The polling is gaudy, definitely in wave territory. So much so, in fact, that we can start pivoting from worrying about the presidency, and figuring out how to best take advantage of this historic opportunity. The Senate? Yeah, we’re on track to take that back, but can we pad the numbers to survive a brutal 2018 map? The House? Ha ha no way because gerrymandering, but … what? It is in play? So yeah, that’s where we are. And now is a good as any time to appreciate just how far the numbers have come in our favor.
2016 BATTLEGROUND PRESIDENTIAL MATCHUPS
|
8/17 |
7/28 |
7/19 |
6/30 |
6/10 |
5/12 |
US |
C+8.6 |
C+1.3 |
C+2.5
|
C+7 |
C+4.6 |
C+3.6 |
AZ (11) |
TIED |
TIED |
TIED |
C+1 |
C+1 |
C+3 |
CO (9) |
C+7 |
C+5 |
C+5 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
FL (29) |
C+4 |
C+3 |
C+2 |
C+6 |
C+2 |
C+4 |
GA (16) |
T+1 |
T+3 |
T+4 |
T+3 |
T+4 |
T+5 |
IA (6) |
C+2 |
C+3 |
C+3 |
C+4 |
C+4 |
C+4 |
MI (16) |
C+8 |
C+6 |
C+6 |
C+8 |
C+8 |
C+11 |
MO (10) |
T+5 |
T+7 |
T+6 |
T+3 |
T+5 |
T+7 |
NC (15) |
C+4 |
C+4 |
C+4 |
TIED |
T+1 |
C+3 |
NV (6) |
T+1 |
C+2 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
NH (4) |
C+6 |
C+5 |
C+4 |
C+6 |
C+7 |
C+10 |
OH (18) |
C+2 |
TIED |
C+2 |
C+3 |
C+1 |
C+3 |
PA (20) |
C+7 |
C+3 |
C+3 |
C+4 |
C+4 |
C+7 |
VA (13) |
C+8 |
C+5 |
C+5 |
C+3 |
C+4 |
C+13 |
WI (10) |
C+9 |
C+8 |
C+9 |
C+10 |
C+12 |
C+12 |
Yeah, this is pretty much a companion piece to my Tuesday piece on the Electoral College outlook. That one focused on how far away Donald Trump was from 270. This one shows how much Clinton’s numbers improved after the Democratic Convention bounce launch.
Interestingly, her national numbers have never been better, but she is still mostly down from her May matchups. Not sure how that happens, particularly given the huge national gains, from nearly +4 in May to nearly +9 today. A lot of that could be consolidation of the Bernie vote in deep Blue states like California, coupled with continued Trump weakness in Red states like Texas and Georgia. I mean, if Trump is up only eight points in Kansas, chances are his leads in other blood-Red states are equally anemic.
But why aren’t those trends reflected in Ohio? Pennsylvania doesn’t seem to have a problem trending hard toward Clinton. So why is Ohio holding out? I don’t have any theories.
And what’s up with Nevada, where a Suffolk poll today found Clinton leading by just two points? This is a state President Barack Obama won by almost seven points in 2012, and it has only gotten more Latino since then.
Well, much of it could be the obvious difficulty in polling the state. In 2010, the polling aggregate said Sen. Harry Reid would lose by almost three points. Not a single poll had Reid in the lead, yet Reid won by almost six points. In 2012, the polling said Obama would win Nevada by about three points. The final result was seven points.
Florida seems so close! Except that in historical terms, it’s not. In 2012, the polling aggregate had Mitt Romney leading by 1.5 points on Election Eve, while Obama won by just shy of a point. In 2008, the aggregate average had Obama up 1.8 points, while he won by 2.8. In 2004, there was no polling aggregators to point to, but CNN/Gallup had John Kerry leading by one, ARG had Kerry leading by two, Fox News had Kerry leading by five. NYT had Kerry leading by one. Fox had Kerry leading by five. And Q-poll had Bush leading by eight. Aggregate it all, and we’d probably get a tiny Kerry lead. (The final result was an unfortunate Bush +5.) And of course, we all know just how close 2000 was.
So all that to point out that yes, a +4 Clinton lead in Florida is pretty f’n big in relative terms. The state is supposed to be like Ohio—locked in a perpetual tie.
One other thing to consider before wrapping up, is that there are states that should theoretically be on that chart, that I haven’t added because there’s no fucking way that Indiana, Kansas, Texas, and Utah are really in play. (Well, Indiana might be, as 2008 taught us.) But Trump’s continued weakness could certainly make things interesting in the end. And even if they don’t, there are a lot of downballot races that will be impacted positively (for us).
At this point, Trump matters not because he might be president, but because he’s delivering all sorts of downballot goodies to the Democrats. That’s why it’s important to keep attention on him: Everything he says or does either motivates more of our people to turn out (win!), or depresses Republican base turnout (win!).
Trump is creating untold damage to the GOP brand, and it’s damage that’s likely to last a long time. The harder we go at Trump, the more his taint will stick, and the longer it will do so. Remember, we have a tough Senate map in 2018, as well as critical governor elections ahead of the 2020 apportionment. We need to win in a year following 12 years of uninterrupted Democratic presidencies. The headwinds will be tough. So if Trump can give us lift past this year? We’ll take it!
So remember, this isn’t about winning the White House this year. Clinton’s got that one in the bag. It’s about maximizing our victories, winning so much we’ll be sick of winning! And then carrying that momentum into a year that should, by all rights, suck for us.