Nate Silver seems to be saying the writing is on the wall at this point

[Dr. Jack]

Nate Silver has had a series of posts on twitter today and the impression I am getting is that he's feeling much more confident in saying that the writing is on the wall for Trump at this point. He is doing is usual hedging, a bit, but overall he seems to be saying that Trump is probably fucked.

Here is what the prophet has to say:

I know this point was made repeatedly last night including by me, but after sleeping on it, I wonder if people aren't still underrating the importance of the debate having been Trump's best remaining opportunity to climb back into the race and it seemingly having been squandered. Trump can win. It's mathematically possible that polls could be waayyy off or something could come from totally out of the blue. But there are also a lot of things working against him in the final 11 days. COVID cases are rising. He's way behind in $. And 50m have already voted....I think the takes were right directionally, but this is a weird case where a non-event (the debate probably won't change many minds) is a big deal and maybe people are underestimating it magnitude-wise. On top of that, the WSJ fiasco with the Hunter Biden story was probably the last chance for that story to be taken seriously by the mainstream/non-partisan media, for better or worse. There really is kind of a parallel universe of Trump-friendly polls that are on a completely different planet from the polling consensus. The polling world is not unlike the rest of the media in that regard.

I combined all of his tweets into one paragraph, including some clarifications he made to people's questions about what he is saying. But nothing is missing from what he said and these are not taken out of context. If you want to find all of the things he said today, you have to dig through some of the replies.


https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538

[Drunken Irishman]

1. A really different tone than what Silver took four years ago.

He was way more cautious then about Hillary's anemic lead.

[still_one]

2. We can "thank" Comey for what happened in 2016

[Buckeye_Democrat]

8. And it was hard to fully judge the effects until...

... after the election, from exit polls.

There were very few state polls released during the week prior to the election, so Silver and others were mostly in the dark anyway.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Even before Comey, she was struggling.

11 days out, she led Trump by an average of 4.6 points nationally. That was before the Comey Letter. It absolutely cost her the election but she was only on path for a very narrow win prior to its release.

To contrast, Biden is up by at least double Hillary was 11 days out.

The problem is that Hillary was not at a point in the polls where she could absorb a hit like the Comey Letter. She was damaged even before then by the relentless, untrue attacks on her throughout the campaign. Unfortunately, they stuck.

[Marius25]

30. Hillary also didn't have 50 million people already vote

before the Comey letter. We're almost at half of the total vote tally for 2016 with 11 days to go before the election. The more people that vote early, the less impact something like a Comey bombshell will have on the race this time.

[LisaM]

55. She had already had to regain ground from Comey's first attack in July.

Remember, after she got a convention bump, in swooped Comey.

And the media wouldn't cover her events. I was watching CNN yesterday, and Dana Bash was musing on the type of events Hillary held in 2016 - meeting with 100 people in a high-school gym, for example. The media preferred rallies and was much more likely to cover them, even though it was the same person spouting the same speech over and over and over. They likewise ignored her in 2008 (she was in Seattle one weekend and did three events, including a town hall with nurses, compared to the combined total of two for Obama and McCain, but the media just covered Obama's big rally). That was to her detriment, because her one-on-one engagement with voters and their real life problems is her bailiwick, just not glam enough for the media.

Anyway, back to the topic, Hillary had climbed back up after Comey knee-capped her in July, and then he did it again. I hate that guy.

[Butterflylady]

56. I think you're right in your last paragraph.

The amount of dislike for Hillary was under estimated. The thing of it is that I don't understand is why? I don't think I'm ever going to understand that, although I've developed a hatred for dump, but that's not hard to understand.

Several years ago in a conversation with an in-law the topic of Hillary came up and the dislike thing was brought up but I didn't question it any further because of family ties. The only thing I can come up with is that the right holds a monopoly on hate.

[lagomorph777]

16. Even another DOJ or FBI trick wouldn't work now. Thanks to Trump and Barr, they are untrusted.

But Joe is a very trusted person.

[getagrip_already]

39. don't forget house and senate hearings.. media complicity... actual vote tampering...

There were LOTS of reasons the comey letter had the impact it did, but the media amplified it and used it to generate intense negative feelings toward clinton - and had been doing so for years.

bengazi, emails, wikileaks, russian trolls using information provided by the gop to target americans.. dark money coming in from overseas.

LOTS of reason. Comey was the match, but the fuel was already there.

[PTWB]

45. The election was decided by a few thousand voters in 3 states

- mere tenths of one percent.

You can blame her loss on any issue you point to.

[beachbumbob]

3. Hillary was a flawed candidate to begin with and why any so called "lead" was problematic

2020 is NOT in way, shape or form related to 2016. Hell I expect the true Biden lead to be much larger as the impact of 3rd party voting will be maxed out at 2% and really will have zero impact in the "battleground states" at all, unlike 2016

[dsc]

5. yeah she didn't have a penis

and the press hated her guts. Those were her flaws.

[JI7]

11. +

[jcgoldie]

23. Ding ding ding

Fuck that sexist “flawed candidate” bullshit.

[brush]

33. Right, as if the orange turd wasn't.

I will go to my grave knowing that election was stolen from her. It will come out at some point.

Mueller was supposed to do it but it turns out he was past his prime and didn't press hard enough to get to the botton. He didn't even interview the liar trump.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

28. And all the Russian bot shit spread on the internet about her: from game boards to cooking chat room

That stuff was picked up and repeated as if it were credible rather than just slanderous.

And I'll never forget or forgive that old man Bill Maher for deriding her about her age, her looks, her "dated" pant suits. Bill Marr fancies himself a ladies man who used to hang out at the playboy mansion, who just can't stand women of a "certain age" (who he's probably older than).

No, she wasn't a flawed candidate. She was just an incredibly intelligent, strong, and brave woman. Maybe some people see that as a "flaw".

[DFW]

50. That sums it up nicely

Her “flaws” were in the eyes of some powerful media beholders. Her assets were in the eyes of about 3 million more voters than those who voted for Trumppence.

[Amishman]

58. The public didn't like her much and she ran a poor campaign

Her favorable/unfavorable was deep in the negatives, and her campaign neglected the rust belt until it was too late.

Sexism was a factor, but only one of many, and probably not the biggest one either.

[Boxerfan]

6. It is not that she was flawed.

She was pre-maligned for a decade and more. Daily constant maligning of her character-all false. Thanks to RW radio & Rush Lintballs -(I Hope he FAILS).

[Cosmocat]

17. This

is correct. I use the term she was a "fragile public figure.'

Not saying that SHE was fragile, just that after 20 years of right wing slander people's view of her was so poisoned that the public's perception of her was such that something like Comey's shit show press conference late spring and the letter at the end of the campaign they turned negative on her more strongly than someone who did not have right wingers making her to to be the spawn of satan for nearly a quarter century.

[dsc]

25. No it wasn't Rush (at least not just Rush)

mainstream media had Clinton derangement syndrome for decades and anyone related to Bill Clinton was an object of the mainstream media's derision. I mean only 20 years ago, a major candidate for President was constantly called a liar by mainstream reporters for basically 7 things, of which, only 1 was actually a lie. That major candidate was Gore, the VP of Bill Clinton. Fast forward to 2008 when MSNBC, not Rush Limbaugh, had to suspend not one, not two, not three, but four different hosts for comments about Hillary (all kept their jobs it should be noted). Chris Matthews in particular was truly awful. Then in 2016, it wasn't Limbaugh who turned over the NYT editorial page to a lying right wing hack who attacked Clinton's charity, it wasn't Limbaugh who ran an entire front page about her emails. It wasn't Limbaugh who did any of that.

[getagrip_already]

40. yup - just look back at the daily morning scum diatribes...

he was 100% behind trump because trump wasn't hillary. even mika hated her.

It was everywhere.

[Dave Starsky]

43. It was her role in attempting to reform healthcare in the mid-90s.

HOW DARE THE FIRST LADY DO THAT!!! That gave the Republicans' little pee-pees a rage boner that hasn't subsided since.

[Me.]

7. She May Have Been Flawed But Let's Not Forget She Still Won THe Poplular Vote

Comey was a huge factor which is why the Menace is trying for a repeat and Russia was another so can we please drop the Con meme about HRC? All candidates are flawed and the most is the one currently sitting in the WH

[TwilightZone]

9. Every candidate is flawed.

There is no perfect candidate. Everyone has issues or stances or events in their past that the opponents will try to exploit. Sometimes, they're valid. Sometimes, they're ridiculous. But her e-mails and Benghazi were ridiculous, yet quite influential on the race.

What didn't help in 2016 was a not-insignificant portion of the left buying into and amplifying the nonsense up to the day of the election. With a few exceptions, that ended this cycle when the primaries did.

[beachbumbob]

14. bottom line, she was flawed even within the democratic party that saw the leftwing actively go after

her to be defeated like they did in 2000 to defeat Gore

took a perfect storm to beat her but that storm does not exist in 2020

[TwilightZone]

26. Biden is flawed "even within the Democratic Party"

That argument could be used for anyone, because there's always a segment of the left that runs off the tracks. Every candidate we've had for decades was "flawed" in their eyes. Biden certainly is, from their perspective - the supporters of his primary opponents made certain everyone knew about it, as well.

As for the leftwing actively going after Clinton, prominent members of his primary opponent's staff were some of those most vehemently pushing the "dementia" bullshit about Biden. The difference is that it - for the most part - stopped when the primaries ended. In part, because those pushing it now look like idiots. Well, they looked like idiots then, but I digress....

[StevieM]

37. I totally disagree.

That is just a nonsense sexist talking point.

[Dr. Jack]

21. I think that is the key takeaway from 2016 but people don't realize it yet

I think Hillary Clinton is a good person and would make a good president but fair or not, she has a ton of political baggage. A lot of people don't like her and would never vote for her no matter how bad the Republican candidate is. From a praticle standpoint she was never a good choice as a nominee. It has everything to do with decades of right wing smears and conspiracy theories. A lot of people in 2016 knew Trump would make a terrible president but they also couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Unfair? Absolutely. But that is reality. That is why Bernie Sanders, at the time a little known independent senator from Vermont (yes I know we all knew who he was in 2016 but most Americans and even Democrats did not) was able to get 45% of the vote and come fairly close to beating her in the primaries. Sure his message appealed to a lot of people but a good amount of his support was probably from "anybody but Clinton" Democrats. And that is why he failed to take off at all in 2020. He was running against much more "electable" Democratic candidates. Suddenly the "anybody but Clinton" voters in the primaries were free to choose, dare I say, better candidates than Sanders.

And I think that is what we are going to see in the general election in a few days. Trump barely won in 2016 because the anti-Hillary sentiment was just a bit stronger in key parts of the country than the anti-Trump sentiment. Take Clinton out of the picture, put in someone who is liked way more with way less baggage, and suddenly Trump can't gain any traction. It's not that Trump was some kind of political genius in 2016 or that he changed the political landscape of the U.S. He simply ran against an extremely weak Democratic nominee which allowed him to barely hold together a winning coalition. Biden is far, far stronger of a candidate than Clinton and that is why Trump has been losing badly this entire time. Just like in the primaries, take away Clinton and suddenly the "fringe" or oddball candidates (sorry Sanders supporters) have virtually no appeal.

There was no great miracle that allowed Trump to win or an untapped electorate that he was smart enough to know about. People knew he was full of shit in 2016 but some figured he was the better of two terrible options. We suddenly have a "good enough" to actually quite greate candidate, and now Trump is down by double digits.

[Dream Girl]

44. This!

[PTWB]

46. Dead on.

She had immense political baggage. Almost all of it was unwarranted but the fact that it shouldn’t exist doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

She was the victim of 30 years of right wing smears. It was a risk to run her as our candidate and ultimately it cost us.

She would have been one of the best Presidents in modern history if she could have gotten across the finish line. But decades of Rush Limbaugh’s lies took a toll.

We need to make them pay for that now.

[moonscape]

66. Mitch would never have allowed her to be

a great president. And the House would have started hearings that would’ve made Benghazi seem quaint. I admit to dreading what they were going to do to her in advance. We wouldn’t have had the blue wave in 2018. She too would have been a one term president and Mitch would not have allowed her to fill Scalia’s seat. They said as much.

With a dem Senate she would have been amazing though.

[JonLP24]

70. Sanders came in first or 2nd place in most states

I won't say they choose a better candidate as I think several candidates were better than Joe Biden. You're right in the sense that that Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton even though they made the same mistakes (Iraq war, etc)

If you actually looked at Sanders record and policies in many cases he was ahead of his time and he didn't make the same mistakes Biden or Hillary Clinton did. Sexism is the only explanation I can come up with but I supported Sanders both times based on the policies. A social democratic progressive is mainstream in many countries. Basically what he advocated for is already what several European countries & New Zealand has.

As someone who followed the primary closely the odds were in Sanders favor but many candidates dropped out and specifically endorsed Biden. Then there was the media who treated Sanders early wins unlike usual primary wins especially with Carville and Chris Matthews freaking out. Also the media is a lot more friendlier to Joe Biden than Hillary Clinton.

[Dr. Jack]

72. I like Sanders, don't get me wrong

I voted for Clinton in 2016 but Sanders in 2020. If I alone picked the president, Sanders would be my go to choice. But of course that isn't the case. There are other factors that need to be taken into account and Sanders is more of a fringe candidate, on policy, than Clinton or Biden. I agree with most of the things he says and believes but he isn't quite as mainstream as Biden or Clinton on his positions. He was a better choice than Clinton in 2016 but Biden was absolutely the right pick for 2020.

That was just a clarification to my point in the previous post. No Sanders hate intended. Just using him to prove how weak Clinton was in 2016 that someone so unknown at the time nearly won the nomination over Democratic power player Hillary Clinton.

[StevieM]

38. No. She wasn't.

She was a hell of a good candidate, and a hell of a good person.

[qanda]

48. She also didn't campaign in states that she thought she had won

Pitiful! Beyond that, don't discount the influence of Russian interference.

[Windy City Charlie]

15. Two differences from 2016

I see 2 differences from 2016. Not only is Biden polling above 50% in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but there's very few undecideds. Each of those states are at about 5% undecided. In 2016, Hillary was favored to win those 3 states, but was only polling in the 45% range, meaning there was on the average about 15% undecided. Even then, she barely lost them. The other difference I see is the amount of votes that have already been cast, which in turn makes me think overall voter turnout will be higher.

[GulfCoast66]

34. Sure. Because her lead was not this large nor durable.

[Doodley]

4. Trump is an empty suit and everyone can see that beyond his base that will settle for that as he

shares their bigoted values. He has absolutely nothing to offer apart from division and stupidity. That isn't enough to win the election, even with all his cheating.

[NewJeffCT]

10. The Comey letter came out almost 4 years ago now

I think it was what 10/26 or 10/27? the several days before that, it was trending towards hillary, if I recall.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. The Comey Letter came out 11 days before the election. We're 11 days out now.

2016 was held basically a week later, on the 8th. So, we're at the point of the Comey Letter.

She was actually trending down prior to the release. Her lead in the polls was 4.6 points 11 days out. It had been at 7 points in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape.

[lagomorph777]

22. Comey was still a trusted figure back then; DOJ and FBI don't have anybody like that now.

They wouldn't be able to pull off that stunt again. Barr would be laughed off the stage, and Wray, to most voters, is... "Ray who? Oh, he works for Barr? Hahahahahaha!"

[Drunken Irishman]

24. Comey also didn't make things up.

Maybe he mishandled the release of the letter but it was already pertaining to an investigation the FBI had closed on her. That's why it was significant. There's really nothing there with Biden.

They thought they had him with the emails but that fizzled.

[Me.]

59. What He Didn't Do

is reveal Trump was also being investigated

[lagomorph777]

64. A lie of omission, added to a lie of exaggeration.

[Me.]

67. Exactly

[Buckeye_Democrat]

20. It was still very close, but she was probably headed...

... for an EC victory until the Comey letter.

Then there were very few state polls released thereafter, so we mostly waited in bated breath to learn if it was really damaging. Exit polls later showed many voters decided in the last week, after his moronic reinvestigation announcement.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Here's a post I made on this subject four years ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512568719

[Buckeye_Democrat]

29. Thanks!

There seemed to be plenty of national polls that final week, but a general lack of new state polls if my memory is correct.

I definitely didn't predict losing PA, MI and WI based on their most recent polling in 2016.

Knew it was over even before WI was called for the orange blob (before PA and MI), based on the reported numbers and the remaining precincts to be counted.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. I didn't either.

I thought the states in danger were Nevada and Colorado (along with FL & NC, of course, with the expectation that OH & IA were out of reach). In my worst-case scenario, she wins PA, MI & WI but loses CO & NV and the election.

She obviously won both but lost much bigger states.

I knew she was likely to lose when Florida flipped. It had been her's, with a narrow lead, but then it flipped some time around 9 or 10 ET. At that point, it was clear she was underperforming in those three states she'd eventually lose.

The key hour, assuming all this vote by mail doesn't change things, will be between 8 and 9, maybe 8 through 10, ET. I've found that has, the last four elections, been the hour(s) where the results start becoming clearer.

In 2016, it's when I knew Hillary was in trouble.

In 2012, it's when I knew Obama was outperforming the polls and likely to win.

In 2008, it's when I knew Obama was doing what the polls said he was going to do (a lot of people had doubts about polls in 2008 like they do now, both because of 2004 and the idea of the Bradley Effect).

In 2004, it's when I realized all those exit polls leaked out during the day were likely wrong and Bush was doing stronger than expected.

I fully believe, especially with Florida, we'll have an idea who will be president between 8 and 10 ET, even if it's not called.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

32. The loss in Florida was foreboding, but I still had...

... hope until the loss of Wisconsin was obvious.

I sent an e-mail to a friend at that point that Trump was going to be the next President, to our mutual horror, even if Clinton performed better than expected in some other states. The friend seemed to think there was still a chance of winning the EC, but she hadn't followed each state's electoral votes as closely as me. (The best case scenario to me at that point was Clinton getting 268 EC votes, based on the margins of earlier state polls.)

DU was down at the time, as you know, or I surely would have been wailing with others here (probably you too) at about the same time.

Edit: I'm expecting results more like 2008 this time!

[Celerity]

53. I just did a quick DU search to see if I could find an OP on a long-forgotten double-whammy

that hit around the same time (actually before) as Comey.

The ACA rate increases (which were rather huge for many people) were partially leaked early on Friday, October 21st, 2016 (and gathered more attention over the weekend and then Monday, Tuesday, etc), and hit the news cycle hard a few days later, before the Comey bullshit hit on the 28th. There were some snap polls that already showed a deleterious movement in the margin for Clinton, within a day or 2 or 3 from the leak, then confirmed after the official announcement. It got lost (the significance as the actual true beginning of slippage) in the typhoon of the Comey shit, but it was the tip of the spear in terms of the of the negative poll movement kicking in. Trump was banging on it like crazy (and then obviously switched to the fucking email bollocks when that hit).


This old OP doesn't talk about polls, but does show that the premium increases were deffo a 'not good thing' back then, a problem to address (and at a terrible time) and verifies it was already in play before Comey landed the 2nd part of the double whammy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028251888



btw

I have NO idea why the Obama administration did not schedule the entire process (especially date) for rate changes and thus announcements for AFTER the damn election. Surely they could have looked with a futured-forward glance months, if not a full year before the election and saw a possible major negative inflection point. Odds were almost 100% that there would be dramatic increases.

[Mike 03]

12. Thank you for pulling this material together.

[cbdo2007]

19. May be...but remember he was wrong on the 5 key states in 2016...

FL
PA
WI
MI
NC

They had Clinton ahead in their polling average and they were all won by Trump. True Biden's is ahead by about 1.5 more points than Clinton was showing in these states, but still close enough for more Trump shenanigans to potentially influence the outcomes.

[GulfCoast66]

35. Just remember he is not a pollster. But an aggravator.

He has addressed it many times. The flaw was in the methodology used by all the pollsters. They did not take education into account. They all say they have fixed that flaw. We will see. And always remember, they my have overcompensated. The lead could actually be larger.

[cbdo2007]

36. Yeah, I saw that video they posted recently about the difference between 2016 and 2020...

but there was one poller (sp?) in particular - Trafalgar Group - that actually got all of those states right in 2016 that Trump won over Clinton but that the 538 poll average had Clinton ahead, and they are showing Trump ahead again in a couple of those states again, so just worries me. Of course we don't know their specific methodology...but 538 still has them listed as a C- poll even though they were the most accurate last year.

I'm a data person so I definitely love this part of it...it's just so hard when I'm so emotionally attached to the outcome as well!

[ArizonaLib]

54. Trafalgar seems to be an outlier at least this year

If the majority of pollsters have modified their methodologies, including adjustments for underestimating red turnout, Trafalgar seems to still be favoring Trump quite a bit. As for 2016, if a pollster like Trafalgar who regularly shows bias for an uexpected win, did they have the methodology correct then or is it correct now. 538's grading is based on accutacy of past elections, so if previous to 2016 they performed at what 538 graded as a 'C' did their grade change this yearto reflect 2016's performance? They seem to release polls which keep averages from tipping to Biden for states in play. If Trafalgar's lolls are less accurate this year vs 2016 won't 538 reflect a lower grade in 2024?

[cbdo2007]

60. Yes, so it is difficult to determine this year. They were the outlier on many states in 2016 also.

Not saying there is anything to it, just thought it was an interesting observation. I'm definitely HOPING all the polls are right, and really they are looking pretty good in the states where we need them to look good, especially if Trump continues to be 100% Trump for the next 12 days!

[ArizonaLib]

61. I agree

I am a numbers person, too (a CPA), but not brave enough to call myself a statistician. I am hoping and waiting.

Go Joe!

[GulfCoast66]

62. One thing I thing few polls are weighing is the youth vote.

And normally I would totally agree. They raise hell but don’t vote. But they did in 18.

And by early returns, it looks like they still are. Even Nate does not account for that.

I love the numbers game. Trying to predict a result from a very limited sample is crazy.

Did you see 538s podcast today? Very interesting.

[StevieM]

41. The polls weren't wrong, the polls changed.

James Comey altered the result from what it was otherwise going to be.

[Awsi Dooger]

65. Correct, look at this article from 3 days prior to the Comey letter

The GOP had all but conceded Florida. There was a leaked conservative memo indicating Hillary led Florida by 3-5 points, and that it was the equivalent of a landslide in Florida:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-florida-230275

All the spotlight on turnout is crap. Elections are decided by preference. James Comey altered preference and therefore changed the outcome. The reason I am not as preoccupied by turnout this time is that independent preference shifted away from Trump in early 2017 and has never returned

[StevieM]

68. Brilliantly said.

Unfortunately, anyone who tries to point that out is not allowed on the airwaves.

We also have to pretend that we are back in the early 1900s and the most important thing is where you hold your rallies. Apparently advertising and ground game no longer matter.

[bucolic_frolic]

42. It ain't over til it's over and litigation ends

Nate had things hedged in 2016. I won't say Trump made inroads last night, because there are just few undecideds remaining, but he did target demographic voting populations with some things he said. The crime reform bill, for example. It's too little, too late, and all things would have to fall precisely his way, but it's not likely. That said, did we ever get to the bottom of 2016? How did things turn out so well in exactly the places Trump visited? Billionaire Trump motivated dunderheads to vote with his plan they didn't understand and his personality. Right. And red hats.

The election is Democrats to lose. Our party should drive turnout like it's World War II. If we don't win this there won't be another free election in our lifetimes.

[DIVINEprividence]

47. Biden closed the deal in the final debate

I think Trumps voter suppression efforts have backfired and created massive turnout. Keep the pedal to the floor and lets annihilate the GOP. I want a BLOWOUT

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. "Final forecast from Nate Silver's 538 ups Clinton's chances of victory to 71%"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-election-2016-nate-silver-538-chances-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-winning-a7404931.html

Sorry, but I'm not believing any polling guru this time round.

I predict it will be close. Because I also add in the cheating. And I have a dark suspicion that DeJoy and Trump are messing with the ballots too.

[GulfCoast66]

63. He is not a pollster. He does none.

He is an aggregator polls. And if you listen to his podcast he tells you exactly what the polls missed in 16 and how most of them have corrected their error.

He explicitly says he is not saying Biden will win. Just using the odds given by current polls. And he said Trump could very well win in 16. And could this year.

That said I see your point. Vote! Polls mean nothing.

[Happy Hoosier]

71. Which means that Trump had a real shot.

Too many people believe odds like that mean a guaranteed win. But the model is probabilistic. And a 3 in 10 chance isn't nothing.

Silver almost never says something like "This WILL happen." He almost always talks about probabilities. He's not a psychic.

[edhopper]

51. It won't be about the vote

it will be about counting the vote.

[CoryTrevor]

52. and accepting the count of the vote (n/t)

[edhopper]

57. I am more worried about

Trump's effort to not count votes.

[PTWB]

69. Things are simply different this year.

There are far fewer undecided people so even late breaking scandals will not move the needle that much, unless the scandal is so overwhelming as to cause folks who had decided to switch their vote. That is unlikely.

Further, the polls have been tweaked to account for some of the support that Trump received that wasn't detected in 2016. That should make them a little more accurate.

Combined, it seems unlikely that Trump will win. We could all be eating our words here in a week but it is unlikely.

We'll all see soon enough.