Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

RAFisher

(466 posts)
Tue Jul 19, 2016, 12:40 PM Jul 2016

Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Is As Safe As Kerry’s Was In 2004 - Nate Silver [View all]


There has been a lot of polling over the past few days in advance of the Republican National Convention, which got underway Monday in Cleveland. But it mostly confirmed the conclusion our election forecast models had arrived at late last week: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points. That’s down from a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points a few weeks ago.

As a result, Trump’s odds have improved. He has a 36 percent chance of winning the election, according to our polls-only forecast, and a 38 percent chance according to polls-plus. (While the polls-only and polls-plus forecasts are well aligned now, they may begin to diverge during the conventions — more about that in a moment.)

But Clinton remains ahead of Trump in the clear majority of polls. She leads by about the same margin that Barack Obama did heading into the conventions in 2008, and by a somewhat larger margin than Obama did in 2012.

I’ve nevertheless detected a lot of consternation among Clinton voters: Why isn’t her position safer? There’s really about a 35 or 40 percent chance that Trump will become president?

Based on the polls, we think the model is setting those odds about right. The race is a long way from being a toss-up, but a 3 or 4 percentage point lead heading into the conventions isn’t all that reliable, either. While Obama won twice with pre-convention leads of about that margin, John Kerry went into his convention with a lead of about 3 percentage points in 2004, but lost to George W. Bush. And in 2000, Bush had about a 4-point lead on the eve of the conventions, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore. (Bush won the Electoral College, of course.)

The flip side is that the recent polls could just as easily prove to be a low-water mark for Clinton. Conventions have oftentimes helped the incumbent party’s candidate. One of the biggest turnarounds came in 1988, when Michael Dukakis, the upstart winner of the Democratic nomination, held a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points going into the conventions. But a well-staged Republican convention in New Orleans helped to unify the GOP and highlight the successes of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and Bush eventually won by a landslide.

What’s relatively safe to say is that we’ll know a lot more in a month or so. Below, you’ll find a comparison of where national polls stood heading into the challenging party’s convention, and then 30 days after the incumbent party’s convention.1 (By tradition, the incumbent party — Democrats this year — holds their convention last.) The pre-convention polls missed the final margin in the race by an average of 6.4 percentage points. By contrast, the post-convention polls missed it by 4.0 points, a considerable improvement. And since 1972, they’ve gone 11-for-11 in identifying the winner of the popular vote.


Continued on 538:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-is-as-safe-as-kerrys-was-in-2004/
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bush had to STEAL Ohio to stay in office. Rove and TeamKasich won't help Trump steal Ohio like blm Jul 2016 #1
That's where to bet, I guess. elleng Jul 2016 #7
Ah, but a few "things" are missing from that 2004 election. tonyt53 Jul 2016 #2
Kerry did forcefully counter Swiftliars at a speech to Firefighters who endorsed him - Every 'news' blm Jul 2016 #9
It wasn't Kerry's own idea not to fight the smears...it was the former Dukakis people on his staff Ken Burch Jul 2016 #14
Ken - he DID counter and every network refused to carry that speech to Firefighters. blm Jul 2016 #15
interpretation is not revisionsm. Springslips Jul 2016 #16
That's just not accurate. You'd know better if you understood the role the corpmedia played and WHY. blm Jul 2016 #17
It is still interperation. Springslips Jul 2016 #21
Kerry responded and countered - media ignored it. You CHOOSE to adopt corpmedia view. blm Jul 2016 #27
He did that speech, but one speech wasn't going to be enough. Ken Burch Jul 2016 #18
The media had the full Navy records karynnj Jul 2016 #22
Absolutely. Ken Burch Jul 2016 #25
Some of the nomenklatura wanted it. mylye2222 Jul 2016 #28
There was also the Bin Laden video released right before the election... Ken Burch Jul 2016 #12
Yeah, I remember that, too... Blue_Tires Jul 2016 #19
And vadermike Jul 2016 #3
You are correct, and the reason for no bounce was the false terrorism threat announcement. tonyt53 Jul 2016 #4
I remember being infuriated by the series of false warnings that were issued, Nitram Jul 2016 #5
Kerry ran a TERRIBLE campaign. BigDemVoter Jul 2016 #6
Baloney -JK took a few days to prepare for debate where he trounced Bush - BushInc had to steal Ohio blm Jul 2016 #8
True. he had it stolen. . . BigDemVoter Jul 2016 #10
He WAS campaigning - you mixed up a couple days he took off preparing for debate with the blm Jul 2016 #11
What I DO remember is BigDemVoter Jul 2016 #24
It was during the Republican convention karynnj Jul 2016 #23
We cannot be complacent. nt awoke_in_2003 Jul 2016 #13
this is not 2004... heresAthingdotcom Jul 2016 #20
Hillary is ahead TeddyR Jul 2016 #26
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Election Update: Clinton’...