When did you feel Hillary Clinton was in Danger of losing

[rob in cal]

  In the last week of the campaign when she wasn't putting the focus of her campaign on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, assuming that enough of the deplorable electorate would come home to her without her campaigning much in those states.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

April 1-19 2016, September 15-26 2016, October 28-November 6 2016, November 8, 2016 9:30 PM-until Trump won.

[Grassroots]

I knew she was very vulnerable as soon as she announced she was running.

I find it strange that people barely ever considered the possibility of her losing.

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

Entire time. In a bet of the tossup states, I predicted MI, FL, NV, NH, PA, OH, NC, and IA for Donald Trump. I predicted WI, VA, and CO for Hillary Clinton. The three of us didn't think AZ, ME, or MN would be tossups, but they were.

[IceSpear]

Funny how suddenly everyone knew it was gonna happen all along.

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

Funny how suddenly everyone knew it was gonna happen all along.

I didn't say that to impress anyone (I admitted I got several states wrong). Since Florida's RCP average was always close, they were both "in danger of losing" at all times.

[IceSpear]

Funny how suddenly everyone knew it was gonna happen all along.

I didn't say that to impress anyone (I admitted I got several states wrong). Since Florida's RCP average was always close, they were both "in danger of losing" at all times.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular, obviously some people really did think Trump would win and were correct. But in 2016 I spent more time arguing that Hillary wasn't going to win Utah or Texas than I spent arguing she was going to win. Polls overwhelmingly showed Americans thought she would win. Even many Trump supporters thought she would win.

But now suddenly everyone saw it coming a mile away. So convenient.

[morgankingsley]

Once she won the nomination, and Trump had won the nomination, it was over. Any republican would have won that year. I was the only one who said it was going to happen in my friend group. Besides, on a lot of the polls, she only had a few percent lead, with about a fifth of polls predicting a Trump victory. Even fivethirtyeight gave him like a 29 percent chance of winning. Besides, Johnson went from an 11 percent polling down to like 3.3 percent or so. Johnson should honestly have been the only reason there could be any doubt of his victory. The only time I ever even had a slight moment of doubt was after the pussy tape got leaked, and even that was faded away after he won all three debates in a landslide (I don't care what the polls say, he did). Hillary losing was not really all THAT out of nowhere.

1948 however was. Anybody who says that 2016 was the biggest upset in history needs to go back to 1948. Not only did you have no polls saying Truman would win, but you had two third party splits, one of which picked up 4 states with 2 percent of the popular vote, imagine if he had a percent or so more, and then another one which stole New York from Truman as well as nearly stole California.

[morgankingsley]

I know people hate double posting, but whatever.

I think most people had that SLIGHT sinking doubt in their mind. Like in Batman's words in BVS "if there's even a one percent chance" I think most people were like that. But a one percent chance thought was not enough to convince them. But now in hindsight looking back, it is hard to look back and see her winning as a run away event when you actually break down all the events

[TheSaint250]

When Wisconsin was called.

[ON Progressive]

I knew it was over when Minnesota was "too close to call" at poll closing time.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm surprised nobody has chimed in about  Dick Morris, since that guy is never right.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I mean, what can you say when the "stupider" school of thought actually turned out to be right?

I'll give the people who "predicted" it some accolades, but for the vast majority of the race, the evidence did point to a Clinton win. Trump people had "their gut," "social media," and "crowd sizes." Does them getting it right make them any smarter or more astute? I think no... but they think so. And that is one of the many reasons why the post-Trump atmosphere has been so insufferable. "Gut," in all its forms, has been validated. That means fake news, racism, violence... Pretty sucky.

[here2view]

The only time I ever even had a slight moment of doubt was after the pussy tape got leaked, and even that was faded away after he won all three debates in a landslide (I don't care what the polls say, he did).

Well, I can tell you he didn't win because you thought he performed well at the debates.

[morgankingsley]

The only time I ever even had a slight moment of doubt was after the pussy tape got leaked, and even that was faded away after he won all three debates in a landslide (I don't care what the polls say, he did).

Well, I can tell you he didn't win because you thought he performed well at the debates.

Enough people thought he did well in the debates to vote for him in election day when they were undecided before hand so yeah my personal opinion is not as important as the truth and the truth is many people thought he did

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well, Clinton had the nomination in 2008 locked up, and in SC it slipped through her hand.  And the very same thing happened in 2016, where she was supposed to be president.

But, she only was Senator from a secular state like NY,  and her baggage wasn't a problem there, where nationwide, it was a problem.

[Kingpoleon]

About 7:00 CST.

[zorkpolitics]

After the conventions I was sure she would win.  After the debates I was sure she would win.  After the access tapes I was sure she would win. At 8:00 I was sure she would win.
About 9:00 EST I had my first doubts

[morgankingsley]

I asked my dad for his answer, and he said once trump hit 200 electoral votes

[Averroës Nix]

I mean, what can you say when the "stupider" school of thought actually turned out to be right?

I'll give the people who "predicted" it some accolades, but for the vast majority of the race, the evidence did point to a Clinton win. Trump people had "their gut," "social media," and "crowd sizes." Does them getting it right make them any smarter or more astute? I think no... but they think so. And that is one of the many reasons why the post-Trump atmosphere has been so insufferable. "Gut," in all its forms, has been validated. That means fake news, racism, violence... Pretty sucky.

The evidence pointed to a narrow Clinton win, but not at the level of confidence that most political observers assumed. Both the national and state popular vote results were consistent with polling in the weeks preceding the election, and a lot of pundits and analysts should have been eating crow for assuming otherwise. Instead we were subjected to months of angst-ridden prattle about how the polls failed us.

Of course, you're right: Predictions should be judged by both distance from reality and the plausibility of their reasoning. You have those who predicted, correctly, that Trump would lose the popular vote narrowly based on careful consideration of polling, recent elections, and so on. You also have loudmouths who boasted that Trump would win in a landslide because he could land at a random Midwestern airport and draw in thousands of yokels with the promise that the circus had come to town for a free all-ages show. Yet somehow the election granted more credibility and visibility to the latter.

[MAINEiac4434]

I had a nightmare the weekend before the election, and it made me think she would lose. By Monday, though, I was confident she'd win and it'd be a solid victory.

On election night, it was about 9:30 when I realized something was very, very wrong.

[Sestak]

When Virginia was closer than expected my gut feeling told me I should really be worrying. But it wasn't until MI-WI was substantially in that I fully accepted it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

When she lost Ohio, but she was mathematically still in the game until Toomey won Pa

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I mean, what can you say when the "stupider" school of thought actually turned out to be right?

I'll give the people who "predicted" it some accolades, but for the vast majority of the race, the evidence did point to a Clinton win. Trump people had "their gut," "social media," and "crowd sizes." Does them getting it right make them any smarter or more astute? I think no... but they think so. And that is one of the many reasons why the post-Trump atmosphere has been so insufferable. "Gut," in all its forms, has been validated. That means fake news, racism, violence... Pretty sucky.

I believe this is what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Deblano]

Mid 2016, after she had finished fighting off a strong challenge from Bernie Sanders.