And update on state polling:
So there has been a 5 point swing in the 5 day. Part of this is just better polling for Clinton:
PA +*8 (3 point swing from ’12, implies 6.85 lead national lead)
MN +6 (-1.5, implies national lead of 2)
FL tied, (-.87, implies national lead of 3)
NC tied (+2, implies national lead of 5.85)
The NV and MI polling wasn’t as good, but in general the polling shows good reason to believe in a CLinton lead.
But one thing bothered me: the amount of volatility is way higher here than in 2012. So I went back and checked:
last 5 days: 7
- 5 days prior to 9/19/2012: 41
- 5 days prior to 9/19/2008: 32
There are just fewer state polls this cycle. So we actually know less than in previous cycles.
Today
NH, Monmouth Clinton +9, was 7 in ’12, implies 5.6 point lead
WI, Marquette, Clinton +2, was 7 in ‘2 inplies a Trump lead of 1.2
There is no better pollster that Marquette. If Wisconsin is really a 2 point race, and Michigan is in play as well then Trump has expanded what is in play.
538.com weighted averages, just now:
Wisconsin +3.9
Colorado +2.7
New Hampshire +2.7
If she can hold on in those states, she’s in.
At some point are there diminishing returns for numbers of state polls?
That said, polls are more expensive because of the efforts pollsters have to go to get a good sample.
—–
Off topic, this is a problem I noted about 5 years ago when I saw some data about younger millenials (I am near the top range for the older).
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12963334/clinton-millennial-problem
In short, younger millenials came of political age AFTER Bush II so their formative experiences are quite different AND while they are still by any measure socially liberal if not more so they are also more economically conservative and not especially democratic which feeds into one reason HRC has trouble with them.
also more economically conservative and not especially democratic which feeds into one reason HRC has trouble with them.
If so, then they are really stupid because the best combination of quasi-socially liberal and economic conservative is HRC.
Of course that’s nonsense, but important to get it out there to begin dispelling that the notion that the youngest Bernie supporters had any idea what Democratic Socialism is, and much less that they would want it.
Striking remark. Did Berne Sanders himself give a clear idea of what Democratic Socialism might be except to refer to outdated ‘fifties notions of ‘Scandinavia”? Why were all the ‘younger Bernie supporters’ then supporting him? Hillary Clinton is still trying to figure all that out while now it’s almost as if the Sanders’ campaign never happened. The front page of the NYT says that the Clinton campaign is looking to the disabled to engage allies. The Clinton claque never things of looking to US people to make their case stick. No. Always a social sliver to be preferred in contrast to the rest.
Pretty interesting.
One way to read the cross tabs is to see a collapse in social conservatism, but not economic conservatism.
It’s not how I read the numbers but is intelligible.