Nate Silver: Too early for HRC to run out the clock; Trump seems to be gaining

[JRP1994]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-its-too-soon-for-clinton-to-run-out-the-clock/

[Green Line]

She can run out the clock when the debates are over. 

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol, debunking his own article?

[Fusionmunster]

"The clearest case for this is in a set of daily and weekly tracking polls, several of which — including the Morning Consult poll, the UPI/CVoter poll, the Gravis Marketing poll, and the Ipsos/Reuters national tracking poll — show Clinton at or near her post-convention lows (and in some cases, within the margin of error of Trump overall)."

This is the reason her lead has fallen. The majority of polling that has been input into the national model over at 538 are these 2nd rate pollsters. While Hillary should not get complacent, I don't think Trump is gaining, not after that Quinnipiac poll.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Um, it's not like she is running the Dewey 1948 campaign. If anything her speech at Reno should be evidence that she doesn't intend to let Trump get away so easily every time he tries to "pivot".

[Fusionmunster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol, debunking his own article?

Exactly!

[The Other Castro]

Once again Nate is using what he very well knows to be illegitimate reasoning to provide a catchy headline and a narrative. It seems 538 always has to have something to say.

[Ebsy]

Was this really a piece that needed to be written?

[Xing]

Nate Silver arguments often follow this sort of logic:

Some evidence might suggest there could be movement in a particular direction. Now, not all evidence is suggesting this. For example, Evidence A suggests this phenomenon isn't occurring at all. However, Evidence B and C do suggest such a trend, at least to an extent, so it's worth mentioning this pattern as a distinct possibility.

With that said, we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that this movement is actually occurring, as Evidence B and C both fall into Category Q. Category Q has sometimes been unreliable or shown different numbers from other categories. It's important to remember to consider all evidence and categories when analyzing the state of this race, and be aware that the numbers can change. And when the numbers do change, it could signify a larger movement, or it could merely be statistical noise.

[heatcharger]

Was this really a piece that needed to be written?

Nope, just filler to meet the click quota for ESPN.

[Seriously?]

"The clearest case for this is in a set of daily and weekly tracking polls, several of which — including the Morning Consult poll, the UPI/CVoter poll, the Gravis Marketing poll, and the Ipsos/Reuters national tracking poll — show Clinton at or near her post-convention lows (and in some cases, within the margin of error of Trump overall)."

This is the reason her lead has fallen. The majority of polling that has been input into the national model over at 538 are these 2nd rate pollsters. While Hillary should not get complacent, I don't think Trump is gaining, not after that Quinnipiac poll.

You basically have 7 or 8 polls telling you one thing, including reputable pollsters Bloomberg and Pew, and Quinnipiac with a +7/+10 number. When one of those things is not like the other, I call them outliers or if not an outlier, a favorable poll for candidate X.

Nate is correct in his assessment that the numbers are at pre-convention levels, more or less.

[IceSpear]

Whatever you make of the quality of polling, it's annoying that Clinton just can't seem to put Trump away for good.  He bounces back like clockwork 2 weeks after doing anything crazy.

That was expected though. It was a convention bounce. The massive landslide fantasies were just that - fantasies.

[Seriously?]

Whatever you make of the quality of polling, it's annoying that Clinton just can't seem to put Trump away for good.  He bounces back like clockwork 2 weeks after doing anything crazy.

That was expected though. It was a convention bounce. The massive landslide fantasies were just that - fantasies.

Thing is, if Democrats can't turn an election against Trump or even 2008 into a double digit win, can they ever get one in the next 50 years?  It's been 52 years now since their last one, and it's probably the only way they can win the House before the late 2020's.   

In this era of hyper-partisanship, the only way I see that happening for either party is in a reelection scenario with double-digit positive approvals and a good economy.

[IceSpear]

Whatever you make of the quality of polling, it's annoying that Clinton just can't seem to put Trump away for good.  He bounces back like clockwork 2 weeks after doing anything crazy.

That was expected though. It was a convention bounce. The massive landslide fantasies were just that - fantasies.

Thing is, if Democrats can't turn an election against Trump or even 2008 into a double digit win, can they ever get one in the next 50 years?  It's been 52 years now since their last one, and it's probably the only way they can win the House before the late 2020's.   

50 years is way too long to say for certain, but for the forseeable future, neither party will be getting a double digit win.

[IceSpear]

Whatever you make of the quality of polling, it's annoying that Clinton just can't seem to put Trump away for good.  He bounces back like clockwork 2 weeks after doing anything crazy.

That was expected though. It was a convention bounce. The massive landslide fantasies were just that - fantasies.

Thing is, if Democrats can't turn an election against Trump or even 2008 into a double digit win, can they ever get one in the next 50 years?  It's been 52 years now since their last one, and it's probably the only way they can win the House before the late 2020's.   

In this era of hyper-partisanship, the only way I see that happening for either party is in a reelection scenario with double-digit positive approvals and a good economy.

Clinton had that and was still kept to the single digits (and even below 50%)

[NOVA Green]

Nate Silver arguments often follow this sort of logic:

Some evidence might suggest there could be movement in a particular direction. Now, not all evidence is suggesting this. For example, Evidence A suggests this phenomenon isn't occurring at all. However, Evidence B and C do suggest such a trend, at least to an extent, so it's worth mentioning this pattern as a distinct possibility.

With that said, we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that this movement is actually occurring, as Evidence B and C both fall into Category Q. Category Q has sometimes been unreliable or shown different numbers from other categories. It's important to remember to consider all evidence and categories when analyzing the state of this race, and be aware that the numbers can change. And when the numbers do change, it could signify a larger movement, or it could merely be statistical noise.

This pretty much sums up about 50% of Nate's polling related threads.... lots of hedging going on over there.

[Lief 🗽]

Guys, it's 2016. There's no need to still pretend that discredited fraud Nate Silver has any idea what he's talking about.

[Seriously?]

Whatever you make of the quality of polling, it's annoying that Clinton just can't seem to put Trump away for good.  He bounces back like clockwork 2 weeks after doing anything crazy.

That was expected though. It was a convention bounce. The massive landslide fantasies were just that - fantasies.

Thing is, if Democrats can't turn an election against Trump or even 2008 into a double digit win, can they ever get one in the next 50 years?  It's been 52 years now since their last one, and it's probably the only way they can win the House before the late 2020's.   

In this era of hyper-partisanship, the only way I see that happening for either party is in a reelection scenario with double-digit positive approvals and a good economy.

Clinton had that and was still kept to the single digits (and even below 50%)

Yeah, but both elections were pretty much 3-way elections, right? Even though Perot wasn't as strong in 96?

Even with Perot in there, Clinton won by 9.5% 8.5% (damn math).

The economy tanked Obama's relection margin. Quite honestly, from an academic metrics standpoint, he should have lost.

[IceSpear]

Nate Silver arguments often follow this sort of logic:

Some evidence might suggest there could be movement in a particular direction. Now, not all evidence is suggesting this. For example, Evidence A suggests this phenomenon isn't occurring at all. However, Evidence B and C do suggest such a trend, at least to an extent, so it's worth mentioning this pattern as a distinct possibility.

With that said, we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that this movement is actually occurring, as Evidence B and C both fall into Category Q. Category Q has sometimes been unreliable or shown different numbers from other categories. It's important to remember to consider all evidence and categories when analyzing the state of this race, and be aware that the numbers can change. And when the numbers do change, it could signify a larger movement, or it could merely be statistical noise.

This pretty much sums up about 50% of Nate's polling related threads.... lots of hedging going on over there.

Trump really did a number on him. They've gone from exceedingly confident to exceedingly cowardly.

[NOVA Green]

Nate Silver arguments often follow this sort of logic:

Some evidence might suggest there could be movement in a particular direction. Now, not all evidence is suggesting this. For example, Evidence A suggests this phenomenon isn't occurring at all. However, Evidence B and C do suggest such a trend, at least to an extent, so it's worth mentioning this pattern as a distinct possibility.

With that said, we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that this movement is actually occurring, as Evidence B and C both fall into Category Q. Category Q has sometimes been unreliable or shown different numbers from other categories. It's important to remember to consider all evidence and categories when analyzing the state of this race, and be aware that the numbers can change. And when the numbers do change, it could signify a larger movement, or it could merely be statistical noise.

This pretty much sums up about 50% of Nate's polling related threads.... lots of hedging going on over there.

Trump really did a number on him. They've gone from exceedingly confident to exceedingly cowardly.

He was definitely way off the mark on the Republican Primary race, until the writing was well on the wall, so yeah you're probably right that there is a bit of an overreaction going on over there as part of risk mitigation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Someone with Hillary's negatives is never in a position to run out the clock in August, even if Trump is the opponent.

[Seriously?]

Whatever you make of the quality of polling, it's annoying that Clinton just can't seem to put Trump away for good.  He bounces back like clockwork 2 weeks after doing anything crazy.

That was expected though. It was a convention bounce. The massive landslide fantasies were just that - fantasies.

Thing is, if Democrats can't turn an election against Trump or even 2008 into a double digit win, can they ever get one in the next 50 years?  It's been 52 years now since their last one, and it's probably the only way they can win the House before the late 2020's.   

In this era of hyper-partisanship, the only way I see that happening for either party is in a reelection scenario with double-digit positive approvals and a good economy.

Clinton had that and was still kept to the single digits (and even below 50%)

Yeah, but both elections were pretty much 3-way elections, right? Even though Perot wasn't as strong in 96?

Even with Perot in there, Clinton won by 9.5%.

The economy tanked Obama's relection margin. Quite honestly, from an academic metrics standpoint, he should have lost.

Well, it wasn't really that he should have lost, but that it should have been a statistical tie like the national polls were showing.  In economic/approval rating terms, it was comparable to 2004 or 1976 or 1968.  The 4 point margin was the surprising part. 

Hurricane Sandy helped. The sitting President could be looked at as Presidential at a crucial time in the election cycle (a/k/a the power of incumbency)

Romney being passive after the first debate (especially with the Candy Crowley mess) didn't help matters either.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hillary is far too unlikeable to just run out the clock. Yes, Trump has high negatives, but he could conceivably turn it around. I think there are plenty of people (like myself) looking for reasons NOT to vote for her, because of her track record, temperament, aura of entitlement, corruption, and the like, but the GOP just did a fantastic job at trying to throw this election to the Dems when it should have been an easy win.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

[ProudModerate2]

I don't even understand the "run out the clock" comment.
Hillary and her campaign have not indicated anything like this, at all.
But in any case, it's way too early to make any "clear" prediction of what will happen.
We still have debates and about 10 weeks of campaigning to do (and in trump's case he still has 10 more weeks of blunders to make).
No doubt Hillary has the (Yuge) advantage .... and trump needs to dig himself out of a deep hole, so things are not looking good for the orange-haired clown.