Update [2016-11-6 10:15:20 by fladem]:
11/6
NBC is out with Clinton up 5 in the two way. Same as Marist, and IBD has Clinton up 3 in the two way.
I think this is pretty safe at this point. The EV doesn’t look good in Florida, but does in Nevada and North Carolina.
I went canvassing yesterday (with a Mass Congressman). The GOTV game in NH is very good. There were Trump hangers on doors, though, so they have some presence.
I think this will be between 6 to 8 in the end.
As of this morning:
Clinton up by more than 2 in the state numbers.
National Polling versus the state average since 2000. Frequently it is more accurate. Also note the shift late in ’12 and ’00”. A similar shift would have an enormous effect.
Think this is election is more volatile than 2012. It is. Where is the baseline for this race? I thought it was in late August. I am no longer sure.
The same graph from 2012. The interesting thing is the final margin was close to the margin before the first debate. A good argument can be had about the impact of Hurricane Sandy.
The cheat sheet I have been using. I think the EV numbers suggest the polls are wrong in NV and NC, and the NC poll average is influenced by the SUSA number. Still, this can be lost. Yes, this has every poll since yesterday. Note the Johnson + Stein number at the far right. In 14 states with 173 EV’s the third party vote is larger than the Clinton margin. In 2000 the collapse of the Nader vote late allowed Gore to close.
National Polls since this morning. Beware of looking in the rear view mirror. There is movement in IBD and ABC to Clinton. I still think Clinton wins by at least 5 as the third party vote, which is young, collapses and winds up with Clinton. There is evidence the Thursday sample ib both polls looks like the period from October 21-26. That would imply a 4 – 6 point race.
This is what should be in everyone’s mind. A 3 point national move put Clinton on either 270 or 269 depending on a Maine CD.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/latino-early-vot-surges-from-florida-to-nevada
And I don’t think they’re voting for Trump.
I looked at the NPA numbers in Florida this morning. Right now I think Clinton leads in the early vote by 2.05 when you allocate the No Party by race. That is about 120K – but we won the EV in FL by 3.8 in 2012.
9.1 point Clinton blowout. I’d put money on it.
Okay, not actual money. But anonymous internet commenter money.
Don’t bet on it, Steggies. Not even anonymous internet commenter money. There are simply too many fixes possible.
Late, media-carried bombshell types of fixes.
Vote fraud fixes…of all kinds.
National “emergencies”…also of all kinds.
This is the dirtiest game we have ever seen in a national (
s)election. It makes Nixon’s various maneuverings or JFK’s reliance on mob bosses look like children playing “Go Fish.” No matter who wins…if anybody does…I seriously doubt that there will be any real conclusion to the process for months if not years.Sit back, relax, and watch the dumbshow.
But don’t be one of the dummies.
Later…
AG
Speaking of, was there ever any clarification as to why people got unregistered in the Democratic primary?
“Clarification???!!!” The lies are so thick throughout the entire system that there are no “clarities.” Just “He said,” She said,” “They say” and “I say.”
There is no longer any truth available.
Just competing hustles.
Believe none of them.
AG
Peak Gilroy.
Very empowering.
I’ll be continuing to work between now and Election Day to effectively organize voters for a progressive agenda. The work satisfies me and my campaign teams, and informs us a bit about what Americans care about.
Peak Centristfield.
Your “progressive agenda” is someone else’s “Permanent War State.”
You want to be informed about the worries of Americans?
Stay tuned.
Tuesday will begin to tell the tale.
But…it won’t end Tuesday no matter who wins.
Too many Americans, too many different worries and too much media, fanning the various flames.
Of one thing you can be sure…
Chaucer knew.
“Murder will out.”
Eventually.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Murder. That includes the whole “collateral damage” spiel that we hear nearly every week from the HillaryCons/ObamaCons.
Bet on it
Peak Centristfield.
Your “progressive agenda” is someone else’s “Permanent War State.”
You want to be informed about the worries of Americans?
Stay tuned.
Tuesday will begin to tell the tale.
But…it won’t end Tuesday no matter who wins.
Too many Americans, too many different worries and too much media, fanning the various flames.
Of one thing you can be sure…
Chaucer knew.
“Murder will out.”
Eventually.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Murder. That includes the whole “collateral damage” spiel that we hear nearly every week from the HillaryCons/ObamaCons.
Bet on it
Forgive the double post, please. My error. It really should only need to be said once.
AG
I’m still expecting a squeaker.
I always expected the race to be close, so not a lot of disappointment that it’s coming down to the wire. The good news for Clinton is that early voting trends in several states have looked really good. We’ll see how it goes Tuesday, but I still expect Clinton to win. Comes down to whether the Senate flips. On that front, I’m cautiously optimistic.
Assuming all goes as expected Tuesday, I’ll still have a job to go to and it is a job that periodically sends me to Las Vegas. Something tells me I’ll be thanking some of the employees I encounter there.
And knowing smiles.
Civilisation saved in Nevada? Now that’s a whopper. I can’t believe that he believes it. He’s just happy his side is going to win on Tuesday, so he gets to yap about civilization from his east coast hangout.
Except he meant the “culinary workers in Vegas casinos” and not NV as a whole. Mustn’t forget that with Bernie selling a $15 minimum wage that team HRC agreed — until after the NV caucuses when she retreated to her $12 minimum wage pledge.
Also note that not one federal minimum wage increase has been pushed through and passed by Congress during the Obama administration. (Proposed a $10.10 minimum wage in after five years in office in his 2014 SOTU address but it didn’t go anywhere.) A record not matched by any prior administration in the past 75 years except for Reagan’s.
Democrats should certainly have passed a minimum wage increase when they controlled Congress. A missed opportunity to deliver for labor because there was no chance of passing one after 2010, proposed or not.
I’m encouraged by the state and local level successes in the past few years.
The Democrats didn’t miss a chance. They decided simply they didn’t want to raise the minimum wage. That was an active choice. The key word here is ‘agency’.
Yes exactly. It was an open secret in 92 that Bill Clinton told the Democratic Congress not to send him a minimum wage bill when he got elected – the DLC line was that a minimum wage was bad but EIC was good, and to his credit Bill did deliver on EIC. It seems that Obama (who also raised the EIC in the stimulus act) was too scared to go against the conventional line that a minimum wage increase is a job killer in the depths of the great recession.
From a political perspective, I personally would have passed a min wage increase in 2009 to start taking effect in 2011 (since all the serious people would have blamed any lack of economic improvement on it, preventing any progress on anything otherwise).
Marie3, I know what section of Nevada he was referring to. I was just questioning if he by any stretch is the one to go around judging who and who has not saved or destroyed civilisation. Pomposity as far as the eye can see. So like the stylish and cultivated Democratic Party and its leader HRC who knows who the Deplorables are: somthing like the caste of Untouchables.
So one thing I can’t understand is why if Clinton is doing so much better in states like GA, NC and AZ why her national numbers weren’t better. The answer is the midwest numbers aren’t good.
But when I did the analysis last night I cam up with Clinton +8.
And that was accurate when I did it in 2004 and 2008.
An explanation:
So the number below the votes is the Obama percentage. Under that is the shift from 2012. So in the northeast Obama got 60.17%, and Clinton is performing 1.18% worse, so I project she wins 58.99.
The thing is she runs much better in the Atlantic South and the Deep South, and that more that makes up for the decline in NE and the MW. Moreover the Pacific NW will likely go up.
So I get Clinton +8 by this analysis.
This is a somewhat stupid piece at the NYT that contains a map that is pretty interesting relative to the shift numbers in your table:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/upshot/why-the-election-is-close-and-what-trump-and-obama-have-in-
common.html?
I think the answer to why HRC isn’t performing quite as well as Obama in the midwestern states is that Democrats have more to lose with whites in these states. So, if HRC can’t match Obama’s performance with whites, whether college educated or non-college educated, then we’re looking at even+ tighter elections. This becomes more difficult given any weakness turning out minorities.
Latinos are better represented in places like Arizona. They are motivated to vote. Democrats have more to gain in some of these states by eating into the college educated white vote who don’t have much history of voting for Democrats but can’t stomach Trump.
I see the midwestern stats as trending even more Republican in future cycles as more whites gravitate to right wing populism and an increasingly white nationalist party.
We’ll see how the Democratic party responds to these trends.
How’s the election going, Mark?
No, of course not.
Only in Illinois. Adlia Stevenson Junior ran for Governor in Illinois.
He strenuously denied being a wimp.
But no one had asked him or suggested he was.
Still in made big news.
He lost.
what’s the story in NH? I worked in the north in previous years.
Ayotte wins. I tend to think the race drifts back to Clinton and she wins.
thanks for info. very disappointing about Ayotte.
Ayotte was vulnerable but Hassan will own her loss.
No, Adelson and the Koch brothers will own it. They paid for it. A lot.
That’s a simplistic interpretation. If you want to claim that money alone and the one that spends the most is the winner, then you’ll also have to concede that Mitt and Trump lost because they had less money.
Plenty of vulnerable incumbents raise and spend more in their re-election bid and lose. NJ 2009 gubernatorial election (general election only): Corzine $27.1 million and Christie $11.9 million.
NJ does differ from NH in that it more solidly leans Democratic than NH which only slightly favors a Democrat. And Corzine was actively loathed whereas, Ayotte is only slightly vulnerable. OTOH, Hassan is a a reasonably popular governor and Christie was a newbie on the statewide stage.
A better comparison with a vulnerable incumbent Senator is NC in 2014. Dem incumbent in a state that leans R. Stronger GOP lean in midterms, but Hassan should enjoy a stronger Dem lean in a presidential election cycle. OTOH, Tillis didn’t enjoy the statewide stature than Hassan does. Spending: Hagen $24.9 million and Tillis $10.5 million. (AR incumbent Senator also can’t blame campaign spending on his loss either — both candidates spent approx $14 million (iirc there was Koch money there as well).
As of 10/19 – spending by and on behalf of Ayotte was $16.8 million and Hassan $13.8 million. Not nearly the huge difference in spending that existed in the 2015 NH senate race. Incumbent Sheheen $16.4 million and carpetbagger Brown $9.2 million.
Unfortunately dark money expenditures don’t necessarily show up in the reports. All the way back in February the Koch’s AFP had already spent 1.2 million attacking Hassan – but it’s not in the Open Secrets report. You know they’ve spent a lot more since.
Outside spending has tripled since just 2010. The amounts being poured into the system are totally unprecedented. And we’re mostly the target.
You’re correct. Dark money mostly remains dark. However, Democrats have dark money as well. Don’t know if any of it ended up in support of Hassan, but plenty has gone into Hillary’s campaign.
Politico — Bloomies bucks for Hassan weren’t skimpy.
nice
Except he also put bucks into expanding charter schools (may have stock in those scofflaws) and his soda tax that hurts low income people. FWIW — I’m not a soft drink consumer and for people economically and nutritionally and for the environment, we’d be better off without soft drinks. However, education and not a consumption tax is more powerful and in the short run doesn’t hurt people.
Ayotte is a good politician. A typical northern New England GOP politician that survives even as her state turn blue.
See Robert Stafford – because NH is about where VT was in the 80’s.
interesting. had some problems with her before she was a senator, some issues in N NH. struck me that her senate campaign wasn’t really NH based, more generic Repub and thought that would hurt her over the long run, but seems I was wrong about that.