What happened to convention bounce 4 Dems?

[Tero]

Not at the moment.

Not so

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1...ding-to-some-projections-trails-in-others.htm

 

[wareyin]

Not at the moment.

When I click on that link, I see Clinton 51, Trump 49. I'm on my phone, so can't tell if you are linking to the polls only, polls plus, or now section. Which metric were you using, and, since few polls get released overnight on weekends, was that model updated in the last 13 hours?

 

[Tony Stark]

When I click on that link, I see Clinton 51, Trump 49. I'm on my phone, so can't tell if you are linking to the polls only, polls plus, or now section. Which metric were you using, and, since few polls get released overnight on weekends, was that model updated in the last 13 hours?

It says it was updated 46 minutes ago.

 

[wareyin]

It says it was updated 46 minutes ago.

Thanks. Their mobile site lacks so much of the info that the full site gives.

I take it that when the link was posted, one of the settings (I'm guessing the "now" one) showed Trump slightly ahead?

 

[sunmaster14]

Not sure if you guys realize this or not, but Nate Silver's model is spitting out probabilities. 51%-49% is virtually indistinguishable from 49%-51% or even 45%-55%. I'd say that 60%-40% is about the smallest difference that I would consider to be an "edge." It's still not easy to distinguish a 60%-40% probability from 50%-50%.

The bottom line is that the Chicken Littles who honestly believe Trump would be a disaster for the country should not be sleeping well at night because Trump has only a 40% chance of winning. Frankly, if I were a Chicken Little, I would find 10% to be so frightening that I would be working on my contingency plans.

 

[Fudbucker]

Not sure if you guys realize this or not, but Nate Silver's model is spitting out probabilities. 51%-49% is virtually indistinguishable from 49%-51% or even 45%-55%. I'd say that 60%-40% is about the smallest difference that I would consider to be an "edge." It's still not easy to distinguish a 60%-40% probability from 50%-50%.

The bottom line is that the Chicken Littles who honestly believe Trump would be a disaster for the country should not be sleeping well at night because Trump has only a 40% chance of winning. Frankly, if I were a Chicken Little, I would find 10% to be so frightening that I would be working on my contingency plans.

I'll think we'll look back at the link I posted as being Trump's high water mark.

 

[newyorkguy]

There's some history here too. Since 1992, twenty-four years and six presidential elections, the Republicans are 2-4 and only won one by a big margin (2004) at a time when, essentially, the United States was at war.

I wish Trump would just come right out and say it:

"I'll crash the economy and get us into a ground war in the Middle East. And you know what? It'll be terrific!"

 

[jhunter1163]

Clinton +5 in a couple of new polls. More importantly, and ominously for Trump, she is +9 in Pennsylvania, which is one of the states that Trump simply has to win to have any chance at getting to 270.

 

[newyorkguy]

I recently read a review in The New Yorker called Drawing the Line: How redistricting turned America from blue to red. It is about how the Republicans have mastered the art of redrawing districts. In 2010 the Republican Party came up with a strategy they called REDMAP, for Redistricting Majority Project. REDMAP was created in early 2010, at a point when the country’s electoral map was largely blue. It has worked amazingly well.

In Pennsylvania-

So skillfully were the lines drawn that in 2012...the state’s Democratic congressional candidates collectively outpolled their G.O.P. rivals by nearly a hundred thousand votes [yet] Republicans still won thirteen of Pennsylvania’s eighteen seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Link

Think about it. In 2012 there were 1.1 million MORE registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania but the GOP was 13-5 in the Congressional elections held that year. News link In 2016 there are still close to a million more registered Democrats in Pennsylvania (about 3 million to 2 million).

Except it doesn't work as well in state-wide elections. In Michigan:

“The 2012 election was a huge success for Democrats at the statewide level in Michigan,” they wrote. “Voters elected a Democratic U.S. Senator by more than 20 points and reelected President Obama by almost 10 points.” Still, Republicans ended up with the lion’s share of the state’s congressional seats—nine, to the Democrats’ five.

This is what the GOP is worried about, Trump doing poorly enough in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania that he could tilt a lot of Congressional and state legislator races in places where the Democrats already have sizeable majorities of registered voters. We're in uncharted waters here.

And by the way, does the Republican Party's platform still include support for American democracy?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thus, to answer the OP. This is what happened to the post-convention bounce:

Her overall average at RealClear is up by 1. The poll cited in the OP, which is a rolling poll, started out at Trump +7 and on subsequent days has been 7,,6,5,4. And it's a poll that is weighted heavily Rep+++++.

In less than 3 full days since the final gavel, with the full bounce not yet visible.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'll think we'll look back at the link I posted as being Trump's high water mark.

Well, if you believe the model, and assume that probabilities don't jump discontinuously in response to events (which might be a bad assumption), then your conjecture is unlikely.

A 40% winning probability for Trump means that he has an 80% chance of reaching 50% and a 50% chance of reaching an 80% winning probability. And of course a 40% chance of reaching a 100% winning probability.

So, if I were you, I'd load up on extra clean underwear.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, if you believe the model, and assume that probabilities don't jump discontinuously in response to events (which might be a bad assumption), then your conjecture is unlikely.

A 40% winning probability for Trump means that he has an 80% chance of reaching 50% and a 50% chance of reaching an 80% winning probability. And of course a 40% chance of reaching a 100% winning probability.

So, if I were you, I'd load up on extra clean underwear.

Have fun with your dream. Trump and the GOP had their moment and couldn't do better than taking a dump in the national spotlight. The probability you're so fond of is TODAY'S. Watch where it goes in the next couple of weeks. The current betting market is only Hillary at 60%. Watch that go up, too.

The gloom-and-doom forecasters have one scenario in common, and it really rather disgusts me. "Gee, a good terrorist attack about now would sure help." They don't mention that it needs to be in the USA. The reactions to terrorist attacks in Europe are not that pronounced on the voters. It doesn't feel a little dirty sitting next to people hoping for a nice handful of dead countrymen because it'd help their political causes or prognostications?

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't understand how having a 40% winning probability translates to a 50% chance of reaching an 80% winning probability. Does this formula work for Clinton, too? Probably not.

 

[acbytesla]

I recently read a review in The New Yorker called Drawing the Line: How redistricting turned America from blue to red. It is about how the Republicans have mastered the art of redrawing districts. In 2010 the Republican Party came up with a strategy they called REDMAP, for Redistricting Majority Project. REDMAP was created in early 2010, at a point when the country’s electoral map was largely blue. It has worked amazingly well.

In Pennsylvania-


Think about it. In 2012 there were 1.1 million MORE registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania but the GOP was 13-5 in the Congressional elections held that year. News link In 2016 there are still close to a million more registered Democrats in Pennsylvania (about 3 million to 2 million).

Except it doesn't work as well in state-wide elections. In Michigan:


This is what the GOP is worried about, Trump doing poorly enough in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania that he could tilt a lot of Congressional and state legislator races in places where the Democrats already have sizeable majorities of registered voters. We're in uncharted waters here.

And by the way, does the Republican Party's platform still include support for American democracy?

Gerrymandering is a practice both parties engage in that's why state houses can't be ignored. Particularly after the Census Is taken. The Koch brothers have spent more money on winning majorities in the state houses, Governors and state judgeships as it has on Senate and Presidential races. In fact the Koch brothers refuse to give Trump a dime, but are throwing a ton of money into about 6 Senate seats.

 

[sunmaster14]

Have fun with your dream. Trump and the GOP had their moment and couldn't do better than taking a dump in the national spotlight. The probability you're so fond of is TODAY'S. Watch where it goes in the next couple of weeks. The current betting market is only Hillary at 60%. Watch that go up, too.

Well, as I suspected, you don't really understand Silver's model, nor probabilities in general. That 60/40 (technically, it's 60.9/39.1 right now) is the output of the model for the election outcome taking everything into account. Not just the current state and national polls, but the convention bounces, the economy, the polls concerning consumer confidence and Presidential approval, as well as the time remaining for new information to arise. It also tries to take into account the probability of a systematic bias in the polls one way or another. So, in theory, everything is in those numbers. I'm not saying the model is right, but I think it's more likely to be right than any other numbers that people have come up with, especially "feelings" that you pull out of your butt. In the short run, the probabilities are equally likely to go in Hillary's favor as not. In the long run, the probabilities are more likely to go in Hillary's favor by approximately 60% to 40%. But none of that matters. If you go to sleep and wake up on Nov. 9, 3 out of 5 times Hillary will be the President elect, and 2 out of 5 times, Trump will be.

The gloom-and-doom forecasters have one scenario in common, and it really rather disgusts me. "Gee, a good terrorist attack about now would sure help." They don't mention that it needs to be in the USA. The reactions to terrorist attacks in Europe are not that pronounced on the voters. It doesn't feel a little dirty sitting next to people hoping for a nice handful of dead countrymen because it'd help their political causes or prognostications?

Well, I wonder if you felt dirty while millions of your fellow liberals and quite a few high profile members of the Democratic Party, including the Senate Majority Leader, were rooting the Iraq War to go bad and for more US troops and Iraqi civilians to die. I know I was disgusted by that, but somehow I'm sure you rationalized that behavior in your own mind.

Regardless, I don't think it would take a devastating terrorist attack for Trump to win. All it would take is for Trump to show improved discipline (which we actually saw in his convention speech), or perhaps the presence of a larger than expected "Bradley effect" (which I believe is at work). The moribund economy (growing at about 1% in 2016 so far) might also sink in to the collective consciousness, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to avoid mentioning the topic.

As far as terrorism is concerned, I'm rooting for the FBI to uncover a huge plot to perpetrate a terrorist attack in the US and boast about it publicly. That would highlight the threat, while allowing people to remain rational about how to deal with that threat. Also, it would be nice to have such an anti-terrorism success, since I think it is quite likely that there are terrorist sympathizers plotting bad things in this country as we speak.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, as I suspected, you don't really understand Silver's model, nor probabilities in general. That 60/40 (technically, it's 60.9/39.1 right now) is the output of the model for the election outcome taking everything into account. Not just the current state and national polls, but the convention bounces, the economy, the polls concerning consumer confidence and Presidential approval, as well as the time remaining for new information to arise. It also tries to take into account the probability of a systematic bias in the polls one way or another. So, in theory, everything is in those numbers. I'm not saying the model is right, but I think it's more likely to be right than any other numbers that people have come up with, especially "feelings" that you pull out of your butt. In the short run, the probabilities are equally likely to go in Hillary's favor as not. In the long run, the probabilities are more likely to go in Hillary's favor by approximately 60% to 40%. But none of that matters. If you go to sleep and wake up on Nov. 9, 3 out of 5 times Hillary will be the President elect, and 2 out of 5 times, Trump will be.



Well, I wonder if you felt dirty while millions of your fellow liberals and quite a few high profile members of the Democratic Party, including the Senate Majority Leader, were rooting the Iraq War to go bad and for more US troops and Iraqi civilians to die. I know I was disgusted by that, but somehow I'm sure you rationalized that behavior in your own mind.

Regardless, I don't think it would take a devastating terrorist attack for Trump to win. All it would take is for Trump to show improved discipline (which we actually saw in his convention speech), or perhaps the presence of a larger than expected "Bradley effect" (which I believe is at work). The moribund economy (growing at about 1% in 2016 so far) might also sink in to the collective consciousness, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to avoid mentioning the topic.

As far as terrorism is concerned, I'm rooting for the FBI to uncover a huge plot to perpetrate a terrorist attack in the US and boast about it publicly. That would highlight the threat, while allowing people to remain rational about how to deal with that threat. Also, it would be nice to have such an anti-terrorism success, since I think it is quite likely that there are terrorist sympathizers plotting bad things in this country as we speak.

You just make this crap up as you go. What you are saying is TOTALLY FALSE. It is right wing spin and nothing else.

I don't have a crystal ball and I'm never totally comfortable about the outcome of any election. And I know from history throughout the world that nut jobs sometimes do get elected. I'd much rather Democrats feel they can lose than to think it's going to be a cakewalk.

Far too many people think this is going to be easy than I'm comfortable with. I want them working hard to make it damn clear that this is too important an election to take for granted. They need to vote, their spouses need to vote, their friends need to vote, their dearly departeds need to vote.

And then we can have not only a progressive in the White House but a working majority as well. Without which it will be hard if not impossible to make any real progress.

And while I do believe that if we Dems get out the vote Trump will be crushed like an ant, we still need to get out the vote.

 

[sunmaster14]

You just make this crap up as you go. What you are saying is TOTALLY FALSE. It is right wing spin and nothing else.

I seem to have struck a nerve, no doubt because you know I speak the truth. When the troop surge started to work, the desperation among Democrats was almost palpable. There is no question in my mind that people like Harry Reid and many, many others in Congress, including Hillary and Obama, wanted the surge to fail and for Iraq to remain a hellhole. Well, I suppose they eventually got their wish, although Obama had to become President and spitefully withdraw all troops and leave Iraq to its own devices for that to come to fruition.

 

[wareyin]

I seem to have struck a nerve, no doubt because you know I speak the truth. When the troop surge started to work, the desperation among Democrats was almost palpable. There is no question in my mind that people like Harry Reid and many, many others in Congress, including Hillary and Obama, wanted the surge to fail and for Iraq to remain a hellhole. Well, I suppose they eventually got their wish, although Obama had to become President and spitefully withdraw all troops and leave Iraq to its own devices for that to come to fruition.

You do know that your mind-reading has a 100% failure rate, whether you use it on fellow forumites or politicians, don't you? It is helpful, though, because when I read something you write about what other people are/were thinking, I can feel pretty secure knowing that the opposite is probably what they were thinking.

 

[acbytesla]

I seem to have struck a nerve, no doubt because you know I speak the truth. When the troop surge started to work, the desperation among Democrats was almost palpable. There is no question in my mind that people like Harry Reid and many, many others in Congress, including Hillary and Obama, wanted the surge to fail and for Iraq to remain a hellhole. Well, I suppose they eventually got their wish, although Obama had to become President and spitefully withdraw all troops and leave Iraq to its own devices for that to come to fruition.

That it is another OUTRIGHT LIE strikes a nerve. That it is part of this right wing disinformation campaign strikes a nerve.

There is no problem with honest disagreements on policy. In fact, it's healthy.

What is not healthy is dishonest and slanderous rhetoric. It's toxic to a democracy.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They need to vote, their spouses need to vote, their friends need to vote, their dearly departeds need to vote.

Shame on you for suggesting this.