Will Donald Trump lose by double digits?

[Hermit For Peace]

I'm not into numbers myself. All I care is that Hillary wins, and I don't care by how much.

Trump belongs in his own world away from politics.

[Virginiá]

I'm not into numbers myself. All I care is that Hillary wins, and I don't care by how much.

Trump belongs in his own world away from politics.

You should

If split ticket voting remains as low as it was in 2012, or even close to that, then the size of her win will affect how many other Democrats she brings with her to DC. She needs all the help she can get to implement her agenda, otherwise she is going to be nothing more than a doorstop against conservative policy, and a pinata for them to boot.

If voters don't start seeing movement on policy, then the Democratic coalition could be weakened for being unable to deliver. Republicans know this, which is why they made obstructing everything Obama wanted to do their number one goal.

[Wisconsin+17]

McCain's polling numbers had him ahead after he picked Palin, btw.

[Mallow]

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

Your argument is that 2008 was the high-water mark for Democrats. Your assertion is that 2008 was "extremely favorable" to Democrats. Ignoring the subjectiveness of the term "extremely favorable" for the time being, the conclusion nevertheless does not follow. In fact (using your own terminology), your only viable argument here (the only possible argument to show that 2008 was truly the high-water mark) is to show that every fundamental aspect of 2008 was essentially the most favorable to the Democrats that it could have been. Not only have you not demonstrated that (nobody is arguing that many aspects of 2008 were favorable, so listing things that were favorable is not enough), but others have demonstrated aspects of 2008 that were UNfavorable to the Democrats, at least to some extent (a black candidate, McCain being reasonably sane and standard competition, etc).

Whether or not the "favorable" vs. "unfavorable" aspects for the Democrats will win out in 2016 as compared to 2008 is anyone's guess, and I'm not going to argue it one way or the other. But your assertion that 2008 was indeed the high-water mark for Democrats is not based in objective reality--it's based on your own subjective preconceptions about which factors are most important.

Of course it was "favorable" to the Democrats. IIRC, the race was competitive despite having a RINO running as a Republican until the bottom fell out of the economy in October. Obama sailed away from there. It was as good as it gets for an opposition candidate of the party in power in an open election.

What you Sarah Palin haters on here don't get is that the pick of Palin energized the conservative Republican base of the party and helped the party unify. Many were ready to sit out the election until there was a conservative VP candidate to balance out the ticket.

You just said almost exactly what I was saying. It was "favorable," but it wasn't the best the Democrats could have possibly done. It wasn't a "ceiling"

[andrew_c]

It seems to be unlikely, but possible as Trump has defied conventional wisdom ever since he entered the race.

[NHI]

Doubtful. If he loses, then between 5-7 pt.

[Hermit For Peace]

I'm not into numbers myself. All I care is that Hillary wins, and I don't care by how much.

Trump belongs in his own world away from politics.

You should

If split ticket voting remains as low as it was in 2012, or even close to that, then the size of her win will affect how many other Democrats she brings with her to DC. She needs all the help she can get to implement her agenda, otherwise she is going to be nothing more than a doorstop against conservative policy, and a pinata for them to boot.

If voters don't start seeing movement on policy, then the Democratic coalition could be weakened for being unable to deliver. Republicans know this, which is why they made obstructing everything Obama wanted to do their number one goal.

You are too smart. I just want her in there, but what you say makes sense.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Maybe if the election was held last week or so.  But still the RNC is a big on the horizon, and since Bernie gave into the establishment nothing too fun going on in the DNC.  Other than if Hillary gets indicted.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

It seems to be unlikely, but possible as Trump has defied conventional wisdom ever since he entered the race.

This. This year has been terrible for many prognosticators and predictions in general. I'm not saying that he will for sure lose by double digits, but it's certainly possible when 2/3rds of the country doesn't think you're qualified to be President.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It depends on how you count. He'll lose by one normal finger, but he'll need two stubby fingers to measure his defeat.

[Redban]

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

In regards to your statements about political polarization, I didn't say there wasn't any. There is quite a lot indeed, as 2012's nearly non-existent split ticket voting rates showed. As others have stated various reasons, I'll just sum up what I think:

1. Race no doubt played a pretty decent part in the final vote count

2. McCain being McCain, as others have pointed out, may have helped blunt more severe losses. Combined with #1 this could be amplified

3. Had the recession started 6 - 12 months earlier, I'm sure we could have expected to see a larger landslide. Such a time frame would have meant that Bush/Republicans would have been even more thoroughly blamed for the recession, with Obama taking office during the rebound. Suffice to say, the entire political landscape might be very different right now, had the recession happened sooner.

4. Because of demographic changes, it doesn't actually take truly massive gains to reach a 10 point win. Using RCP's demographic results calculator, maintaining 2012 numbers and giving Democrats 3 more points of the white vote (so 2008 numbers) gives Democrats a 9 point win. That's almost there, and against Donald freakin Trump, such a bump isn't unrealistic at all. Remember, 39% - 43% is generally the amount of the white vote Democratic candidates have gotten since 1992. If you factor in lower Hispanic numbers Trump is probably going to get, you can get to 10 points easy. None if this is even remotely unrealistic.

Personally, I think the timing of the events and Obama's race were big factors. Anyways, as Mallow pointed out, your assumption seems to rest on everything being as good as it can get for Democrats in 2008, and it definitely wasn't.

So I stand by my assertion: People need to stop acting like Obama's 2008 margins were the best Democrats can do for the foreseeable future. That figure may be correct, but I don't think anyone here actually knows that and they are just going by it because 2008 "seemed" like a year where Democrats should have gotten some FDR-like landslide, which really is not an accurate assumption for numerous reasons stated.

If we're going to be so devout about each party's floor/ceilings due to partisanship, then there should be some reasons for such and not just near-blind assumptions.

1). Your claim that Obama lost votes from racist whites is speculative. I could just as viably respond by saying that many blacks turned out in record numbers (and voted Democrat at record percentages) simply because Obama is black. At the very least, you can acknowledge that Obama's race energized the black community, which in 2012 had a higher turnout rate than whites for the first time.

2). You're basically saying here that McCain was a great candidate, a shaky argument. His pick of Palin made his campaign the butt of many jokes, and McCain's credentials made him more of a foreign policy, military specialist running at a time when the country wanted an economic whiz.

3). The official recession didn't start until later, but the economy was already bad since months before. For example, Bear Stearns, a major bank, collapsed in March 2008; the United States' dollar was hitting new lows in late 2007 - early 2008 (was worth less than the Canadian loonie); and oil prices began surging ("Drill, Baby, Drill!" became a popular talking point in the news). You also say that "Bush/Republicans would have been even more thoroughly blamed for the recession" if it occurred earlier, but all polls indicate that Bush / Republicans actually got all the blame. Even today, many polls show that people still blame Bush, not Obama, for the current economy.

4). You say: maintaining 2012 numbers and giving Democrats 3 more points of the white vote (so 2008 numbers) gives Democrats a 9 point win. But you're oversimplifying the situation here. First, you're not accounting for turnout. In 2012, whites turned out in fewer numbers than blacks for the first time in history. Considering the GOP primary, it appears that whites are more motivated this time, so it's likely that whites will turn out at a higher rate. Thus, the "just 3 more points" claim becomes invalid. Additionally, that "3 more points," which you speak about so lightly, is actually an extremely tough mission because that "3 more points" involves a massive amount of people, given the size of the white population.

I stand by my reasoning. If Obama couldn't get a double-digit victory in 2008, when everything was right for the Democrats, then Hillary will not get a double-digit victory in 2016.

[Virginiá]

1). Your claim that Obama lost votes from racist whites is speculative. I could just as viably respond by saying that many blacks turned out in record numbers (and voted Democrat at record percentages) simply because Obama is black. At the very least, you can acknowledge that Obama's race energized the black community, which in 2012 had a higher turnout rate than whites for the first time.

This is just the kind of speculation I'll have to side with regardless. America is not past racial issues, nor was it in 2008. The only aspect of this I won't commit to is any specific numbers. So if you disagree that race hurt, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

2). You're basically saying here that McCain was a great candidate, a shaky argument. His pick of Palin made his campaign the butt of many jokes, and McCain's credentials made him more of a foreign policy, military specialist running at a time when the country wanted an economic whiz.

This isn't really an argument that supports your view, so at best #2 is not something we can factor in.

3). The official recession didn't start until later, but the economy was already bad since months before. For example, Bear Stearns, a major bank, collapsed in March 2008; the United States' dollar was hitting new lows in late 2007 - early 2008 (was worth less than the Canadian loonie); and oil prices began surging ("Drill, Baby, Drill!" became a popular talking point in the news). You also say that "Bush/Republicans would have been even more thoroughly blamed for the recession" if it occurred earlier, but all polls indicate that Bush / Republicans actually got all the blame. Even today, many polls show that people still blame Bush, not Obama, for the current economy.

Ok, this is where I definitely think you are wrong, but I will concede that I may not have used the best words to get my point across. There is a difference between blaming someone and then blaming them while abandoning them as well. Lots of Republicans blamed Bush/the GOP, but still voted for them. The longer the recession would have dragged on under Bush, the more even loyal Republican party voters would have abandoned ship. Many more months would have gone by where Republicans, already pissed at the state of the country and at the GOP, would have suffered through job losses and a terrible economy.

If you look back at the Great Depression, Democrats benefited greatly from Hoover/Republicans having to deal with the GD for something like 3~ years, while helping businesses and refusing to substantially help people who were suffering through crippling poverty. Republicans would most likely have done the same thing in 2008. You think Republicans, the pro-business Reaganites would have pushed a huge stimulus? The reality is, they would have likely been of little help on the recession (at least initially) or perhaps even made it worse. At some point in an economic crisis, you have to directly help the people, and Republicans have shown time and time again that they don't like to do that - Not on a scale that matters, anyway.

4). You say: maintaining 2012 numbers and giving Democrats 3 more points of the white vote (so 2008 numbers) gives Democrats a 9 point win. But you're oversimplifying the situation here. First, you're not accounting for turnout. In 2012, whites turned out in fewer numbers than blacks for the first time in history. Considering the GOP primary, it appears that whites are more motivated this time, so it's likely that whites will turn out at a higher rate. Thus, the "just 3 more points" claim becomes invalid.

Come on Redban, you could have checked this yourself. Giving white voters a 2% increase in turnout, which is reasonable and perhaps even generous given how negative this campaign will be (negative campaigns don't exactly spur massive turnout), only decreased Clinton's winning margin by 0.2%. Bumping white turnout up to 68% decreased it by only 0.5%. So no, it's not invalid.

Additionally, that "3 more points," which you speak about so lightly, is actually an extremely tough mission because that "3 more points" involves a massive amount of people, given the size of the white population.

You seriously think 39% of the white vote is the new baseline for Democrats, even against someone as offensive, bigoted and unqualified as Trump? Historical trends dating back a generation disagree, and so while neither of us can say definitively what will happen in November, history is not on your side.

I stand by my reasoning. If Obama couldn't get a double-digit victory in 2008, when everything was right for the Democrats, then Hillary will not get a double-digit victory in 2016.

[Redban]

Ok, this is where I definitely think you are wrong, but I will concede that I may not have used the best words to get my point across. There is a difference between blaming someone and then blaming them while abandoning them as well. Lots of Republicans blamed Bush/the GOP, but still voted for them. The longer the recession would have dragged on under Bush, the more even loyal Republican party voters would have abandoned ship. Many more months would have gone by where Republicans, already pissed at the state of the country and at the GOP, would have suffered through job losses and a terrible economy.

If you look back at the Great Depression, Democrats benefited greatly from Hoover/Republicans having to deal with the GD for something like 3~ years, while helping businesses and refusing to substantially help people who were suffering through crippling poverty. Republicans would most likely have done the same thing in 2008. You think Republicans, the pro-business Reaganites would have pushed a huge stimulus? The reality is, they would have likely been of little help on the recession (at least initially) or perhaps even made it worse. At some point in an economic crisis, you have to directly help the people, and Republicans have shown time and time again that they don't like to do that - Not on a scale that matters, anyway.

The second paragraph here is a faulty analogy, comparing 2008-2016 with the 1930s and the 1940s.

The first paragraph is, apparently, a claim that Bush and the Republicans didn't suffer full blame for  the economic collapse, as (you say) many loyal Republican party voters didn't "abandon" the party in reaction.

I don't know how you make that statement -- in an election dominated handily by the economy (see exit polls), the Republicans suffered an historic defeat, losing many seats in the House and Senate (plus the White House), and Obama won states that no Democrat won since 1964 as well as several counties that no Democrat won since Truman. Plus (I repeat) polls consistently showed that many blamed Bush for the economic collapse (as they still do today).

The reason for which loyal GOP voters didn't abandon the party in 2008 is simple: the people who voted GOP in 2008 are people who will vote GOP no matter what. The length of the recession doesn't matter because the economy, polls showed, was already the dominant topic in voters's minds.

Come on Redban, you could have checked this yourself. Giving white voters a 2% increase in turnout, which is reasonable and perhaps even generous given how negative this campaign will be (negative campaigns don't exactly spur massive turnout), only decreased Clinton's winning margin by 0.2%. Bumping white turnout up to 68% decreased it by only 0.5%. So no, it's not invalid.

You seriously think 39% of the white vote is the new baseline for Democrats, even against someone as offensive, bigoted and unqualified as Trump? Historical trends dating back a generation disagree, and so while neither of us can say definitively what will happen in November, history is not on your side.

That the popular vote percentage decreases, however slightly, is still the point because the ultimate question here is whether a 10% blowout is possible. Assuming white turnout is 67-68%, are minorities supposed to make up that 0.5% loss? That 0.5% looks small as a percentage, but it becomes large as a number because of the white population's size as a number. To get a 10% margin of victory, that 0.5% drop demands a mind-blowing record share of minority votes, and Democrats might already be hitting the maximum (or thereabouts) with them.

[Virginiá]

The second paragraph here is a faulty analogy, comparing 2008-2016 with the 1930s and the 1940s.

It's the same general theme I was pointing to - That there is a difference between impacts on elections when the party who has been blamed has been presiding over the suffering economy for longer during the crisis, versus being replaced even before the net job losses have stopped.

I don't know how you make that statement -- in an election dominated handily by the economy (see exit polls), the Republicans suffered an historic defeat, losing many seats in the House and Senate (plus the White House), and Obama won states that no Democrat won since 1964 as well as several counties that no Democrat won since Truman. Plus (I repeat) polls consistently showed that many blamed Bush for the economic collapse (as they still do today).

I've made my point clear. If you think that Bush presiding over an imploding economy for longer wouldn't have made a difference, then that's your opinion. I think you are very much wrong on it. I already stated that there is a difference between simply blaming someone and then actually punishing them due to that blame. Bush, given how unpopular he was already before that, presiding over another year of the recession would have, imo, definitely had a larger impact on GOP prospects in 2008. Nothing you've stated has really proven my claim wrong - You've just given your opinion as I have mine. So I guess neither of us can prove it, aside from the Great Depression comparison, where Republicans actually could have reduced the severity of the depression and thus their losses, but didn't.

We're just going in circles now.

That the popular vote percentage decreases, however slightly, is still the point because the ultimate question here is whether a 10% blowout is possible. Assuming white turnout is 67-68%, are minorities supposed to make up that 0.5% loss? That 0.5% looks small as a percentage, but it becomes large as a number because of the white population's size as a number. To get a 10% margin of victory, that 0.5% drop demands a mind-blowing record share of minority votes, and Democrats might already be hitting the maximum (or thereabouts) with them.

Sure, but it won't only be white voter turnout going up if turnout does indeed stay high this year, and tbh, a 4% bump in turnout during a highly negative campaign seems a bit of a stretch, but who knows. I don't recall an election in recent times where whites had such a large bump at once, though.

A 3% increase in the white vote is what I stated was the bare minimum where Democrats could get a double digit win, assuming minority turnout/vote shares stayed high (high likely). I don't exactly think a 3% bump is the ceiling for Trump either, given how the year-after-year losses (deaths) of heavily Republican silent generation voters the GOP has been sustaining. The GOP has had a huge problem attracting new voters and unfortunately for them, Millennial whites have shown much more openness to Democrats. These losses add up over time.

So while much over 3% is pushing it in 2016, it's not out of the question given ongoing electorate changes and the fact that Trump is quite possibly the worst candidate any party could have put up in modern American history.

-

As I've stated before, we're just going in circles now. Unless there is something new to add here, we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree here.

[hopper]

I dunno, I think it is possible but not likely.

I wish everyone would stop saying "everything is too polarized", though. How exactly does anyone know the maximum winning margins a Democrat or Republican can get when the country is as polarized as it is? What data is backing up these blind assertions? Because so far I see folks throwing out Obama numbers and labeling it the maximum but I never see a reason why those numbers specifically are the maximum.

Clinton winning Obama-like margins with various demographics, with +2 - +3 extra points of the white vote and modestly increased turnout with Hispanics would bring Hillary to 55% territory, so it's not impossible at all. The electorate is not the same as 2008, or even 2012. Every 4 years minorities gobble up more and more of the electorate and that increases Democratic support along with it.

So maybe she can't crack double digits, but can we at least stop acting so confident when we talk about polarization?

That's mostly because of Hispanics entering the electorate(they up their percentage 1% as a share of the electorate every 4 years) and Whites mostly dropping 1% as a share of the electorate every 4 years. Did you know Blacks made up 12% of the electorate in 1996? Asians while making up 4% of the electorate in 2012 are still pretty small as a % of the electorate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Abandon all hope for a PV landslide all ye who enter here

[ElectionsGuy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 - FiveThirtyEight

[IceSpear]

No. Each party is guaranteed 45% of the vote just for showing up.

[Ogre Mage]

As of 6/29/16 the pollster.com average has Clinton currently leading 45.5%/38.6% -- a lead of around seven points.  The 538 projection has Clinton winning the popular vote 49.1%/41.8% -- also a lead of about seven points.

Could Clinton stretch this seven point lead to ten by November?  The odds are against it, but given the current status of of Trump's campaign I would not say the chances are remote. 

My thinking right now is that a ten point win is a realistic best case scenario for Clinton. 

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 - FiveThirtyEight

His model has Missouri, Georgia, and South Carolina all with better odds of flipping, interestingly enough.  Kansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota are all > 30%.

[windjammer]

Yes definitely. If Trump's campaign continues to be such a mess, definitely possible.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

As of 6/29/16 the pollster.com average has Clinton currently leading 45.5%/38.6% -- a lead of around seven points.  The 538 projection has Clinton winning the popular vote 49.1%/41.8% -- also a lead of about seven points.

Could Clinton stretch this seven point lead to ten by November?  The odds are against it, but given the current status of of Trump's campaign I would not say the chances are remote. 

My thinking right now is that a ten point win is a realistic best case scenario for Clinton. 

You're looking at the polls-only forecast on 538, which is not reliable or predictive. The polls-plus accounts for other factors (e.g. economy and history), and here, Hillary is getting 48.4% to Trump's 44.4% -- a mere 4% margin.

IIRC, Polls-only did a lot better at predicting Trump and Bernie wins.  Polls-plus seemed like his weak-ass way of hedging against wonky polls.  This is just my impression, thought.  I haven't looked at hard numbers.