No one would be happier than I am to see the face of a trounced Trump. (Even sounds good)
But the current polls seem to show quite a divergence of results, which lead to the rhetorical question, "Are they to be taken seriously?" Three polls stubbornly show a nail-biter. Can we afford to be too complacent?
Can some PoliSci experts enlighten?
If you average the polls at the aggregate polling websites, she currently has a nearly 6% lead; Nate Silver has her leading by 6.1 %
You tell me.But the current polls seem to show quite a divergence of results, which lead to the rhetorical question, "Are they to be taken seriously?" Three polls stubbornly show a nail-biter. Can we afford to be too complacent?
Can some PoliSci experts enlighten?
...............but the popular vote margin between them stays very close, with HRC eking out a small win. Watch Pennsylvania, if HRC loses Pennsylvania then it's going to be a long, long, night for her in the swing states of North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Florida. I suspect even if Trump loses, he will say he won because Clinton rigged the votes
...Helmut Norpoth uses a "primary model." His model is based on how the candidates did in the primaries, not public opinion polls. His model has correctly predicted every election since it began in 1996. Applying it retroactively, the model would have correctly predicted every election since 1912, except for 1960.
I say the helmut Helmut and his model.Some might call it landslide.
Menarche will cry that it was rigged.
Why? Look at 538 on the charts of prediction to win, going back to July 30th. Those states where Trump's percentage to win rose higher than Clinton's, in my mind, are the true toss-up states. PA was not one of them. Close, but not quite.
-- Modified on 10/26/2016 2:25:36 PM