For all who say it's over., look back to 2000

[TC 25]

Of the last 75 polls in the Bush vs Gore race in 2000, Bush led in almost all of the.m.  Two weeks out I found polls with Bush leading by 7, 8, even 13 points.   Keep in mind when writing off Trump

[Ban my account ffs!]

So Trump wins the popular vote and Clinton the presidency?  Lets see if the GOP reacts as calmly as the Democrats did.  Let's see.

[Wisconsin+17]

So you're saying that Trump is going to make it close but still lose?

[Doimper]

So you're saying the Democratic candidate will significantly outperform polls?

[Devout Centrist]

Yeah, you found 'a' poll. That's called cherry picking.

[TC 25]

Polling report.com

Last 125 polls

Bush led 109
Gore led 7
Tie 9

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Polling report.com

Last 125 polls

Bush led 109
Gore led 7
Tie 9

Serious question... are you new to this?

[Ogre Mage]

The situation really is not comparable.  By the very end of the campaign, Gore was trailing in the polls by an average of about 3.25 points.  There were also earlier points in the campaign (September) when Gore was clearly leading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2000

Trump is trailing Clinton by around 7 points.  He has never led in this race.

[Arbitrage1980]

You are forgetting the main reason why the race tightened. The weekend before the election, Bush's DUI story from back when he was 30 years old, leaked to the media, and his numbers plummeted as a result. If that had not happened, Bush would've won comfortably.

[Adam Griffin]

Not sure what's being proven here. The result was within the margin of error based on the final polls at that time. Things could change, but the notion that Trump can win with the current polling out there is dumb.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. Trump has lead 8 days of the last year. 4 during the convention and 4 in May.

The only election comparable who actually won was Truman. Reagan was down, but turned it around in the final week, and had leads throughout the summer.

Truman was down 5 but won the 'poll on election day'.

[Hammy]

You are forgetting the main reason why the race tightened. The weekend before the election, Bush's DUI story from back when he was 30 years old, leaked to the media, and his numbers plummeted as a result. If that had not happened, Bush would've won comfortably.

I remember that--I've seen quite a few articles saying that while it may not have cost him states, it likely reduced turnout in more conservative areas and likely cost him the PV.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

hmm random bombshells popping up way after the primaries? Where have I heard that before?

[Kalimantan]

Of the last 75 polls in the Bush vs Gore race in 2000, Bush led in almost all of the.m.  Two weeks out I found polls with Bush leading by 7, 8, even 13 points.   Keep in mind when writing off Trump

Well I think that's a fair point and worth mentioning. My feeling is that it was an incumbency effect, that people like the idea of change but in times when the economy is good and the country largely peaceful, they'll revert to the status quo. Certainly see it in UK elections all the time.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In 2000, about 85% of the electorate cast their vote on election day. Nowadays, it will be only 65% or so, the rest participates in early voting. This also means if Trump manages to close the gap in the polls until election day, it will still have less relevance than it did back in 2000.

[Hydera]

In 2000, about 85% of the electorate cast their vote on election day. Nowadays, it will be only 65% or so, the rest participates in early voting. This also means if Trump manages to close the gap in the polls until election day, it will still have less relevance than it did back in 2000.

Besides the percentage of whites as the total electorate is probably going to be 10-12% down compared to 2000. Maybe the race would be even if this was 2000 demographics but its not.

[Desroko]

In 2000, about 85% of the electorate cast their vote on election day. Nowadays, it will be only 65% or so, the rest participates in early voting. This also means if Trump manages to close the gap in the polls until election day, it will still have less relevance than it did back in 2000.

And in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada, the election day vote is near or below 50% of the total.

[°Leprechaun]

TC 25, Welcome to uselectionatlas.org; as you can see it isn't a very friendly place.
(I do think Clinton is going to win, but I'm not going to attack you simply for having a different pov)

[Rand]

I don't recall Bush being so unpopular and polling at only 39-41%. The electoral map has also shifted significantly toward Democrats and state polls corroborate a strong national Clinton lead at this point. A bombshell of epic proportions needs to drop or undecideds and soft Clinton supporters need to switch to Trump in big numbers if he's going to win.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm

[Arbitrage1980]

You are forgetting the main reason why the race tightened. The weekend before the election, Bush's DUI story from back when he was 30 years old, leaked to the media, and his numbers plummeted as a result. If that had not happened, Bush would've won comfortably.

I remember that--I've seen quite a few articles saying that while it may not have cost him states, it likely reduced turnout in more conservative areas and likely cost him the PV.

Including Florida, there were 5 states that were decided by a margin of less than 1%: New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa. All those were won by Gore, so I think it would have impacted the electoral college as well. Most likely Bush would have won Wisconsin and Iowa, which have a lot of conservative whites while Gore would have kept New Mexico and Oregon.

[SirMuxALot]

Truman was down 5 but won the 'poll on election day'.

The Truman precedent might be the only one Trump hopefuls can hang their hat on, but ugh...that was a long time ago.  Polling science has undoubtedly learned a lot since the 1940s.

I think Nate Silver had a good article somewhere on the Truman surprise.  Can't find it now, but my key takeaway was that the pollsters just flat out stopping polling Dewey-Truman at least a week before the end.  And therefore missed a big late break of voters to Truman.

[Person Man]

Truman was down 5 but won the 'poll on election day'.

The Truman precedent might be the only one Trump hopefuls can hang their hat on, but ugh...that was a long time ago.  Polling science has undoubtedly learned a lot since the 1940s.

I think Nate Silver had a good article somewhere on the Truman surprise.  Can't find it now, but my key takeaway was that the pollsters just flat out stopping polling Dewey-Truman at least a week before the end.  And therefore missed a big late break of voters to Truman.

So the biggest comeback in 70 years and that is assuming a lot.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

At this point if it were revealed that Hillary had a DUI in 1978, would it matter AT ALL?  Because that is one possible reason why Bush underperformed his polling.

Seems silly today, really.

[ag]

Alas, it is not over, whatever the examples or lack thereoff. Let us not be too much in awe of the Laws of Small Numbers

I really would want it to be done and sealed and HRC to be inaugurated already. But I will not sleep secure till after the election. There are far too many things that can go wrong.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I doubt the polls can swing that much this year: the electorate is much more polarized, voter engagement is higher, preferences are more baked-in, and the ideological difference between the candidates is greater.