- National polling averages are showing a lead for Clinton at somewhere between three and four percent. This would suggest a popular vote victory for Clinton very similar to the four point victory enjoyed by Barack Obama in 2012. But if Hillary wins the popular vote by four points, one would expect that she would win the same states that Obama won. So if polling was aligned, we should also see her polling ahead in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, and well ahead in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Michigan.
- State polling averages are showing an election closer to what we saw in 2000 or 2004. According to RCP this morning (7:30 CST) Trump is ahead in every state Romney won, plus Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and Nevada. Trump is ahead or tied in five of the past seven polls in New Hampshire, and as of now Trump leads in one poll in both Pennsylvania and Michigan. But if Trump is on course to win (or be very competitive) in battleground states won by both Bush and Obama (and is even challenging in Pennsylvania or Michigan) one would expect that his national polling numbers would be more in line with the close elections of 2000 and 2004.
This doesn't necessarily suggest that either set of polling is wrong. It's possible that large concentrations of Hispanic voters in states like California and Texas will do nothing more than change the national popular vote, while not effecting the states they live in. It's also possible that Clinton's excess money advantage allows her to push a bigger national narrative, while Trump has mainly focused on battleground states.
But it's also possible that both are just barely wrong and it's just an issue of consolidation. It could be that National polling is slightly overstating Clinton support by one or two points, while state polling is slightly overstating Trump support by one or two points. A National one or two point victory for Clinton where she still loses in Ohio, Iowa, and is in a dog fight in North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada would seem in line with previous elections.
Or it could be that one set of polling is skewed. Perhaps the national pollsters are overstating Clinton support, or state pollsters are overstating Trump support in key battleground states. In years past I would have suggested that National polling is a more accurate gauge for a variety of reasons. But this year (with pollsters like Marist, Bloomberg, ABC/WashPost and Monmouth showing large Hillary double digit leads going "poof" in a manner of days) I am more skeptical in the objectivity of some of these pollsters. On the flip side, we have not seen the same amount of state polling that we have seen in years past, so is there enough state polling information to even determine the accuracy. All it takes is one or two skewed pollsters to really effect the overall numbers.
Sometime in the next few hours, we will know the answers.
13 comments:
Or it could be that one set of polling is skewed. Perhaps the national pollsters are overstating Clinton support, or state pollsters are overstating Trump support in key battleground states. In years past I would have suggested that National polling is a more accurate gauge for a variety of reasons. But this year (with pollsters like Marist, Bloomberg, ABC/WashPost and Monmouth showing large Hillary double digit leads going "poof" in a manner of days) I am more skeptical in the objectivity of some of these pollsters.
You have consistently demonstrated that you believe that the polls overstate the numbers for any Democrat. The New York Times and and the Los Angeles Times both predicted a 350+ ECV for Clinton. We will see. The Los Angeles Times has Clinton will get Ohio.
I predict that they are correct. We will see.
Fluctuating levels of voter enthusiasm could be geographically dependent I think, which would account at least some for differences in national and state level polls.
The various news reports show long lines and record turnout. High turnout favors the Democrats.
Says who??
Trump has been drawing huge crowds. Having them all turn out doesn't favor Democrats. No?
High turnout favors the Democrats.
Another bit of conventional wisdom that may go down the drain today.
However, it stands reason that if there is high turnout, then the likely voter screens the polls were using are also likely flawed.
Who that favors in this election is anyone's guess.
Why? Because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.
If the crowd size matters, the crowd in Philadelphia last night Clinton will win a landslide.
In 2012 the state polls were more favorable to Obama than national polls, and they were more right. This year the state polls are more favorable to trump than the national polls. We will see tomorrow who is more right.
The various news reports show long lines and record turnout.
Well there you go... an assured Clinton landslide.
Amazing analysis to have this early... considering your state had been open for voting for seven minutes when you posted this.
Ignoring of course all of the huge crowds Trump was attracting without the help of Bruce Springsteen.
You really are a hack Roger.
Busiest poll times are between 7 and 8 am before people go to work and after 5pm when people get off work.
Ons crowd brought by a list of celebrities vs months of huge crowds drawn by Trump himself. Don't be such a tool.
CNN) — In radio interviews Tuesday, Donald Trump still would not unequivocally commit to accepting the outcome of the election.
Trump has for the past month railed against what he has called the "rigged system" — warning of voter fraud, accusing the media of colluding against him, and signaling multiple times that he may not accept the outcome of the election if he loses. His rhetoric has led many to question whether he will concede the election Tuesday night should he not emerge as the victor.
Appearing on AM Tampa Bay on 970 WFLA, Trump was asked if he'll contest the results if they are close.
If the specter of the Clinton Syndicate or Imperial Trump doesn't spur voters, it's hard to imagine what would. Unexpected, high levels of voter participation by definition means that polls based on "likely voters" are predicated on false assumptions. And therefore, likely are wrong.
I don't know who I'm more disgusted with, the gullible clowns who voted Trump in the primaries, the media who played along with the Clinton plan in promoting him, or the corrupt Democratic elites whose immoral, undemocratic schemes forced Clinton on a trusting electorate. President Trump, thanks to you fools. Or President Clinton, thanks to the hate-mongers. Together they've achieved one thing for certain: a choice between the most disliked candidates in American history, neither of whom can be expected to competently govern, nor even want to.
For those who haven't voted yet, and who feel this way, the only way anyone will know of your displeasure is if you vote third party. Demonizing each other, both of these parties have sunk into the swamp. They're both done, or soon will be.
Post a Comment