On June 21st, I wrote about the importance of Michigan to any hope Donald Trump has of winning the Electoral College, particularly if he isn’t competitive in Florida, so I’m not surprised to see an article by Philip Rucker and John Wagner today in the Washington Post on that very subject.
The Clinton campaign has been been getting a lot of warnings along these lines. As I’ve said, the math for Trump may make is necessary for him to win several Rust Belt states. Michigan is one of his top prospects and Pennsylvania is another. Wisconsin and Minnesota could be part of the solution, but they look considerably less sympathetic to Trump.
Clinton’s super PAC Priorities USA announced on Friday that they’ll be dropping over $10 million in Pennsylvania, which is relief to a lot of folks who think she’s taking the state for granted.
I’ve seen some articles speculating that Trump will do better than expected in the Philly suburbs, but I’m not seeing it at all. I cannot see any way he does anywhere near as well as Romney did here. The shape of the electorate will be different, with Trump getting more downscale and fewer upscale votes. This is one of the few areas where George Will quitting the Republican Party actually resonates. I have yet to encounter a “respectable” member of the community who has anything good to say about Trump, and I’ve been keeping my eye out.
I drove a long way out into Berks County yesterday, and I didn’t encounter one piece of Trump swag along the way. No yard signs, no bumper stickers, no t-shirts. I’ve seen more visual support for Ben Carson in these parts, and there’s more faded Ron Paul signage than anything else. Here and there, I have encountered isolated support for Trump from surprising corners, but it’s miniscule.
But Pennsylvania is a big state, and Trump will do well here in a lot of it.
Demographically, at least, Michigan should be the harder nut to crack. But, in my experience, sentiment in the Detroit suburbs is far more racially polarized than in the Philly suburbs, and Clinton had one of her worst performances (against expectations) of the primaries in Michigan. The trade issue has more resonance there.
The real divide is between folks on one side who have had it with all politicians and people on the other who think Trump is a “ludicrous tangerine ballsack” and a “tiny fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon.”
Probably Goldwater territory.
July 1988 polling: Dukakis 54% and GHWB 37%.
Trump’s June poll numbers are well within loser territory. However, Clinton’s are falling short of being in winner category. Still plenty of time for rabbits to be pulled out of hats and black swans to emerge.
Some of the new numbers are as great as you could reasonably hope.
Depends on what the person you’re responding to is hoping for, doesn’t it?
True that.
self-ID (36%) as the plurality in there (Indies 33%, GOPers in the 20s somewhere).
Every time I see that Dukakis number cited I want to scream.
That number was taken in the aftermath of the Democratic Convention. It was never real – just a sign of a typical bounce out of a Convention.
So one more time:
On July 8 CBS had Dukakis up 8
On July 12 NBC had Dukakis up 8
The Democratic Convention was July 18-21.
The typical bounce out of a convention is 10 points, and so
On July 22nd CBS had Dukakis up 17
On July 25th NBC had him up 17
But convention bounces fade, usually starting about a week out.
And so
Gallup on August 3rd had it Dukakis +9 (about the same lead as he had going into the convention)
By August 13 ABC had the race at 3.
So this 17 point lead is nonsense.
A database of national polling (mine) is here – but I am a week away from cleaning it up.
Based on raw numbers alone Sam Wang gives Clinton a 70% chance of winning – and I think that is mostly accurate.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TA4NktYbU_qtvRKnIaacJOYDIoidLZTabKW5wobUTT0/edit#gid=0
The other thing about the Dukakis comparison is that Clinton’s political situation resembles that of HW Bush, not Dukakis- successor to a popular 2-term president in a period of comparatively good times by recent standards, with a reputation for competence, a long resume, excellent support from within their party, and with an attackable opponent with wobbly support. It’s Clinton you’d expect to gain as the campaign wears on, not Trump.
The difference is that MSM is in lockstep with Hilz, plus the CIA’s might Wurlitzer. As can be witnessed, no one to the left of David Duke will endorse Trump. His campaign is broke while all the Big Money is backing Clinton. She is the definitive choice for the neoliberals. All the chips are in place.
People who are worried that Trump will win should understand that, as in professional wrestling, the outcome has already been decided. The folding chairs are placed where they need to be. Trump comes out and let’s everyone know he’s the bad guy. Hilz is going to deliver a few stunning dropkicks, and everyone will cheer. Hillary will win, all those loathsome trade agreements pass Congress, we’ll have more wars. The blueprint is set.
So while Clinton breaks through the glass ceiling there will be Syrian mothers watching their children being blown apart. Mothers and children will drown in the Mediterranean. More hospitals will be blown up in Ukraine. The networks already have the schedule for the next year’s programs. Enjoy.
“Hilz” is the definitive choice of neoliberals, neoconservatives, neolibertarians, and neovegetarians.
I predict he will listen to the “experts” at RNC and abandon the promises that got him the nomination.
From the back and forth on abortion, I can see that Trump doesn’t give a damn. I’ll wager he’s financed a few abortions himself. His claim to be a Christian (or a Christian fanatic) is ludicrous. Against Sanders or O’Malley or almost any Midwest Democrat he would be toast. But he’s facing the most untrusted candidate ever. So don’t count him out as long as he speaks for the 99%. Once he stops, he’s toast. My big fear is that he is pulling a Hillary, talking nice now, but committed body and soul to the 0.1%.
I’ll pre-answer the Hilbot responses. “Follow the money.”
The economic resentments of Trump voters are intrinsically linked to their racial resentments. How many of those voters who blame their economic hardship on “brown people” voted for Obama in 2012? Where exactly is Trump’s room for growth? He may rack up larger margins among rural voters, but I can also see some women who didn’t vote for Obama voting for Clinton.
WASHINGTON POST-ABC NEWS POLL JUNE 20-23, 2016
HRC would be in trouble against generic republican. But Trump is even more hated. What this means for turnout I have no fucking clue.
It means that turnout in particular states, is, as it ever is, the battleground. But…there is no way to predict which states are swingy this year because of Trump. And the unpredictable effects that Sanders voters will have from state to state on Clinton’s turnout.
It is really hard for me to believe any Sanders supporters would vote such a bigot and self absorbed narcissist when it comes to the voting booth.
If they’re true to their PrinciplesTM, they won’t vote for Trump. They’ll just sit at home, or vote for Mickey Mouse, or whatever, not counteracting Trump voters…because that’s icky.
Because Clinton is icky and wants more trade more war and to cut “entitlements”.
Unlike Strongman Trump!
#Trump/Arpaio 2016
Rotten choices we have, no? I hope the Greens make the ballot in Illinois. Tomorrow is the deadline.
You do realize that Sanders supporters have switched to HRC faster and in greater numbers than HRC supporters switched to Obama in 2008 dont you?
#JudasWarren
Not really. I think she’s making a mistake in regards to her career if she goes for the VP slot, but I have no doubt she’s doing so to try to further progressive goals. I don’t think it will work but she’s free to try, she’s not a closet neolib.
I think Warren is doing what Sanders should be doing: getting progressives involved in the power structure to make HRC move left.
What it means for turnout is that a GOTV operation will be vital.
As evidenced in the big State primaries, Clinton’s campaign has shown the ability to turn out their vote. They spent responsibly, allowing Sanders to outspend them during the primary season, so Clinton’s campaign still has a lot of cash on hand, and they have continued to fundraise well. They’ll be able to pay for a strong media campaign and targeted precinct canvasses and phone banks.
Trump doesn’t think he needs to run a voter ID and turnout operation. People have told him he needs to, and he has rejected their advice. He has almost no cash on hand, and he’s reluctant to fundraise for himself or Republican Congressional candidates.
You actually believe anything WAPO says?
Unbelievable!!!
Both WAPO and your continued credulity.
AG
Arthur’s right — we shouldn’t believe ANYTHING the WaPo says! They’re the instrument of neoliberals and the permanent government. The only way we can know anything is to just make it up.
After all, Arthur KNEW that Hillary had a mole running Bernie’s campaign in Michigan. He knew this because a guy made a cellphone video in a car which teased out an absolutely ludicrous story. But of course I’m just saying that because I’m a neoliberal troll paid by David Brock to comment here.
Good!!! Now you’re getting it!!!
The sarcasm thing, I mean.
Good work!!!
Next week…maybe second grade!!!
Meanwhile, you get a star to paste on your forehead.
Duh.
AG
“Follow the money.”
My brother tells me this all the time about Hillary Clinton…and about every other politician.
Every politician has to raise money. Unless the US goes to something akin to the British model–a five-week-long election campaign–or to publicly financed campaigns, raising money is going to be an inescapable part of political campaigns.
As things stands, “follow the money” is nothing more than a truism.
Bernie Sanders showed another way.
Following the money lets you see how bound and to what a candidate is.
It makes a difference whether following the money leeds to a bunch of community banks or to some of the leaders in the seven levels of fraud that brought down the economy.
A 5 week campaign would be wonderful.
I was living in England in 2001 when Blair called an election. Political advertising was pretty minor. Each party published a detailed manifesto (what we would call a platform). The newspapers were nearly all rabidly partisan–no politely worded editorials reserved for an inside page.
I also like the rule that campaiging has to stop the weekend before an election so people can reflect in peace.
I honestly can’t think of an American political practice that I’m willing to defend as better.
Just keep in mind, Boo — if yard signs decided elections, President Paul would be awaiting his anointing to a third term.
The absence of yard signs also isn’t a sign a candidate is doomed.
I suspect Trump will lose PA, but that he’ll be pretty strong. Eastern PA demographics and culture is more Northeastern than Rust Belt, and I think that’s where Trump will do better than a typical Republican. I think he’ll outperform typical GOPers in the Northeast. Fortunately, most of the Northeast is so heavily Democratic that even a substantial over-performance wouldn’t mean anything in the electoral college.
Michigan is much harder to imagine him winning. It’s culturally much more like Ohio and Wisconsin, and a fair bit more liberal than PA anyway. Trump has looked weak in Wisconsin thus far, and he doesn’t seem unusually weak or strong in Ohio to me. I don’t see it.
I also don’t buy that he’s as weak in Florida as the current Q-poll indicates, although I’d bet on Hillary if I were a betting type. A four-point win is a landslide in Florida in presidential races. Nobody’s winning it by seven.
I know yard signs don’t mean shit, but Trump spends all his money on swag and no one is wearing it or displaying it in these parts. It’s not like I’d be impressed if they were, but they’re not, and that tells me something.
Wait a moment, Booman. Someone will shortly explain that the absence of Trump swag is part of an eleven dimensional chess game.
But in tRump’s case it is actually two and a half dimensional checkers.
It doesn’t tell me much of anything. The people who buy swag are partisans. The people who decide elections aren’t buying swag. Particularly with a candidate like Der Trumpenfuhrer, who may be subject to a bit of the Shy Tory effect, you may see remarkably little by way of shirts and yard signs in areas where he’s doing well.
Trump plays well with douchey, secular, old, white cultural conservatives. And eastern Pennsyltucky’s got a whole lot of that.
Has HRC started running MI ads with the various comments Trump made about the auto bailout and auto industry in general? I seem to recall some fairly disqualifying material on that. And I don’t recall MI ever being as close as PA.
In 2012 Obama won by 10 in MI and 6 in PA.
The Republicans I know in the more upscale suburbs of Detroit are absolutely despondent over Trump being the nominee. Most of them voted for Kasich. They’re not getting the message to unify behind Trump. Quite the opposite, as today’s Detroit News editorial read Dump Trump. That’s the newspaper the local Republicans read.
There are no Trump yard signs because the people who manufacture the signs know that Trump won’t pay them.
New numbers are somewhat driven by Berniecrats. Relative to 2008 they are supporting HRC at much faster rates than HRC supporters switched to Obama.
In our local newspaper today they published a few full pages of random interviews across town with average citizens. Hillary fared less favorably than I had hoped, and the common theme around her is that she is untrustworthy, secretive, and beholden to corporations and Wall Street. Very little is said about her substantial experience as Senator and Sec of State, and her support for minorities, women, and fixing the economy.
But Trump’s supporters are basically choosing him because he’s “independent from politics” and speaks his mind. A few admitted that they have concerns about his issues with immigration, but believe that he’s a savvy businessman and will solve all the financial woes for the country.
If it comes down to voting as a rebellion against politics in general, Trump could score big. Hopefully the cooler heads will vote and the idiots will stay home. But I don’t think that will happen. I don’t know what to expect.
untrustworthy, secretive, and beholden to corporations and Wall Street
Nailed it.
Did you see what happened on TPP with the Democratic platform… Hillary’s delegates voted against including a statement against TPP, despite her nominally running against it during her campaign. The Democratic platform will be silent on TPP despite both candidates running against it. Can you say duplicitous?
But meanwhile- Horse Race. Yea!
When it comes to the floor of the convention, expect them to do what they did with regard to Israel in 2012: ask for three voice votes, clearly lose, but say that the opposite happened.
It worked in Nevada.
It won’t get there. The whips make sure the platform is adopted in its entirety
Well, there’s a world of difference between rejecting a platform plank opposing the TPP and proposing a platform plank supporting the TPP.
The President supports the TPP. His own Party is on its way to including a campaign plank which does not support the Bill. That will be very significant.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/democrats-begin-working-draft-party-platform-40107459
“The panel, which is developing the party’s platform ahead of next month’s Philadelphia convention, instead backed a measure that said “there are a diversity of views in the party” on the TPP and reaffirmed that Democrats contend any trade deal “must protect workers and the environment.”
The President’s advocacy is not approved in his own Party platform here.
Also:
“Reflecting Sanders’ advocacy, the platform also calls for the expansion of Social Security and says Americans should earn at least a $15 an hour, referring to the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour as a “starvation wage,” a phrase the Vermont senator often uses.
…
The committee also adopted language that said it supports a variety of ways to prevent banks from gambling with taxpayers’ bank deposits, “including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall.”
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Certainly far less than the tens of millions of right-wing authoritarians that Strongman Trump wields.
#Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.
The only person I actually know that has voted for Trump (in the Ohio primary) said the same thing. “He’s going to bring back jobs” and “I would never vote for Hillary”.
I think Dems completely underestimate just how much many Reps hate (and fear) Hillary; it’s a pathological hatred/fear that is inexplicable even to them. I heard the same thing about her in 2008. I can’t find out what they think she’ll do, but they are sure she’ll do it.
You know, this is statistically-insignificant anecdotal evidence, but still:
My Michigan relatives are as hard-core right-wing as you can get (within the framework of reasonably well-to-do, urbane suburban professionals; they don’t fly confederate flags or anything like that). They’re all fervently anti-Obama (“It’s not racism! He’s just terrible!”) and were anti-Bill Clinton; they read the Limbaugh books, etc. And they’ve been anti-Hillary from the start, going back to the 1990s.
But a funny thing happened, once she was Secretary of State: they all sort of got over it. My cousin — who flew planes in Korea and buys boxed sets of John Wayne movies — muttered, “She’s doing a good job.” The criticism all faded away. (It came back for Benghazi, emails etc. but that’s because she was suddenly a Presidential hopeful and the propaganda started up again).
My point is, there’s a very good chance that a lot of the anti-Hillary sentiment is a mile wide and an inch deep — meaning, they “hate” her, but once they see her doing something (like after those Benghazi hearings where her popularity skyrocketed) and get past the trivial optics of her “shrill” voice etc. they recognize that she’s a competent bureaucrat with a neoliberal agenda whom they can completely envision in the White House.
Like I said, totally subjective. But I wonder just how much of the decades of anti-Hillary mudslinging has really stuck to the wall and how much of it is just unthinking mirroring of televised sentiments that won’t hold up under scrutiny.
And how much of your relatives’ ‘”acceptance” of HRC is simply the reflexive recognition (of a fairly average, uninformed cross-section of the electorate) that she is actually just another PermaGov functionary doing her business inside of the framework that they accept as “America?”
They see her for what she, is once the political crossfire dies down. No better and no worse than the other choices. Just another hustler working for the .01%. They’re OK with that, right? There’s the real media trance-formation.
Bet on it.
AG
Wow, right on target as usual.
Thank you, JO.
If she wins, it will be on the platform that she will better…more efficient, more experienced…at the job of being a representative of the corporate-owned Permanent Government than will be Donald Trump.
The question remains…how many people really want more of the same, for what reasons, and how many more people can the trancemedia hypnotize into wanting more of the same…or at the very least wanting less of something unknown and therefore different/possibly even worse…before (
S)election Day?This remains the big question.
Answer?
Provided nothing…untoward…happens, we’ll see in November.
Won’t we.
AG
Of course you’re way too solipsistic to recognize my extreme sarcasm. Hint: if the guy who’s consistently belittling your posts says “On target as usual” he’s probably not being sincere. (Meaning, you completely missed the point of what I posted, unsurprisingly.)
I’m sort of fascinated by Arthur’s comments. It’s clear he knows absolutely nothing about politics, but he’s constructed an elaborate fantasy world of conspiracy theories and “permanent governments.”
The question remains, DT…how long do repeated “coincidences” need to happen before they begin to morph into something that resembles a conspiracy of some sort?
Take presidential candidates (or even presidents) whose stated aim is to rock the so-called “bipartisan,” centrist boat. Starting w/JFK’s untimely demise soon after saying in front of some of the wrong people that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds,” how many people of national political prominence who stated real criticisms of the way things are working here have died or been thrown out of office/made to look so foolish by the media that they could never be elected? he list is too long to print here. There is not enough time in life to point out the obvious to people who refuse to open their wide shut eyes.
You think that this is all coincidental?
If so…completely coincidentally, of course…I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you at a very good price!!!
WTFU.
You been had.
AG
Oh. So it goes. I tend to make lemonade when given lemons. Thank you.
AG.
P.S. Work on your communication skills. With no hint of sarcasm, attempts at same simply do not work. Perhaps you thought that I would understand if I took it in context of other posts you may have mede, but really, JO…I barely recognize your handle. I don’t remember what your positions are. The snipings from various unimaginative, lockstep, kneejerk leftiness-centrist boobirds on this site roll off of my back like water off of Trump’s ducktail.
Keep trying, though. Your hostility must feel good to you, and it doesn’t bother me one bit. I guess on some levels that’s a win/win proposition, right?.
How centrist of you.
Sleep well.
P.S. I mean that last sentence, by the way. No sarcasm intended. I wish everybody on earth whatever happiness they can muster in this world full of hostility. Sleep well or wake the fuck up. Being stuck in he middle of those two states can be a fucking drag.
Whatever gets you off.
Or on.
So your solipsism and obliviousness are positives. got it.
It would never occur to you to develop a sense of who’s who on this board and how the different positions are represented, would it? (The rest of us do this without even trying; it’s just natural human communication.) But I’m not remotely surprised that the rest of us are just a distant fog; a clamor you can barely hear, and the only voice you clearly recognize is your own. It makes perfect sense.
I recognize people here who make sense to me, JO. I regularly recommend their posts and comments. I also recognize people who make no sense to me. But most posters here? You’re right. They don’t interest me much. They generally fade in and out with the long news cycles, and when they are here they don’t really say much of any substance. They generally aren’t saying much one way or another beyond some vague hope that the DemRat Party will win and also get…”better”… whatever it is that they think that word means.
Welcome to the second club.
You write:
“…solipsism and obliviousness…”
Interesting choices.
A definition of solipsism would be useful:
When I predicted over a year ago…alone on this site, also pretty much alone in the so-called “progressive” world and completely alone in media…that Trump was going to be a very effective candidate for the RatPub nomination, was that a “solipsistic” viewpoint? You are using the word in a negative sense, as if trusting your own instincts and experiences is not a particularly good thing. That’s what I do, JO, both in my socio-politiocal writing and in my career as a musician. I have been a very successful musician doing this, and I also have been pretty accurate in my forecasts and opinions here and on other sites as well. My strongest point as a working musician is that I pay close attention to what the other musicians around me are doing and go with the ones who play in good tune and good time. Ditto on this level.
I think that you are confusing solipsism with individuality. Individuality that is strongly modified by your other negative word…”obliviousness”…is indeed a stupid and often dangerous thing. But…I am not stupid, nor am I “oblivious” to the obvious. Obvious to me and to many other people as well.
Spend some time reading Counterpoint. I fit right in there.
And…I do not know what you do for a living, where you live or what you do in your spare time, but whatever those things may be I strongly recommend that you purposely go out of your normal channels and experience life in other strata of society. It sounds to me like you live in a safe little (middle class or above) leftiness bubble.
Pop it.
You be bettah off in the long run.
As the great radio comedy team Bob and Ray used to say in their sign-off:
Later…
AG
AG–To point out the obvious: You commonly write long comments riffing on your anecdotal observations, yet when someone else does the same, you attack them.
Well, yeah. She’s pro-war. They like that.
Interesting numbers four months out.
Trump’s floor seems to be 19%.
Clinton’s ceiling seems to be 61%.
Both of those figures have impact on the downticket depending on how the votes are distributed geographically.
Republicans have more geographical areas to have to buck up than Democrats (Republican Latino areas of Texas, for example. Why is any Latino Republican member of Congress endorsing Trump, for example?)
Too bad that Democrats are not conscious of this quite yet.
One Trump sticker sighted in my strong-Dem area. Paired with a Confederate flag. Expecting a lot of “too embarrassed to admit it” “independent” Trump voters this year. Media is going to interpret it as “Democrats for Trump”. Establishment is going to interpret it as “progressives for Trump”.
It’s still four months out and Bill Kristol and his compadres still do not know what they are going to do.
It should be the job of the Democratic Party organizations across this country to do much much better than this poll. This poll is a baseline of what would happen today if neither campaign did anything.
If that is not the case, one can argue that all the expense of campaigns is kind of worthless.
The Democrats have the good fortune of coming last in the order of conventions this year. That does two things: allows them to contrast their value proposition with the Trumpublicans during the GOP convention in Cleveland, and allows them the opportunity to tweak their convention to hammer the weaknesses (or undermine the strengths) the Trumpublicans showed at their convention and broaden their support left and right. (Those “independents” are on both sides of both parties.) It also allows introductions of downticket candidates, which is an asset only if people are watching the convention coverage.
This year, the start of the Democratic campaign in earnest should be the first day of the Trumpublican convention.
You and I are old enough to remember how Wallace outdid his polls, particularly in the North.
You cannot square the state and national numbers.
Maine today has Clinton up 7
The Quin and PPP numbers have Ohio, PA close. PPP and Quin split on Florida
Yougov has close margins in CO, Wisconson, NC, FL and PA.
And yet we see national numbers with 10 point plus margins.
I think this is a 5 point race that will be about 13 once the conventions are over, and the young/liberal independent voters come hom.
But right now this isn’t close to a landslide.
And it is also hard to see how Trump actually wins.
Completely agree with this.
The poll figures are just a combination of a piling in of online-based polling (which is going to be necessary but which we haven’t really mastered yet), model-fitting and the typical pre-convention wonkiness, IMO.
I think the actual baseline and end result is her winning, but I don’t think we’re looking at Goldwater-type collapse for Trumpster.
Hillary by six-ish seems about right. Electoral College-wise, similar to ’12, although I can envision a scrambling in a few areas (PA, AZ, etc) — but the end result in that ballpark.
Trump’s path is very slim, and Hillzilla’s not likely to win big.
The WaPo poll says her increased lead is because of Sanders backers, which was entirely predictable. Everyone kept saying that Sanders national polling leads would likely go down — and certainly, his 15-20 point ones would. However, whenever Clintons lead was smaller than his (as was often the case), it was clear that the reason for this is because they backed Sanders.
I expect her to win by 7-10, or more.
So what bothers me about ABC is that they have O’s job approval at 56-41.
Nobody else has come close to a 15 point net for Obama – and that makes me suspicious. It’s a different population – job approval is all adults and not rv’s – but I still have my doubts.
Just one poll, MOE, weighting issues, blahblahblah you know the drill. But – almost all the polls are seeing Obama’s approval going up, and it’s normal for Presidents ending successful presidencies to see their approval rating rise quite a bit at the end – Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton all saw it. I think Obama will see more gains than usual because as the Right-Wing Wurlitzer refocuses on new targets people will come to realize what a good job he’s done.
“Presidents ending successful presidencies”
But it hasn’t been successful, curtadems, as you must know from reading this blog. Obama is exactly the same as Dubya. He’s even exactly the same as Goldwater would have been if the PermaGov had not fixed the 1964 election for LBJ.
Or something like that.
Do national numbers overpoll urban areas?
Not particularly. They just sample “a mile wide and an inch deep”, which is a big part of why they are less useful once state polling is conducted with regularity (which has not happened yet).
Three most recent polls in key states:
FL: C+3, C+8, T+1
MI: C+4, C+11, C+10
NH: TIE, C+2, C+5
OH: TIE, C+6, C+5
NC: C+2, TIE, T+3
AZ: C+5, T+2, C+7
etc..
There’s some regional variance, but there’s less to be worried about than picking out the least favorable polls would indicate. Another important thing to keep in mind is that there is much more national polling happening at this time of the cycle, so in a sense it is more trustworthy, given the volume of data. This will change once state polling is conducted in earnest after the conventions.
Professional wrestling?
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/21/daily-202-is-trump-a-manch
urian-candidate-or-maybe-the-1919-chicago-white-sox/57689ffd981b92a22d2421e1
Donald Trump, the kayfabe candidate. He’s even in the WWE Hall of Fame.
So those folks out there in the shire voted out and now CNBC is reporting the world lost $2 T in wealth. on Friday the worst in history even the $1.9 T in Sep
2008.
Meanwhile a guy is on MSNBC now telling me it was not the worst and is really not all the important.
a delight, btw.