as of 10:30 Friday morning, October 21.
First the aggregators/models in all cases Clinton percentages or #s first
Pollster.com 48.1-41.0 down slightly in past few days with addition of things like IDC
RealClear Politics 4-way +6.0 with no tossup states 333 EVs
DailyKos 95% (340 EVs) US Senate 58% for 50-50 Senate
Five Thirty Eight
Now Cast 86.5%
polls only 86.2%
polls plus 83.5%
Huffington Post 96%
PredictWise 91%
Princeton Election Consortium Baysesian 98.6% meta margin +4.9% US Senate 50-50 79% Metamargin +1.7%
Upshot 93%
Consensus on electoral votes 272 solid for Clinton
Uphot’s estimates on competitive states with running EV totals as each is added in
FL (29) 80% 301
NV (6) 79% 307
NE-CD2 (1) 71% 308
NC (15) 71% 323
OH (18) 55% 341
ME- CD2 (1) 50% (342)
AZ (11) 42%
IA (6) 40%
GA (16) 39%
Just noting that some of the other models/predictors are more favorable on the last three states
One more — Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball on the electoral college
Safe D 183
Likely 75 258
Lean 94 352
And now my thoughts
Quite clearly the Clinton campaign is feeling confident enough to aggressively expand the map, both by appearances of surrogates and spending money. There have been a number of posts here about that.
Some of the aggregators/models are pulled down because of inclusion of polls that tend to tilt to varying degrees Republican. But even some of these, when examined at a state level, show strong movement in the direction of Clinton, for example, Q going from Trump +5 in OH to even.
We do not yet really have any polling on the impact of the debate on the state of the race. With the addition today of the NBC/Survey Monkey poll, we now have 3 or more scientific polls showing Clinton winning the final debate.
Of greater importance, we have had heavy coverage of Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the outcome of the election, and as a result we have also had some additional high profile Republicans announcing they will not vote for him, most notably former RNC Chair Michael Steele.
I actually think two other things from that debate may have a greater impact
- “nasty woman” and “bad hombres” —
both will be spread among important groups potentially energizing even more support for Clinton.
I also strongly believe that Trump’s continue rhetoric about a rigged election, reinforced by his implying that he is going to lose on November 8 in his refusal to commit to accepting the results, will both increase some vote FOR Clinton and depress some votes both for Trump and for Republicans in general. Remember, while there is a chunk of Trump’s support that is passionately committed to him and will vote in any circumstance, there is also a sizeable portion of his vote that is instead voting against Clinton. If for that latter group there vote is not going to matter, they could well decide to stay home. That also has very serious down ballot implications, including potentially putting the House in play.
We had another woman come out against Trump yesterday. It has not yet gotten that much play. It is not clear how much of an impact it will have, but if that leads to even more women coming out, it could.
I also think the coverage of the Al Smith Dinner is going to have some impact, especially among Catholics, as words about and video of the event spread.
It is clear to me that if one examines Trump’s facial expressions and body language at both the end of the debate and the end of the dinner last night that he knows he is going to lose.
I began this season predicting that Clinton would win 348 electoral votes — 322 from Obama’s 2012 states, + NC, + 2nd CD in NE.
I now view that as far too low. I would add to that the following
AZ 11
GA 16
That would make a base of 375 electoral votes.
I think it more likely that Clinton will break 400 than she would have less than 300.
We have to remember that elections often see a massive shift in the last 5-10 days.
We are seeing very good data on absentee ballots and early voting where that information is available, which could make the picture even rosier, for example:
As for the Senate, I am increasingly confident that we will have at least 50 seats. I think it could go to 52 or 53, although I think the hardest of the so-called competitive seats to take will be Portman, followed by McCain, and then by Rubio.
The House is hard to call. In some cases we are seeing margins widen enough in some states to put more seats into play. Thus in VA we expected to pick up at least 1 (Don McEachin) and maybe a 2nd (defeating Barbara Comstock). we are now seeing possibilities in at least one and maybe 2-3 more — that is in part because the statewide margin in Virginia now seems firmly in double digits.
I am now seeing greater enthusiasm in voting FOR Clinton among her supporters than in the Trump camp. I think Trump is damping down enthusiasm on his side. I think many of the pundits do not yet grasp this shift.
One last point, and it is not about this election. I constantly hear/read that Democrats do not turn out in offyear elections, which of course provides some worry looking forward to 2018. I even read that here.
But that ignores an important piece of history. 2006 was an offyear election. The Dems made massive gains, picking up both the House and Senate. Of greater importance, as I recall, we did not lose a single race for a House or Senate seat or governorship which we held going into that race.
Please remember — we had a 50 state strategy then, thanks to Howard Dean.
One reason I like expanding the map is because I believe there are many more places where, despite gerrymandering, we can if we maximize our turnout, pick up House and state legislative seats, even if we do not carry the state for the electoral college.
I feel increasingly confident about November 8.
What about you?