Is it too late for Trump to pull ahead?

[Mr. Smith]

Nope.

You know another election where the person ahead in September snagged on the first debate, had their running mate stop the bleeding in the Veeper, and then went on to dominate?

2012.

trump still has an edge with audiences where he can interact, and a Fox News host is doing the final debate, and we all know how Fox is.

This takes away much of the favorability that Hillary had with the first debate, and even that she started off losing until getting trump to take some bait.

This means debates two and three could be trump winners just on style. Unlikely, improbable, but not impossible.

[Devout Centrist]

Nope.

You know another election where the person ahead in September snagged on the first debate, had their running mate stop the bleeding in the Veeper, and then went on to dominate?

2012.

trump still has an edge with audiences where he can interact, and a Fox News host is doing the final debate, and we all know how Fox is.

This takes away much of the favorability that Hillary had with the first debate, and even that she started off losing until getting trump to take some bait.

This means debates two and three could be trump winners just on style. Unlikely, improbable, but not impossible.

Yeah, but again Obama lead throughout, even when he tanked after the debate. Romney? Not so much.

[ProudModerate2]

Let's just say that it is possible, but it would require the greatest comeback in American history.
Is it a distinct possibility? Yes.
Is it statistically possible? No.

[ursulahx]

Here's a followup question. Has a candidate ever recovered from this kind of deficit this late in the election season and won?

I don't think so, but records are made to be broken.

[Rand]

Here's a followup question. Has a candidate ever recovered from this kind of deficit this late in the election season and won?

I don't think so, but records are made to be broken.

So are oversized egos. The best part of Trump's impending defeat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's too late for him to pull ahead based on campaigning alone. He's needs some external event to shake the race up for that to happen.

[HillOfANight]

I think he can change the narrative with the town hall this Sunday, but most likely, she seals the deal then. She has much more experience with town halls.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I think he can change the narrative with the town hall this Sunday, but most likely, she seals the deal then. She has much more experience with town halls.

But even if he makes a comeback at the town hall, isn't the best he can do at this point is drawn even? I don't see him taking a decisive lead like Hillary has.

[PeteB]

The expectations in the first debate for Trump were really low and the expectations now are even lower.  If he manages to keep his ego in check for just two hours during this Sunday's debate, prepare a little bit and doggedly focus on key Clinton negatives (trustworthiness, secrecy, ambition, foreign policy and of course the emails ), he could do some damage and regain momentum.  So theoretically, it is not too late.

But since we are talking about Trump, a Reality TV candidate, with no ideology, policy, morals or purpose, then the answer is a resounding YES - it is too late.  Trump was never realistically going to win and he certainly won't win now.  As I said several times here, it is a testament to Clinton's fundamental weakness as a candidate that Trump is even still competitive.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Anything's possible, but I think the best chance for Trump right now:

1. A period of deep voter skepticism of Clinton - these windows happen for two weeks at a time, max
2. Extreme voter forgiveness of Trump - these are also two-week windows
3. These two coinciding at the exact same time
4. Election Day falling during this coincidence.

Number one has happened three times now - Comey's remarks, the wikileaks DNC emails, and the September slump.  I calculate this represents about 20% of this election cycle since April.  Which means if we have another such "event," it represents a probable 20% of the remaining days.

Number two happened three times: when Trump officially won the GOP nomination, when he got his convention bounce, and when he "went teleprompter."  I calculate this also represents about 20% of this election cycle since April, and another such "event" taking up a probable 20% of the remaining days.

Coinciding events would take up 0.2 * 0.2 = 4% of the remaining days of the cycle.  There are 33 days left.  Which means basically one day left, probabilistically, for this to occur.  And that one day left would have to be November 8.  Which means the probability of this happening is 1/33 or about 3%.

Even if this happens, it's probably only enough to give Trump a slight edge.  It gives him Iowa, and Ohio, and shifts the battleground to CO, FL, NC, PA, MI, NH, and possibly WI.  Clinton still has many paths to 270, especially if she wins Florida or North Carolina.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Did I out-Nate-Silver Nate Silver?

[Pyro]

His odds of victory decrease each day, but it ain't over till it's over.

[Smeulders]

The primary way Hillary loses enough for Trump to pull ahead is if Assange releases some vicious details, solely about her. If he had anything game-changing though, he would have released it by now. Absentee/early votes already started. Even if he releases, MSM other than FOX news may give it only one day cycle and just bury it.

If he had anything that would stick, he would have released it by now. I'm not ruling out a late "leak" which turns out to be overblown/made up, but sounds bad enough to hurt Clinton and can't be disproven in time for the election.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

His odds of victory decrease each day, but it ain't over till it's over.

[BaldEagle1991]

Nope. Anything can happen from now.

There's always the possibility of a Halloween/October surprise favoring Donald Trump.

[PaperKooper]

Anything's possible, but I think the best chance for Trump right now:

1. A period of deep voter skepticism of Clinton - these windows happen for two weeks at a time, max
2. Extreme voter forgiveness of Trump - these are also two-week windows
3. These two coinciding at the exact same time
4. Election Day falling during this coincidence.

Number one has happened three times now - Comey's remarks, the wikileaks DNC emails, and the September slump.  I calculate this represents about 20% of this election cycle since April.  Which means if we have another such "event," it represents a probable 20% of the remaining days.

Number two happened three times: when Trump officially won the GOP nomination, when he got his convention bounce, and when he "went teleprompter."  I calculate this also represents about 20% of this election cycle since April, and another such "event" taking up a probable 20% of the remaining days.

Coinciding events would take up 0.2 * 0.2 = 4% of the remaining days of the cycle.  There are 33 days left.  Which means basically one day left, probabilistically, for this to occur.  And that one day left would have to be November 8.  Which means the probability of this happening is 1/33 or about 3%.

Even if this happens, it's probably only enough to give Trump a slight edge.  It gives him Iowa, and Ohio, and shifts the battleground to CO, FL, NC, PA, MI, NH, and possibly WI.  Clinton still has many paths to 270, especially if she wins Florida or North Carolina.

Your statistics are incorrect. 

If each candidate's event causes a change in the polls lasting 14 days and 20% of time is during the boost after such an event, then the probability of an event on an arbitrary day is (1/(14*5)) = (1/70).  The probability of an event occurring in the last 14 days before the election (when the polling boost would matter) is 1 - (69/70)^14, which is 18.2%.  The probability of a good event for Trump and a bad event for Clinton coinciding is .182^2, which is 3.3%.  This is the chance that Trump wins, given your assumptions. 

(Note that this assumes that Clinton can have only bad events, Trump can have only good, and that Trump loses unless a good event for him and a bad one for Clinton coincide.)

[Torie]

Of more interest than my opinion, will be the opinion of the Pub Party. I expect if the second debate does not reverse things, the Pubs will start pounding the drums that their candidates need to win to be a check on Hillary's ambitions when in office.

[BigSkyBob]

This thread is based on an assumption that Donald Trump is behind. That is merely an assumption. Several current polls place Donald Trump in the lead. The LA Times tracker has given him a small but persistent lead. It's methodology is different than most polls. If it's methodology is correct, Trump may very well be in the lead. If it is flawed, then, maybe Donald Trump is currently behind. In 2012, the Times tracker was claimed to be an outlier. Turns out it projected Obama's final margin. Salt to taste.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Anything's possible, but I think the best chance for Trump right now:

1. A period of deep voter skepticism of Clinton - these windows happen for two weeks at a time, max
2. Extreme voter forgiveness of Trump - these are also two-week windows
3. These two coinciding at the exact same time
4. Election Day falling during this coincidence.

Number one has happened three times now - Comey's remarks, the wikileaks DNC emails, and the September slump.  I calculate this represents about 20% of this election cycle since April.  Which means if we have another such "event," it represents a probable 20% of the remaining days.

Number two happened three times: when Trump officially won the GOP nomination, when he got his convention bounce, and when he "went teleprompter."  I calculate this also represents about 20% of this election cycle since April, and another such "event" taking up a probable 20% of the remaining days.

Coinciding events would take up 0.2 * 0.2 = 4% of the remaining days of the cycle.  There are 33 days left.  Which means basically one day left, probabilistically, for this to occur.  And that one day left would have to be November 8.  Which means the probability of this happening is 1/33 or about 3%.

Even if this happens, it's probably only enough to give Trump a slight edge.  It gives him Iowa, and Ohio, and shifts the battleground to CO, FL, NC, PA, MI, NH, and possibly WI.  Clinton still has many paths to 270, especially if she wins Florida or North Carolina.

Your statistics are incorrect. 

If each candidate's event causes a change in the polls lasting 14 days and 20% of time is during the boost after such an event, then the probability of an event on an arbitrary day is (1/(14*5)) = (1/70).  The probability of an event occurring in the last 14 days before the election (when the polling boost would matter) is 1 - (69/70)^14, which is 18.2%.  The probability of a good event for Trump and a bad event for Clinton coinciding is .182^2, which is 3.3%.  This is the chance that Trump wins, given your assumptions. 

(Note that this assumes that Clinton can have only bad events, Trump can have only good, and that Trump loses unless a good event for him and a bad one for Clinton coincide.)

We're not that far apart.  We're really talking about heuristics, not statistics.  Which is a fancy way of saying "the quantification of wild-ass guesses."

2-5% seems reasonable chances to me for a Trump victory.  If you ran this year from this point forward 100 times, two to five times you'd probably get a President Trump.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This thread is based on an assumption that Donald Trump is behind. That is merely an assumption. Several current polls place Donald Trump in the lead. The LA Times tracker has given him a small but persistent lead. It's methodology is different than most polls. If it's methodology is correct, Trump may very well be in the lead. If it is flawed, then, maybe Donald Trump is currently behind. In 2012, the Times tracker was claimed to be an outlier. Turns out it projected Obama's final margin. Salt to taste.

Whenever a campaign's supporters start spouting garbage like this, you know they've lost.

[Suburbia]

No. Anything can still happen in this presidential race.

[BoAtlantis]

This thread is based on an assumption that Donald Trump is behind. That is merely an assumption. Several current polls place Donald Trump in the lead. The LA Times tracker has given him a small but persistent lead. It's methodology is different than most polls. If it's methodology is correct, Trump may very well be in the lead. If it is flawed, then, maybe Donald Trump is currently behind. In 2012, the Times tracker was claimed to be an outlier. Turns out it projected Obama's final margin. Salt to taste.

The problem about LA times tracker is that they ask for people's self-reported votes in 2012 and use 26% of Obama voters and 23% of Romney voters sample (close to the final share of 52-47%) and then ask who they would vote for while assuming their sample is still representative of the population.

Since humans have a bias toward claiming "I voted for the winner", and some suffer from bad memory, that would overweigh Republicans in their samples. Essentially, some people that claim they voted for Obama probably were Romney voters.

Most scientific online polls with traditional weighting have Hillary ahead.

LA Times last poll in 2012 was in August. I'm not sure how they can claim they got their margin in 2012 exactly correct. They had Obama +2 and the final margin was +3.9.

I doubt they used the same method back then. The August 2012 poll says they teamed up with Greenberg Rosner, a Democratic pollster. Greenberg does not use tracking method.

[angus]

I was at the club tonight and I ran in to old Thomas, a retired wrestling coach from Lancaster High School.  Big time Republican.  I used to see him in the jacuzzi about twice a week a few years ago but I hadn't seen him for at least six months before this afternoon.  He was laughing about Trump and saying how it'll be a Clinton blowout.  "Almost anybody could beat Hillary," he said.  "Almost!" I said.  Emphasis on almost.  We lamented on the sad choices.  He even admitted that he thought Sanders would have been a good choice for the Democrats.  Better than Trump was for the Republicans, he said.  I told him I actually voted for Sanders in the primaries.  (It has been a long time since we saw each other.)  He couldn't stay long, because he had to attend a 4 o'clock mass at Saint John's, but he was clearly of the opinion that Trump was a sorry choice.  It was a bit surprising to me, because six or seven months ago all he could talk about was whoever the GOP nominated was going to blast Clinton.  

I think he may be typical of the average Republican voter of his age.  Not a big fan of Clinton, but realistic about how his own party nominated a WildCard and that they have themselves to blame.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

At this point, with 24 (basically 23) days left to go, I now think it's pretty clearly too late. Unless the polls are horribly wrong this race isn't going back to a tie, and under no conceivable circumstance does Trump pull ahead.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

This thread is based on an assumption that Donald Trump is behind. That is merely an assumption. Several current polls place Donald Trump in the lead. The LA Times tracker has given him a small but persistent lead. It's methodology is different than most polls. If it's methodology is correct, Trump may very well be in the lead. If it is flawed, then, maybe Donald Trump is currently behind. In 2012, the Times tracker was claimed to be an outlier. Turns out it projected Obama's final margin. Salt to taste.

No national non-tracking poll has placed Trump in the lead in the last week or two. But keep on telling yourself that.