Reading The Tea Leaves: Clinton's post debate bounce...

(Image courtesy of 538)




Hillary Clinton seems to be enjoying a fairly nice bounce following her debate with Donald Trump. According to 538's Polls Only Forecast, Clinton has been successful in turning both Nevada and Florida blue again. As I said this weekend, Florida is Clinton's best chance of putting this election in the bag, and I would continue to fight hard to put Florida solidly in her column on election day. It will be interesting to see if this bounce lasts through the next debate. Based on the current chances of winning as detailed above, here's what the Electoral College map looks like currently:




(Image courtesy of 270 to Win)





I suspect there will be some re-tightening of the polls between now and then.  Now, onto the bad news for Trump, he isn't inspiring the white voters he really needs to win the election according to 538.








"Here’s a scary stat for Democrats: In 2012, President Obama won re-election by almost 5 million votes, but about 47 million eligible white voters without a college degree — including 24 million men — didn’t bother to vote. In 2016, these nonvoters are part of the demographic that is most strongly in favor of Donald Trump.
If Trump rouses even a fraction of these notoriously disaffected Americans — like this grease-smudged, 61-year-old first-time voter in western Pennsylvania — he could surge to victory. There’s just one catch: If we’re on the cusp of a blue-collar Great Awakening, it’s not yet showing up in the registration data."





(Image courtesy of 538)





"But back to the catch: Although Trump may be converting plenty of existing voters to his side, there’s really very little evidence that previous nonvoters are coming out of the woodwork in large numbers for him.
According to the Census, 40.2 million eligible whites weren’t registered to vote at all in 2012. That’s much larger than the 14.7 million whites who were registered but didn’t turn out. Therefore, if Trump were truly inspiring an uprising of “missing” whites, we should expect a surge (or at least an uptick) in new registrations in blue-collar white and GOP-leaning places — think a mirror image of the Obama registration boom of 2008.
But nothing like that has materialized. In the 15 months since Trump announced his run, net registration gains in heavily white, rural and GOP-leaning counties have been unremarkable."





(Image courtesy of 538)






Yikes. That spells trouble for Trump. The piece goes on to add:






"So what’s going on? It could be that Trump is motivating slightly more new voters against him than for him. Or, perhaps more likely, it could be that white working class voters are out there to be activated, but Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have waited until too late to build the analytics and ground infrastructure necessary to identify and register them. That’s where Clinton and the Democrats have excelled."






Although I have many objections to Clinton, as well as to two party politics, I have decided that I will be voting for Clinton on November 8th.






Restoring the honor!






Comments

  1. "The Republican nominee's decision to dredge up the former president's sexual history is a risky move in his campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton, whose own team isn't fazed by the attack line. Clinton was asked on her campaign plane whether she has an obligation to speak out if Trump brings up her husband's infidelities. Her answer was a terse, "No."

    Trump critics say it all ould backfire, elevating her in the eyes of female voters and motivating her base.

    "The whole notion of trying to get Hillary Clinton to pay for Bill Clinton's infidelities is just strategically a bad choice," said Katie Packer, a longtime Republican strategist opposed to Trump's candidacy. Women in particular, she said, see it as cruel.

    Republican pollster Frank Luntz said Trump's reference to Bill Clinton's indiscretions was his low point Monday night among the group of voters with whom he watched the debate.

    "They were laughing about it because they thought that was Trump at his worst," Luntz said, adding that undecided voters are especially turned off by personal attacks."

    Trump is fucking up!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Trump brings up Bill Clinton's sexual history, he will open himself to the same attack from Hillary. I think if Trump does make this attack, he buries himself. He can't stay on point. He caters to the audience and the audience at a debate is not the same audience at one of his rallies. A rally audience wants to hear anything that makes them feel good. A debate audience wants to hear the answers to questions regarding a candidate's policies and plans. That's where Trump falls short because he is peddling stuff that just does not resonate with the majority of Americans.

    The gap may narrow somewhat again, but if he can't do better in the debates and ends up name calling the gap will open up pretty wide and wipe out his candidacy. Those living in the echo chamber will ignore anything they don't like, but in November they will suffer their sixth popular vote loss out of seven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is in deep doo-doo right now over womyn. America does not want a Chauvinist in Chief.

      I moved to Pennsylvania, so my vote may very well count this year. The polls are going to bounce around between now and election day.

      Delete
    2. That is utter baloney. Only delicate liberal snowflake women care about this. (Remember when feminism used to be about strong women? About empowering women?)Post by me on Facebook:

      =====
      Cackling hens on Fox (why don't I turn the TV off when hubs leaves for work?) "Trump insults women." "When he insults one of us, he insults all of us."

      Ladies (and I use the term loosely) men have been insulting men in politics since time immemorial. You were the ones who wanted to abandon your homes and children and enter the man's world. Well, you're here now. If you can't take the heat, get out of the flippin' kitchen.

      Who can imagine a man saying, "If he insults one of us, he insults us all"?
      =======

      No, schweethaht, he's not insulting all of us, and calling Rosie a pig. to me, is less about her looks/weight than it is swinish behavior (ill-mannered and coarse and contemptible in behavior or appearance).

      Believe me, the notion that he's in deep doo-doo is a Clinton hallucination...

      Delete
    3. Oh he's definitely stepping in it. I've noticed a pattern with Trump. They are having a hard time controlling him. The dude is a loose cannon. That's part of the reason (amongst a plethora of other reasons) why I've decided to give my vote to Clinton, because I feel there really is something to the temperament argument. I think he's a narccisist and a hothead, and in today's climate, I don't feel like that's something we need in a "leader", so I'm holding my nose on this vote. I definitely think Clinton is a liar and a crook, but so is every other politician, including faux "outsider" Trump.

      Delete
    4. They've been saying that about Trump since he announced, predicted he'd bomb in the primaries because of his hot-head, etc. And look where he is today. You can grasp at that straw if you like, but you are deluding yourself....

      Delete
    5. Straw? His new nickname should be "Triggered".

      Delete
  3. One thing that I will note about my guesstimation on the state of the election is that I am following Nate Silver's 538 in making my judgements. Silver has been calling it as he sees it and has been even going against the Left's spin when it comes to the reality of the race. He was down on Clinton last week while most on the Left were still spinning things post Deplorables/Pnuemonia. They are straight shooters at 538. They have demonstrated that they are taking a fair look at data and not just telling people what they want to hear. They've been sounding the alarms on certain indicators that this race is not in the bag for Clinton, and I believe that. Much of their work is data driven. 538's forecast is just that, a forecast, not a perfect science. The maps I am showing are the culmination of taking into account National and state polling data, and then letting machines simulate the race 20,000 times. I am basing my judgements on mostly their findings, which I feel pretty confident are close, or as close as you're going to get to reality. There is always the possibility though that they are wrong. There are a bunch of bellwether indicators that are pointing to a Trump victory. I'm hesitant to put too much stock in those however because they can be wrong. 538 isn't the only thing I'm looking at, but they are very influential on my opinions of the race. I trust Silver, I think he's a pretty smart guy with a good team who doesn't sugarcoat stuff. Based on what we're seeing today, it's a very tight race with little margin for error if you are Hillary Clinton. I think her campaign needs to go forward every day with the belief they are behind. They are going to need to GOTV if they're going to stop Trump, and trust me, they know it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jacob, I heard that 13 of the 16 people elected to the SGA at Ole Miss are state flag supporters. What have you heard?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shaun Winkler becomes unglued over the Sons of Confederate Veterans "pet monkey"...

Virginia Flagger Hubert Wayne Cash: "I have learned that most but by no means all blacks are a worthless bunch of freeloading, dangerous, animals that should be put down like the dogs they are."

Infight The Right: Are Christopher Cantwell and Jason Kessler backstabbing buddyfuckers?