Don’t ignore the data journalists tracking the race, and note that while there’s a steady Hillary Clinton lead in the national head to head, the state polls have tightened (driving the prediction banner at top of page) in some states. Still, a 3 point win in a state gets you as many electoral votes as a 12 point win. That’s why you’re seeing pieces like this:
Politico:
Clinton’s advisers tell her to prep for a landslide
Displaying unchecked confidence, the Democrat’s paid consultants see plenty of paths to the White House.
Politico:
Inside Trump Tower: Facing grim reality
Three weeks until early voting, the campaign scrambles to pick a path and stay on it.
It makes a lot of you uncomfortable to talk about winning, but it’s the political reality: Trump is losing. We are seeing the inevitable tightening, but there’s no question Clinton not only remains the heavy favorite, she’s the only one with an actual campaign.
As to whether the race is already over, well, many people are saying it.
Armando on what’s in the FBI report on Hillary’s server:
PRRI with a reality check on the Trump immigration scam (I can’t call it a plan, that implies thought):
However, when questioned about immigration policy solutions, Republicans overall opt for more measured positions. When asked how the immigration system should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally, only about three in ten (29 percent) Republicans say the immigration system should identify and deport them, compared to seven in ten who say they should be allowed some legal status, including nearly half (49 percent) who say we should allow them a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, and 22 percent who say they should be allowed to become permanent legal residents but not citizens. Notably, Trump primary supporters are significantly more likely than Republicans overall to favor the deportation option (41 percent vs. 29 percent, respectively), although even among Trump supporters support for deportation does not reach a majority.
McKay Coppins:
Baffled Republicans Wonder: Who Was Trump’s Immigration Speech For?
“It has to be their calculation that they can drive up turnout in white working-class areas of battleground states to dizzying heights. Otherwise this move makes no sense 69 days from the election.”
If the election is being fought over white males and Republican women, he’s losing bigly.
Speaking of reality checks, Politico also noted Eric Trump is simply stunned that after the AZ speech, Latinos are quitting his campaign:
Eric Trump: 'Pretty amazing' that Hispanic surrogates withdrew support after speech
Amazing, isn’t it? All the white nationalists at Trump HQ thought Trump’s AZ speech was great. But Josh Marshall sets them straight (my bold):
Even now, after all that's happened, most political reporters find themselves either unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump's tirades as hate speech. But they fit the textbook definition, inasmuch as it's even a useful concept. The New York Times is onthe receiving end of a storm of criticism at the moment for their botched story on Trump's whirlwind Wednesday from Mexico City to Phoenix. And they deserve it. But the offense is mainly one of laziness and sloppiness - offenses which the Times'privileged position makes it again and again vulnerable to. You write the story about the arc of the day, file it to edit and production. But while the piece is on autopilot in those later stages of the journalistic process the reality of the day changes radically and you end up publishing a story that is night and day of the reality everybody has just seen. But this embarrassment is a pedestrian stumble. The far greater offense is the one almost every news organization committed with the Times. This isn't 'tough' or 'hard edged' speechifying. This is hate speech.
Harry Enten/FiveThirtyEight on how to read polls like a pro:
Instead, take an average. I don’t just say this because it’s what we do at FiveThirtyEight. I say it because aggregating polls, especially in general elections, is the method that leads to the most accurate projection of the eventual result most often. Put simply, it’s the best measure of the state of the race.
Look for polls that use live interviewers; they have a better track record.Polls that use real, live humans to call people up and ask them what they think are more tested have a better record than interactive voice response (“robopolls”) or online polls. Pollsters that use live interviewers can more easily reach a representative sample, while convenience online surveysand especially interactive voice response polls have trouble contacting some demographic groups — young people and nonwhite respondents, for example.
Bloomberg has a nice 5 minute video with Larry Sabato on the state of the race. He agrees with me that the head to heads (not 4 way) is the better number to follow (but look at them all).
John Stoehr/Washington Monthly:
Why Political Journalists Can’t Take Criticism
Journalists, I believe, are beholden to the truth. If they are unwilling to pay deference to the authority of the truth, even when that deference conflicts with the profession’s other guiding principles, there isn’t much point in being a journalist.
Again, I understand why reporters respond to criticisms in partisan fashion. It’s natural. Indeed, I was sympathetic to Business Insider’s Josh Barro when he quipped on Twitter that Clinton supporters are among the whiniest supporters.
But in this case, vocal complaints by Clinton supporters are not empty. They are based on something. They are based on demonstrable instances of journalistic malfeasance.