling done this far out is simply not done for accuracy. Many of your media outlets are commissioning polls to provide back ups to stories they have already written. Their idea is to use polling to push public opinion, not to actual gauge public opinion. They inherently understand that nobody "really" remembers specifics about polling in June or July.
Once the election draws closer and their reputation as pollsters becomes the immediate issue at hand, you will see pollsters consolidate into more homogeneous results. e.g. Ipsos/Reuters will not likely provide polling where 53% of the registered voter sample is Democrat (in order to show Clinton up 12) in late October. At least not if they want any credibility for the next election.
Bottom Line: As I have been stating all along, the concept that the GOP nominating Trump turned this into a throw away election for Republicans simply lacks statistical validity. It may "feel" that way for people who have strong anti-Trump feelings. But those are just feelings. An election does not gauge the accumulation of feelings, it simply counts votes. A thousand people who hate Donald Trump with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns will still lose an election to a thousand and one people who reluctantly pull the lever for him.
More to the point, those who hate Donald Trump have a tendency to discount the same unfavorable opinions of the person he is running against. There is more than enough incentive for conservatives not comfortable with Trump, to decide he is better than the alternative.
14 comments:
Yep, the polls are narrowing as expected, but my guess there will be no convention bounce for trump with the current BS going on. His to lose for sure. LOL
Coming from the guy who has been projecting that the Democrats will pick up 30 seats and regain the House... no way would you have expected the polls to narrow.
Obama won by seven in 2008, record Democratic and minority turnout and they managed a 21 seat gain. To get to 30 seats or more, Hillary would have to win by close to double digits.
Heck the "oldest projection site" is only projecting a one seat gain in the Senate!
http://www.electionprojection.com/senate-elections.php
no way would you have expected the polls to narrow."
Really CH, you are a mind reader plus statistician. LOL Again, just keep making stuff up since your facts seem all to be opinion.
I was in Cleveland, GA last weekend 30' from the 'Hooch...you lose again, fatty
But keep flailing, it's really humorous
By Eugene Robinson
July 19, 2016
WASHINGTON -- Years from now, bright-eyed children will look up at Grandma or Grandpa and ask, "Where were you when they nominated Donald Trump?" Far too many prominent Republicans will have to hang their heads in shame.
As the garish imperial coronation in Cleveland reaches its climax, there will be much commentary -- some, no doubt, from me -- about fleeting events. Did So-and-so's speech help Trump or hurt him? Did one line of attack against Hillary Clinton seem more or less promising than another? All of this is news, but we must not lose sight of the big picture: The "Party of Lincoln" is about to nominate for president a man who is dangerously unfit for the office.
Bush and Kerry alternated leads in the polls for the first 8 months of 2004. Kerry did lead around the Democratic convention, but that occurred a full month before the Republican convention. Bush got a better and more sustainable bounce from his convention - right before Labor Day - than Kerry did from his pre-Olympics convention.
There may be no one more qualified than Hillary to squander a broad polling lead, but trying to make equivalences between her polling to date and Kerry's to this point just doesn't work.
Wow, I don't even comment here, and he still trolls me...
...complete with a threat.
Thanks for allowing this, CH.
It's good to know you don't appreciate a single dime I've contributed in the past.
That fat pie eater doesn't know what day it is. Probably ready for another hip replacement due to morbid obesity.
Funny how liberals like Matthews and Robinson can about being dangerously unfit for president while not mentioning Obama, the most unqualified president in US history, it Hillary, the most corrupt and dishonest in history.
Loretta - All I can do is delete comments. I have no manner to ban IP address or anything else to prevent someone from commenting.
The only other option is to disable all comments... which would defeat the purpose.
I decided not to comment here, because I knew what would happen.
I deleted my snark.
Post a Comment