Can you Democrats please stop panicking?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

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.

Technically true, but if you've already lost Florida, Iowa and Ohio then your map looks something
like this

If he's winning Ohio and Florida already then NC is almost certainly going to go to him also and Pennsylvania will basically be a tossup or slight lean R. The political geography here looks really good for Trump since even if he loses Pennsylvania he can still win with any two other states. Hell, he could lose NC and still win Pennsylvania and then it would be an even easier path to victory since he just needs to win any other state (except New Hampshire)

However you slice it, that doesn't look good for Clinton. Mind, I don't get why anyone is making hard predictions before we've even seen the debates, which will probably have a greater long term impact than anything that's happened up to this point. I think Clinton's strength in debates is severely overestimated, but we'll see.

[politicallefty]

I'm sure some other have mentioned this, but I'm not going to get worried after a mostly bad week before the first debate. The first debate will be a primary focal point of this election. It will matter, one way or the other. I can't say I'm pleased with a lot of the polling in the past week or so, but we're still several weeks away in the midst of the general election campaign. I don't take anything for granted, but the current polling or worse would only send me into a panic if were within the 10 days or so of the campaign.

[Hermit For Peace]

I just looked at a graph from Real Clear Politics website, and since April, Hillary has been steadily going down hill -- with some increases and decreases -- and Trump has been steadily climbing up hill to the point where now they are completely tied in the polls.

If that ain't grounds for panicking I don't know what is.

This is the first election I've followed with any interest, so I'm not used to any precedents set in the past. This is pretty nerve-wracking for me.

[ursulahx]

I'm ursulahx and I endorse the OP.

Seriously, everything FPG says is true. I'm not saying I'm not worried, because there is a huge (yuuuge?) amount at stake in this election, but I realise that any sense of panic I have is irrational and not borne out by the facts.

[Wisconsin+17]

[quote]This is the first election I've followed with any interest[.quote]

Hillary's right about where Obama was in 2012.

[Oakvale]

Have you forgotten what this place was like after the first 2012 debate AG? Panic is the rock upon which the Democratic Party is built.

[pppolitics]

Have you forgotten what this place was like after the first 2012 debate AG? Panic is the rock upon which the Democratic Party is built.

That was after the first debate.

If Clinton bombed the first debate (which would be difficult when your opponent is an orangutan), then it might be time to start panicking.

[DS0816]

…It's times like these that I wish I could be a Republican…

This explains why "Democrats" nominated Hillary.


Don't worry yourself, Fmr. Griffin!

(Catch some sleep. Have lovely, sweet dreams. It will all work out.)

[Figueira]

I just looked at a graph from Real Clear Politics website, and since April, Hillary has been steadily going down hill -- with some increases and decreases -- and Trump has been steadily climbing up hill to the point where now they are completely tied in the polls.

If that ain't grounds for panicking I don't know what is.

This is the first election I've followed with any interest, so I'm not used to any precedents set in the past. This is pretty nerve-wracking for me.

Trends do not continue infinitely into the future.

[YaBoyNY]

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.

It's too late, TN.

Your posturing that PA may be slightly closer this election cycle was like undoing the lid on the can.

You've set loose all sorts of crazies now.

[Hermit For Peace]

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/yes-hillary-clinton-is-still-winning-and-yes-the-media-is-lying-to-you/26054/

This article makes a lot of sense and makes me feel better about where Hillary stands in this election cycle. Evidently September is a stagnant month and the media tweaks things to keep themselves relevant during that time period.

The statistics have been pretty much the same for a while now, in spite of media interference. Good to know. Maybe this article will help other panickers from panicking too much, like me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Figueira]

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

Salmon avatars?

[Lincoln Republican]

Really, Hillary does not deserve to be President of the United States.

She covered up her pneumonia, which leads to the question of what else she is covering up from the American people.

But even though things are trending Trump, I do not believe the Dems need to panic just yet.  

We all know very well that Trump is completely incapable of going more than two days without saying something really stupid or offensive.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What else would you call 'Constitution party' colors?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What else would you call 'Constitution party' colors?

tan?

[Ogre Mage]

I just looked at a graph from Real Clear Politics website, and since April, Hillary has been steadily going down hill -- with some increases and decreases -- and Trump has been steadily climbing up hill to the point where now they are completely tied in the polls.

If that ain't grounds for panicking I don't know what is.

This is the first election I've followed with any interest, so I'm not used to any precedents set in the past. This is pretty nerve-wracking for me.

Her dip is hardly unusual.  Consider --

In 2008 Republicans were carrying the massive albatross of George W. Bush and his 30% approval ratings.  Obama maintained a comfortable lead over McCain through June, July and most of August.  But look what happened at the start of September -- McCain seized the lead.  This was shortly after he had chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate.  We know that Palin proved to be a disaster over the long term, but in the three weeks following her selection she appeared to push McCain into the lead.  And let me tell you, the panic among Democrats was intense.  What this thread reminds me of was in 2008 a Democrat on this board tried to calm the panicked by posting a picture of Obama with the text "Everyone chill the F**k out!  I got this."  By the end of September Obama had recovered his lead and the rest is history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


In 2012 the dip came a little later.  Throughout the campaign Obama had been holding on to a small but steady lead in the polls.  Then, on Oct. 3, he turned in a bad performance during the first debate.  Suddenly, the large majority of polls showed a tied race, with a few even showing Romney leading.  Once again Democrats went into panic mode.  The polling dip persisted for two weeks until Obama rebounded with a strong performance in the second debate, leading Romney into a trap over statements Obama had made about terrorism.  "Please proceed, governor" became one of the classic lines of that election.  

I've been around a long time and seen this panic before.

[Maxwell]

amen brother, great post.

[pppolitics]

[MK]

I just looked at a graph from Real Clear Politics website, and since April, Hillary has been steadily going down hill -- with some increases and decreases -- and Trump has been steadily climbing up hill to the point where now they are completely tied in the polls.

If that ain't grounds for panicking I don't know what is.

This is the first election I've followed with any interest, so I'm not used to any precedents set in the past. This is pretty nerve-wracking for me.

Her dip is hardly unusual.  Consider --

In 2008 Republicans were carrying the massive albatross of George W. Bush and his 30% approval ratings.  Obama maintained a comfortable lead over McCain through June, July and most of August.  But look what happened at the start of September -- McCain seized the lead.  This was shortly after he had chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate.  We know that Palin proved to be a disaster over the long term, but in the three weeks following her selection she appeared to push McCain into the lead.  And let me tell you, the panic among Democrats was intense.  What this thread reminds me of was in 2008 a Democrat on this board tried to calm the panicked by posting a picture of Obama with the text "Everyone chill the F**k out!  I got this."  By the end of September Obama had recovered his lead and the rest is history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


In 2012 the dip came a little later.  Throughout the campaign Obama had been holding on to a small but steady lead in the polls.  Then, on Oct. 3, he turned in a bad performance during the first debate.  Suddenly, the large majority of polls showed a tied race, with a few even showing Romney leading.  Once again Democrats went into panic mode.  The polling dip persisted for two weeks until Obama rebounded with a strong performance in the second debate, leading Romney into a trap over statements Obama had made about terrorism.  "Please proceed, governor" became one of the classic lines of that election.  

I've been around a long time and seen this panic before.

Yeah but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZwEc3t1fs

[Ogre Mage]

I just looked at a graph from Real Clear Politics website, and since April, Hillary has been steadily going down hill -- with some increases and decreases -- and Trump has been steadily climbing up hill to the point where now they are completely tied in the polls.

If that ain't grounds for panicking I don't know what is.

This is the first election I've followed with any interest, so I'm not used to any precedents set in the past. This is pretty nerve-wracking for me.

Her dip is hardly unusual.  Consider --

In 2008 Republicans were carrying the massive albatross of George W. Bush and his 30% approval ratings.  Obama maintained a comfortable lead over McCain through June, July and most of August.  But look what happened at the start of September -- McCain seized the lead.  This was shortly after he had chosen Sarah Palin as a running mate.  We know that Palin proved to be a disaster over the long term, but in the three weeks following her selection she appeared to push McCain into the lead.  And let me tell you, the panic among Democrats was intense.  What this thread reminds me of was in 2008 a Democrat on this board tried to calm the panicked by posting a picture of Obama with the text "Everyone chill the F**k out!  I got this."  By the end of September Obama had recovered his lead and the rest is history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


In 2012 the dip came a little later.  Throughout the campaign Obama had been holding on to a small but steady lead in the polls.  Then, on Oct. 3, he turned in a bad performance during the first debate.  Suddenly, the large majority of polls showed a tied race, with a few even showing Romney leading.  Once again Democrats went into panic mode.  The polling dip persisted for two weeks until Obama rebounded with a strong performance in the second debate, leading Romney into a trap over statements Obama had made about terrorism.  "Please proceed, governor" became one of the classic lines of that election.  

I've been around a long time and seen this panic before.

Yeah but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZwEc3t1fs

So?  Trump is still behind.  I'm not sure why you should have confidence given that conservatives have clearly lost the last two presidential elections and never established a clear lead in this one.  I certainly wouldn't be placing bets on a bigoted, ignorant gaffe machine who has never done a one-on-one debate before.  Clinton has done about a dozen.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It's just that even the remote possibility of TrumpMiller winning is so terrifying.

He's so sanity-blastingly awful, even a small chance of him winning is enough to drive one mad.

[ursulahx]

It's a fact long established by research that human beings tend to overestimate the risk of something bad happening, the worse the consequences of that bad thing are. For example, people are scared of flying because airplane crashes can result in hundreds of deaths and wreckage strewn across the countryside - even though the risk of such a crash happening is extremely small. But the same people don't think twice about crossing the street, even though they are statistically more likely to die that way.

Similarly, a Trump presidency would be so unspeakable (even many Republicans agree with this) that the risk of it becomes greatly inflated in people's imaginations. This is a man who has led in hardly any polls, has an electoral college and demographic disadvantage right off the blocks, is a walking powder keg, has no ground game, has a campaign organisation at loggerheads internally, and appears to have no knowledge of how to govern. No serious presidential candidate has been this atrocious.

In normal circumstances you wouldn't bet a cent on him; and there is no reason to suspect these are not normal circumstances. But people become terrified because he is just so awful, so they assume his victory is near-inevitable. You should see the hand-wringing over here in the UK.

[President Johnson]

It's just that even the remote possibility of TrumpMiller winning is so terrifying.

He's so sanity-blastingly awful, even a small chance of him winning is enough to drive one mad.

I still say that it is very difficult to win for him because of demographics and the electoral college. And nobody knows that gaffes are to follow till election day. Not to mention the debates.

[rafta_rafta]

It's the flipping of Iowa, Florida, Ohio and North Carolina that has me worried. Hillary needs at least 2 of these to have a comfortable lead

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.