Can you Democrats please stop panicking?

[Adam Griffin]

Jesus Christ. It's times like these that I wish I could be a Republican; they are far more resolute and don't have spines made of noodle.

1) Y'all on this forum should be bright enough to know how the political geography of this country works. It was never going to be some massive blow-out, regardless of who ran. The percentage of persuadables in this country has went from 20% to 10% to more like 5% over the past 25 years. In national contests, it's a matter of turnout: not persuasion. Look at the ground games. Look at who is far above and beyond equipped to tap into what's necessary to turn out voters. Stop worrying about "enthusiasm". People cried about this crap in 2012. At the end of the day, the GE machine prevails.

2) Look at the polls. Subtract the difference due to convention bounces and the different times of the convention and the trajectory of this race in terms of trends have largely followed 2012 all the way up until the July conventions day-for-day; the only divergence is that August 2016 proceeded to look like September 2012 rather than August 2012 because of the earlier conventions.

Factoring in how far we're removed from the convention bounce and comparing it to this (relative) point in 2012, Obama was only up by one-half-of-a-point in aggregate polling in mid-October. Yes, there is more time potentially for things to go wrong, but there is also plenty of time for things to go in the opposite direction. Stop it.



3) Trump has for the entirety of the campaign had a peak in polling: 44%. With the exception of the short-lived convention bounce, this is where his aggregate performance tops out at before dropping again. This is where he is right now. As we get closer to the election, that peak will likely increase, but we've literally been here several times already over the course of this campaign. Just because Hillary coughed or whatever doesn't mean that you need to abandon all hope.

4) Nobody likes blubbering crybabies and pessimists. Get yourselves together. A few bad polls during the worst of it thus far still shows Clinton with a consistent lead. A few bad days isn't the end of the world.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

All Hillary voters should continue to panic until the fascist loses his leads in Florida and Ohio on 538.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

All Hillary voters should continue to panic until the fascist loses his leads in Florida and Ohio on 538.

And Iowa

[NeverAgain]

I am always panicked.

[Adam Griffin]

All Hillary voters should continue to panic until the fascist loses his leads in Florida and Ohio on 538.

And Iowa

We don't need Florida. We don't need Iowa. We don't need Ohio. You're confusing us with the GOP. Acting as if the campaign is over because of a few bad days of polling in those states is dumb.

[/]

I am always panicked.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I am always panicked.

[heatcharger]

Something somewhat negative happens / polls fluctuate → Democratic bedwetting ensues → Democrats lose.

It's happened so many times it's sickening. It's part of the reason why I'm not a registered Democrat.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

OP is pretty condescending. There's a lot on the line for a lot of people this time, especially up against a candidate like Donald Trump. Any uptick in his chances brings him that closer to the presidency, and it's literally a terrifying prospect.

Add to that the fact that some of us are genuinely excited about Hillary Clinton (how shocking! ), and it's not hard to see how the stakes could be doubly raised. I won't stop panicking until November 8th. Let the panic spread and spread until she's won outright. That's what I say.

Also, let's dispense with the sh-t about "not needing" even a majority of the battlegrounds. That may be technically true, but for those of us who actually have hopes for what comes beyond November, running up the margin is important. She still has the power to do it, so I refuse to count that possibility out.

[Xing]

There is a fine line between panicking and taking the threat of a Trump victory seriously. Panicking doesn't do any good, and just makes what has already been one of the most unpleasant elections of recent history even worse. What Democrats should do is realize that, yes, Hillary has an advantage. Even as her numbers have dropped from where they were after her convention, she's still undeniably ahead in enough states for 272 EV, and either tied or only slightly behind in about 100 more EV. However, this election is not over, and we do need to do everything in our power to make sure that Trump doesn't win, and the greater Hillary's margin of victory, the better.

[DavidB.]

As long as the margin in PA remains solid, there is no reason to panic. Trump almost has no path.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I am always panicked.

[MT Treasurer]

As long as the margin in PA remains solid, there is no reason to panic. Trump almost has no path.

The margin in PA (and CO and WI, for that matter) won't remain solid if Trump is up 5 points in Ohio.

[DavidB.]

As long as the margin in PA remains solid, there is no reason to panic. Trump almost has no path.

The margin in PA (and CO and WI, for that matter) won't remain solid if Trump is up 5 points in Ohio.

But I don't think he is (538 has him up only 1.1% in OH), and I most certainly don't think he will be on election day. Yes, if he's really up by 5 in OH on election day that would be a disaster, but it's not going to happen.

[Adam Griffin]

OP is pretty condescending.

Damn straight.

Let the panic spread and spread until she's won outright. That's what I say.

Having the feeling of being behind doesn't motivate voters to turnout. Having the feeling of being ahead, however, actually does motivate more people to turnout, in part because people generally want to vote for a winning candidate. Your overall premise is flawed.

Also, let's dispense with the sh-t about "not needing" even a majority of the battlegrounds. That may be technically true, but for those of us who actually have hopes for what comes beyond November, running up the margin is important.

It's both technically and pragmatically true. "Running up the margin" in a presidential election only matters within the confines of popular vote (skeptical it even matters there), and that definitely isn't going to happen with this electorate. Only poli-sci nerds and Atlas Forum members care about the EC margin. The only "running up the margins" scenario here is one where Clinton sweeps the swing states but wins the PV by a modest amount, like in 2012. Ask the President how those massive mandates worked out for him.

[Figueira]

I think we should be concerned, but "panicking" isn't a good idea if you can help it.

[DavidB.]

Also, I'm pretty sure that if Trump wins, he won't even win PA. This "PA IS TRUMP'S ONLY HOPE!!11" thing is a bit exaggerated IMO.

Because he's going to win CO or WI before PA? Color me highly skeptical.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Also, I'm pretty sure that if Trump wins, he won't even win PA. This "PA IS TRUMP'S ONLY HOPE!!11" thing is a bit exaggerated IMO.

Because he's going to win CO or WI before PA? Color me highly skeptical.

He was obviously talking about NH. Let's be honest here

[Averroës Nix]

Jesus Christ. It's times like these that I wish I could be a Republican; they are far more resolute and don't have spines made of noodle.

RESOLVE!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the fact that the Republican Party can nominate someone like Trump and continue to function at a level of competitiveness among the voting public that's beginning to look comparable to 2012 remains a shock to many of us. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. I know that I was unprepared for it.

2) Look at the polls. Subtract the difference due to convention bounces and the different times of the convention and the trajectory of this race in terms of trends have largely followed 2012 all the way up until the July conventions day-for-day; the only divergence is that August 2016 proceeded to look like September 2012 rather than August 2012 because of the earlier conventions.

This is the only point from your post that I might have found especially compelling, but at a glance those graphs looking nothing like each other. There is also very little value in comparing head-to-heads for the 2016 contest prior to May or June, when the nominations were settled.

And to the point that several others have raised, the scary thing isn't that Trump is more likely than not to win, it's that a Trump victory is looking a lot more plausible compared to what most of us believed three weeks ago. Just being as likely to win as Mitt Romney was at the same point in the race is a much more horrifying thing when it's a candidate with Trump's personal history and bizarre behavior.

I'll also be frank and admit that I have little confidence in Clinton as a candidate. The past two weeks have only further eroded that confidence. I don't know what to expect from her over the next month. This worries me more than any changes that we have seen in the polls so far.

[Anna Komnene]

Third party/indie candidates haven't polled as well as they are this year in a long time too, so I'm not sure that 2012 is as relevant as you're suggesting it is.  I don't think that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will do as well as Ross Perot, but all you have to do is look at the 1992 results and see that Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the vote.  It can definitely make the election wonky and harder to predict than if there was just two candidates.

[Wisconsin+17]

Christ, when you have salmon avatars consoling Dems, it's really the twilight zone. People, listen to the Griff!

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) Clinton has been losing ground for almost a month and there's no sign that the trend is stopping. If the race stabilizes as a 1-3pt Clinton lead (or, God willing, bounces back to a wider one), then I can stop panicking.

2) Beating Drumpf is not enough. There is more at stake in this election than who wins and who loses. What's at stake is the future of political discourse in the US. If politicians think they can win by adopting some elements of Drumpf's message or attitude (all the while discarding his most toxic aspects) then the US has some very dark days ahead.

3) The Senate is at play. The only thing worthwhile Hillary could achieve while in office is reshaping the judicial landscape, but that too is DOA if Republicans keep the Senate.

4) It's generally a good idea, in life, to prepare oneself psychologically to the worst outcome, even when it's not the most likely. It reduces disappointment.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

:lol: Maybe you should stop ramming your policies down other people's throats if you want people to support democrats down ballot.

[Boston Bread]

2) Beating Drumpf is not enough. There is more at stake in this election than who wins and who loses. What's at stake is the future of political discourse in the US. If politicians think they can win by adopting some elements of Drumpf's message or attitude (all the while discarding his most toxic aspects) then the US has some very dark days ahead.

Republicans have adopted elements of Trump's message since the Southern Strategy in the 60's. They already believe they can win with this message (and they aren't wrong, to some extent), the only difference is that they don't want to actually go through with it once in power.

[Wisconsin+17]

Right now, it's 47/47.

Blunt in MO is up, Ayotte in NH is up, Burr in NC is up, Heck in NV is up, Toomey/McGinty are tied.

Bayh is up in Indiana. That would put the Senate out of reach at 52-48.