2016 Presidential Race

[Jeffrey]

..and that no one really likes the choices that will become President on Jan 21.

Many here are very pleased.

[Tom B.]

Did you know that George W. Bush is now more popular than Bill J. Clinton?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-bill-clinton/

That actually doesn't surprise me. Most presidents become more popular after they're out of office, mainly because, well...they're out of office. They're no longer seen as much through the lens of politics and polarization.

For the same reason, it doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton's popularity -- which had been historically high since the end of his administration -- has come back down to earth a bit in the last year or so. With his wife on the presidential ballot, people are back to viewing Bill more through that political lens, so he's seen as more polarizing.

The thing about Obama, though, is that he's quite popular while still in office. I'm sure part of that is because people see him in a better light compared to the two current major-party presidential candidates -- but it's also striking that with an electorate in a generally foul mood about most everything, Obama's image is so positive. For all the talk about how voters want "change," you wouldn't know it from Obama's approval numbers. Usually if voters want change, it means the President's approval rating will be underwater. Obama's, by contrast, is on par with where Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were at this point in their terms.

And that's why Scott Walker's tweet was unintentionally humorous -- it assumes that "four more years of Obama" is universally recognized as a bad thing. But I bet if you gave voters the choice of four more years of Obama vs. choosing between Hillary and Trump, they'd take four more years of Obama in a heartbeat. And if you're equating Hillary Clinton with "four more years of Obama," it seems that more people would see that as a reason to vote for her than against her.

[PackMan97]

Many here are very pleased.

I forget I don't live in my own little echo chamber. Thank you for the correction.

[Udaman]

Time for some levity:

Headlines from across the country on November 9th:

If Trump Wins

"Hillary Nailed After Weiner Probe"

"(Br)Exit Stage Left" or "(H)Exit Stage Left"

"Hillary Loses to Trump(ed) Up Charges"

If Hillary Wins

"Trump Dumped"

"Biggest Loser Reveiled - It's Trump"

"Weiner Probe Makes Hillary Uncomfotable - But She Comes Out Ahead"

and of course

"Electorate to Trump - 'You're Fired'"

[Jeffrey]

I'm getting lost in all the changes to your steadfast predictions over the past few months.

You don’t need a weatherman,
To know which way the wind blows.

[Udaman]

That actually doesn't surprise me. Most presidents become more popular after they're out of office, mainly because, well...they're out of office. They're no longer seen as much through the lens of politics and polarization.

For the same reason, it doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton's popularity -- which had been historically high since the end of his administration -- has come back down to earth a bit in the last year or so. With his wife on the presidential ballot, people are back to viewing Bill more through that political lens, so he's seen as more polarizing.

The thing about Obama, though, is that he's quite popular while still in office. I'm sure part of that is because people see him in a better light compared to the two current major-party presidential candidates -- but it's also striking that with an electorate in a generally foul mood about most everything, Obama's image is so positive. For all the talk about how voters want "change," you wouldn't know it from Obama's approval numbers. Usually if voters want change, it means the President's approval rating will be underwater. Obama's, by contrast, is on par with where Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were at this point in their terms.

And that's why Scott Walker's tweet was unintentionally humorous -- it assumes that "four more years of Obama" is universally recognized as a bad thing. But I bet if you gave voters the choice of four more years of Obama vs. choosing between Hillary and Trump, they'd take four more years of Obama in a heartbeat. And if you're equating Hillary Clinton with "four more years of Obama," it seems that more people would see that as a reason to vote for her than against her.

Obama would absolutely smoke Trump (or Clinton). Both the current President, and his spouse!

[BLPOG]

I'm getting lost in all the changes to your steadfast predictions over the past few months.

Sideshow Bob has something to say about that sort of behavior

[DukieInKansas]

I drove from the Kansas suburbs to the downtown area of KC today and only noticed one bumper sticker.

$_58.JPG

What member of DBR did I pass?

[cato]

Obama would absolutely smoke Trump (or Clinton). Both the current President, and his spouse!

Hey! A testable prediction.

Obama and Clinton actually faced off in the primary. Obama won, but only barely. So, he did not smoke her.

[OldPhiKap]

Hey! A testable prediction.

Obama and Clinton actually faced off in the primary. Obama won, but only barely. So, he did not smoke her.

But how would a tiny Mike Ditka do?

[luvdahops]

But how would a tiny Mike Ditka do?

Tiny Ditka 476, Giants 2

[BLPOG]

Hey! A testable prediction.

Obama and Clinton actually faced off in the primary. Obama won, but only barely. So, he did not smoke her.

Yeah, but if I played John Kundla in a pick-up game today I'd probably win.

Time passes and situations change. It's probably not a valid test to compare the 2008 primary with the 2016 general.

[golfinesquire]

Hate to say I told you so...but the latest 538 projections have Trump winning Florida, up in Ohio and Iowa, and barely losing in North Carolina. Odds for Hillary down to 71.2%.

This election has been entirely about public announcements. Hillary was up big, then came the FBI ruling in July. She plummeted through the first week of August. Then came Trump and his attack on the Khan family. He plummeted. Then came the "Basket of Deplorables" fiasco. Hillary plummeted. Then game the First Debate and the Bush-Trump taped conversation. He plummeted. Now it's Comey and the "no concrete news" investigation. Hillary is plummeting.

Unless something new comes out about Trump in the next few days (and it certainly could), I will stand by my current prediction. Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and Nevada. This election comes down to Michigan, New Hampshire and Colorado (all - at the moment - fairly solid towards Hillary). GOP retains Senate by winning North Carolina, Nevada, Missouri, and one of either New Hampshire or Indiana.

We then face the worst case scenario - either a Trump win with the GOP. Or a Hillary barely win (272 electoral votes) with a GOP Senate and Trump not conceding for days (if not weeks/ever). I think you all know where I stand (solidly behind Clinton). To be honest, I would rather have Trump win, then to have Hillary barely win and then have the GOP with the Senate. At least in the former (I believe), the GOP will eventually self-destruct, and when the economy doesn't improve (it likely won't under either), and Trump doesn't get done what he said he would (no wall, no repeal of Obamacare, no stop of terrorism in the US) and does what he can (restrictions on abortions, gay marriage, appointment of conservative judges), the backlash in 2 years will be immense. That happens no matter who wins, by the way.

Just an amazing election season. I'm so, so, so, so ready for it to be over. Like the worst root canal while watching the end of a close UNC -Duke game and a remarkably tense horror movie at the same time.

Well I just checked Nate Silver and she is at 72.1 and he has her winning Florida.

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah, but if I played John Kundla in a pick-up game today I'd probably win.

Time passes and situations change. It's probably not a valid test to compare the 2008 primary with the 2016 general.

My guess is that if the Democratic primary decision this year was between a possible third term for Obama, or a possible first term for Hillary, Obama would win by a comfortable margin. And Bernie likely would never have even jumped in the race.

[alteran]

It looks like Comey's FBI isn't done trying to influence the election.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...n-files-230590

I'm flabbergasted at this one.

[Philadukie]

Hate to say I told you so...but the latest 538 projections have Trump winning Florida, up in Ohio and Iowa, and barely losing in North Carolina. Odds for Hillary down to 71.2%.

This election has been entirely about public announcements. Hillary was up big, then came the FBI ruling in July. She plummeted through the first week of August. Then came Trump and his attack on the Khan family. He plummeted. Then came the "Basket of Deplorables" fiasco. Hillary plummeted. Then game the First Debate and the Bush-Trump taped conversation. He plummeted. Now it's Comey and the "no concrete news" investigation. Hillary is plummeting.

Unless something new comes out about Trump in the next few days (and it certainly could), I will stand by my current prediction. Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and Nevada. This election comes down to Michigan, New Hampshire and Colorado (all - at the moment - fairly solid towards Hillary). GOP retains Senate by winning North Carolina, Nevada, Missouri, and one of either New Hampshire or Indiana.

We then face the worst case scenario - either a Trump win with the GOP. Or a Hillary barely win (272 electoral votes) with a GOP Senate and Trump not conceding for days (if not weeks/ever). I think you all know where I stand (solidly behind Clinton). To be honest, I would rather have Trump win, then to have Hillary barely win and then have the GOP with the Senate. At least in the former (I believe), the GOP will eventually self-destruct, and when the economy doesn't improve (it likely won't under either), and Trump doesn't get done what he said he would (no wall, no repeal of Obamacare, no stop of terrorism in the US) and does what he can (restrictions on abortions, gay marriage, appointment of conservative judges), the backlash in 2 years will be immense. That happens no matter who wins, by the way.

Just an amazing election season. I'm so, so, so, so ready for it to be over. Like the worst root canal while watching the end of a close UNC -Duke game and a remarkably tense horror movie at the same time.

You're really good at presenting "facts" without much factual basis.

Clinton's numbers are not "plummeting." Aggregated, they're about the same as they've been over the past couple weeks. What you're seeing is Trump's numbers rising, which is likely due to party consolidation. In fact, most of the polling that is contributing to 538's decline in Clinton's win probability was done BEFORE the FBI announcement. The race itself remains little changed: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/up...race.html?_r=0

Without getting into the weeds too much, I also think you have a lack of understanding of Nate Silver's probability modeling and even seem to be conflating it with the polling numbers themselves. If you need reassurance, I suggest to you go to Sam Wang's site, Princeton Election Consortium (http://election.princeton.edu/). Keep in mind, Wang has been more accurate than Silver since 2004. His probability modeling correctly predicted - to the extent that word is appropriate here - the exact number of electoral votes in 2004 and 2012 and was off only one electoral vote in 2008.

Finally, this may help you, perhaps along with a stiff drink: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/1...on-hypothesis/

[BandAlum83]

It looks like Comey's FBI isn't done trying to influence the election.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...n-files-230590

I'm flabbergasted at this one.

You're freaking kidding me. <sigh>

[howardlander]

You're freaking kidding me. <sigh>

Wow. This certainly seems a bit tone deaf, if nothing else. The worst thing is that it really does begin to undermine confidence in the political neutrality of our FBI.

Howard

[CDu]

Another way to look at it is this:

Clinton is ahead by ~4 points nationally in the polls. If she wins only the states in which she currently holds at least a 4% lead in the polls, she wins the election. That's assuming Trump wins not only all of the toss-up states, but also takes any states in which Clinton is currently polling slightly ahead but with a lead that is below her national lead.

There is, of course, the possibility that the polls are off in one direction or the other. But either one of those states are going to have to deviate much more than expected, or her national numbers will have to plummet quickly, or the polls have to be off substantially in her favor for her to not win the election.

[Udaman]

Another way to look at it is this:

Clinton is ahead by ~4 points nationally in the polls. If she wins only the states in which she currently holds at least a 4% lead in the polls, she wins the election. That's assuming Trump wins not only all of the toss-up states, but also takes any states in which Clinton is currently polling slightly ahead but with a lead that is below her national lead.

There is, of course, the possibility that the polls are off in one direction or the other. But either one of those states are going to have to deviate much more than expected, or her national numbers will have to plummet quickly, or the polls have to be off substantially in her favor for her to not win the election.

And there's been early voting before any of this FBI news came out. That all helps her.

My brain says she should win. But the Brexit hairs on the back of my neck say that rational thought might not prevail here. Guess we will find out in about 174 hours or so.