Born under a bad sign, been down since I began to crawl

If it wasn't for the LA Times/USC tracking poll, I wouldn't have no love at all

Re. Tell America It's Great

There are many Canadians and, indeed, people around the world who still believe in the promise of America.

If I didn't believe, I wouldn't be here. :)

Nothing to be sorry about ... YET, :)

"I think the one I was talking about was the CBS one:

Trump 37
Clinton 20
McMullin 20
Johnson 7

That's a pretty big lead, but the polls in Utah have really been all over the map.

But in this case, "handily" means +17"

Thanks.
Geez.
Clinton tied for second place at 20% in Utah is amazingly low, even for a red state.

16% in the none of the above column is odd too for a four way breakout.

A

I notice erosion in Trump's probabilities in states where Clinton has been only marginally competitive. It's not all that much, and according to my models, this has little impact on the overall chance of either candidate winning the Presidency. Still it does make potential Clinton landslides bigger, and victories by Trump "nearer run things" (if I can coin a phrase). I don't know if I would call this collapse just yet, but it seem to be erosion around the foundations of The Trump Election Tower.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10094

Will Clinton win in a landslide?

It is possible. The S&P 500 as risen above 4% since July. This has not happened since 1984 when Reagan won by a landslide. Statistics taken over 7 decades of elections tells us that when the market is rising in the last 3 months of the election that the party that holds the WH wins 82% of the time.

1968 and 1980 were exceptions. There was a strong 3rd party candidate in those years.

If Johnson remains strong then this will be a close election. If he fades like all 3rd party candidates have since 1980, then it could be a Clinton landslide.

As with gamblers, stock investors have a lot of skin in this election. They're not betting on Trump for the win...

Johnson is starting a slow fade and will not be a factor.

The "Chardonnay Ladies" are on the move to Clinton.

This election has been steady because of the polarization of the electorate. Trump will get his 40%. Clinton needs About 52% of the popular vote to have an effect down ticket. We'll know more next week.

All data points to this election being over...

~Phil~

Interesting. Paddy Power and Betfair merged about a year ago. I wonder what is happening over at the Betfair exchange....

....

and the answer is absolutely nothing, Trump is still trading around 6.2 to 6.4.

Hmmm, what happens if the unthinkable happens. Can Paddy P. break the thumbs of those who collected early and spent their money down at the pub? :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/10/17/leave-it-to-canada-to-remind-america-that-its-still-a-great-country/

O Canada!

:-)

-CW

PS. [for LizM] - Sorry to hear about the Blue Jays. Oh, well, go Cubbies!

Just got finished reading that article. Here's the link for everyone:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/18/trump-electoral-college-victory-non-existent/

Stu Rothenberg is one of the most respected poll analysts alive, I should mention.

altohone [7] -

Um... lemme look it up... OK, here you go:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-utah-president-trump-vs-clinton

I think the one I was talking about was the CBS one:

Trump 37
Clinton 20
McMullin 20
Johnson 7

That's a pretty big lead, but the polls in Utah have really been all over the map.

But in this case, "handily" means +17.

apophis [12] -

You'll never catch me arguing against Paddy power. And that second "P" is lower case for a reason!

:-)

[Ed. note: Chris has an Irish wife, for those of you unaware of the fact...]

Heh.

-CW

The market said Tuesday that it is paying out more than $1 million worth of bets on the Democratic nominee because it looks like Clinton has sealed a win over Republican nominee Donald Trump.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-trump-odds-paddy-power-win-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

Compounded by the fact that her testimony keeps changing to include things that there is no way could have ever taken place. She originally stated that then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta blamed Muslim outrage over the YouTube video, but then later she testifies under oath in a congressional hearing in 2013: "Obama and Hillary and Panetta and Biden and Susan all came up to me at the casket ceremony. Every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug and I asked them, 'What happened? Please tell me.' And every one of them said it was the video."

There is no way that every one of them said anything of the sort, no way the President of the United States or Secretary of State would say anything of the sort... Diplomacy 101.

If Ms. Smith did "lose her cool," this is precisely the kind of spectacle the Trumpanzees are hoping for, and it illustrates so nicely why Trump, the right-wing conspiracy theorist nut jobs and their little minions should never be let anywhere near the White House.

Michael Moore in TrumpLand

*LOL*

That is another of those "great ideas" that Trump, Guiliani, Ailes, et al. probably came up with at their golf meetings. You can almost see them egging each other on with ideas to "knock Hillary off her game", etc.

As a side note, the most disgusting things I've heard men say about women and minorities is in high end golf club bars, and even then it was a very watered down version of Trump's pathetic bragging. I've never heard anything like Trump's disgusting diatribe in locker rooms.

I can see this failing spectacularly, if he brings up Benghazi it opens the door for Hillary to remind everybody about quotes of her indomitable performance and stamina in the 11 hour farce almost exactly one year ago. Also that this was investigated multiple times and she was exonerated by a Republican inquisition. She can then ask Trump if he would fair as well if a partisan committee spent a year digging into his behavior, finances, etc. - he won't even release his tax returns for Pete's sake.

All we need is for this poor mother to lose her cool and have to be escorted out - I have immense sympathy for her loss, but I'm really pissed with the people who are feeding her lies to use her as a political pawn.

Wednesday's debate is his last best hope, except for the fact that he's done terribly in the past 2 debates, and viewership of No. 3 is likely to be way down. If he decides, and he probably will, I think he's likely to go full bore crazy talk. Nothing left for Trump to lose.

I've heard Trump has asked one of the "Benghazi Moms," Pat Smith, to sit in the front row of debate 3. I also think that's most likely the extent of his debate preparation.

I think debate 3 is going to be the one that really highlights the extent of Trump's total unfitness to be President of the United States.

"One poll in Utah actually put Trump and Clinton tied at 26 percent of the vote, with Evan McMullin drawing 22 percent"

Wow.

"Trump did get a respite at the end, as another Utah poll appeared showing him handily winning the state, which moved it back into the Strong category."

It's a shame you didn't share the numbers.
I was wondering what "handily" means... 30%?

A

"The trajectory of the 2016 presidential race — which will result in a Hillary Clinton victory — remains largely unchanged from May, when Donald Trump and Clinton were in the process of wrapping up their nominations.

But what has changed recently is Clinton’s likely winning margin. For many weeks, even months, I have believed that Clinton would defeat Trump by three to six points. If anything, that range now looks a bit low, with the Democratic nominee apparently headed for a more convincing victory, quite possibly in the four-to-eight point range.

Trump is and has been a disaster as a presidential nominee, and that will not change in the campaign’s final days. Nor is there any reason to believe that voters from important demographic groups will warm to him. He continues to play only to his core supporters.

There is no surge among white voters for Trump — at least not enough to offset the Republican and swing voters he will lose.

The newest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump doing worse against Clinton than Mitt Romney did against President Obama with almost every demographic group, including men, women, whites, Latinos, Republicans, voters with household incomes of more than $100,000 per year, voters with a college degree, voters with a postgraduate degree and voters 65 and older.

It would be a mistake to call Trump’s current path to an electoral college victory narrow. It is nonexistent. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, once part of the Trump scenario, have never been “in play,” and he is not competitive in 2012 states Obama won only narrowly, such as Virginia and Colorado. Trump is more likely to lose North Carolina than win it, which would put him under 200 electoral votes.

Frankly, the writing has been on the wall for months about this race. You simply needed to look at the candidates, their campaign teams, the map and the voters.

The public’s mood certainly offered Trump an opportunity to make the election about Clinton and the president, and a serious Republican nominee could have taken advantage of the desire for change and Clinton’s baggage to win the race. But Donald Trump was always the worst messenger possible for delivering that message.

Now, with early voting already underway and only three weeks left until Election Day, the writing is on the wall. Clinton is headed for solid popular vote and electoral vote victories that are larger than Obama’s were over Romney.

While last-minute WikiLeaks releases could be embarrassing for Clinton, the battle lines of the 2016 presidential race are already set. Both the Washington Post/ABC News and NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls show only a handful of voters still undecided in the race, and few committed voters are open to changing their minds.

Clinton’s lead could still widen or narrow a couple of points, depending on events. If her victory looks inevitable, some progressives may conclude that they can defect to Jill Stein without handing the White House to Trump. But the most important question is no longer whether Trump or Clinton will win but how large Clinton’s margin will be and whether she will have coattails."

Turnout modeling is standard operating procedure for pollsters. Political models rely on past history for calibration. If historical trends are wildly obsolete....well Trump might do better than expected.

Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin is a pretty steep hill, but the prognosticators are giving Trump 10% odds, and the Prediction markets are a bit more generous at 15%.

Trump is looking at the Tea-Party driven midterms of 2010, and thinking, "Those people love me. If they all turn out at once on election eve, I'll take Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin and win."

So, is he right? If, despite the polls, turnout was to resemble 2010, could the sheer enthusiasm of his followers make enough difference to change the outcome?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-big-lead-means-a-steadier-forecast/

Clinton's current 7% lead in the national polls is substantial.

I have an interesting little chart up on my computer screen (from a "reliable source" in the academic prognostication game). It shows the relationship between vote differential in a binary race, and the probability of winning that election. A 5% vote lead trends to a 90% chance of winning. A modest 3% poll lead trends to a 60-70% chance of victory. On the basis of this, I still color Ohio a light blue.

Ohio doesn't look that critical this election. Clinton has slightly over 270 votes tightly in her corner. She has another three states in which she is strongly favored: Florida, Nevada and North Carolina. Trump has about 160 EV in his tiny fists. He has to get through OH, NC, FL and NV, plus one more in the "Blue Wall" to squeak a win...and the wave does not appear to breaking his way this cycle.

Wednesday's debate is his last best hope, except for the fact that he's done terribly in the past 2 debates, and viewership of No. 3 is likely to be way down. If he decides, and he probably will, I think he's likely to go full bore crazy talk. Nothing left for Trump to lose.

If Clinton has a decent debate night, then this election could very well be over by Thursday morning.

Let us hope!

Meanwhile, the "attack Bill Clinton's history" gambit doesn't appear to be working very well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/donald-trumps-bill-clinton-strategy-is-going-very-poorly/

The Post-ABC poll asked whether people thought "Bill Clinton's treatment of women" is a legitimate issue. Just 31 percent of likely voters said it is, while two-thirds (67 percent) said it isn't. Even Republicans said by a 50-46 margin that it isn't a legitimate issue.

The Post-ABC poll shows just 35 percent of likely voters say Hillary Clinton "unfairly criticizing women who accused her husband of sexual assault" is a legitimate issue. Fully 62 percent disagree. And again, even Republicans are split — 49-49.

So there's that.