Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Is As Safe As Kerry’s Was In 2004 - Nate Silver

[RAFisher]

There has been a lot of polling over the past few days in advance of the Republican National Convention, which got underway Monday in Cleveland. But it mostly confirmed the conclusion our election forecast models had arrived at late last week: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points. That’s down from a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points a few weeks ago.

As a result, Trump’s odds have improved. He has a 36 percent chance of winning the election, according to our polls-only forecast, and a 38 percent chance according to polls-plus. (While the polls-only and polls-plus forecasts are well aligned now, they may begin to diverge during the conventions — more about that in a moment.)

But Clinton remains ahead of Trump in the clear majority of polls. She leads by about the same margin that Barack Obama did heading into the conventions in 2008, and by a somewhat larger margin than Obama did in 2012.

I’ve nevertheless detected a lot of consternation among Clinton voters: Why isn’t her position safer? There’s really about a 35 or 40 percent chance that Trump will become president?

Based on the polls, we think the model is setting those odds about right. The race is a long way from being a toss-up, but a 3 or 4 percentage point lead heading into the conventions isn’t all that reliable, either. While Obama won twice with pre-convention leads of about that margin, John Kerry went into his convention with a lead of about 3 percentage points in 2004, but lost to George W. Bush. And in 2000, Bush had about a 4-point lead on the eve of the conventions, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore. (Bush won the Electoral College, of course.)

The flip side is that the recent polls could just as easily prove to be a low-water mark for Clinton. Conventions have oftentimes helped the incumbent party’s candidate. One of the biggest turnarounds came in 1988, when Michael Dukakis, the upstart winner of the Democratic nomination, held a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points going into the conventions. But a well-staged Republican convention in New Orleans helped to unify the GOP and highlight the successes of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and Bush eventually won by a landslide.

What’s relatively safe to say is that we’ll know a lot more in a month or so. Below, you’ll find a comparison of where national polls stood heading into the challenging party’s convention, and then 30 days after the incumbent party’s convention.1 (By tradition, the incumbent party — Democrats this year — holds their convention last.) The pre-convention polls missed the final margin in the race by an average of 6.4 percentage points. By contrast, the post-convention polls missed it by 4.0 points, a considerable improvement. And since 1972, they’ve gone 11-for-11 in identifying the winner of the popular vote.

Continued on 538:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-is-as-safe-as-kerrys-was-in-2004/

[blm]

1. Bush had to STEAL Ohio to stay in office. Rove and TeamKasich won't help Trump steal Ohio like

Rove and Ken Blackwell helped Bush in 2004.

[elleng]

7. That's where to bet, I guess.

[tonyt53]

2. Ah, but a few "things" are missing from that 2004 election.

The day after the Democratic convention, where Kerry was supposed to get a huge bump, a serious credible threat of an attack on the US was announced as being near. The Bush administration did that at least three times during the campaign and every time that Kerry was gaining strength. Kerry also stood by thinking that people knew the swiftboaters were lying. Hillary will never make that fatal mistake and the Obama administration will never put out a warning without merit. Oh, and Dukakis was done in by himself.

[blm]

9. Kerry did forcefully counter Swiftliars at a speech to Firefighters who endorsed him - Every 'news'

network refused to carry the speech and barely acknowledged it was made in their reporting. Dan Rather has said the news networks were protecting Bush throughout that campaign for the favorable FCC rulings they were promised in a Bush second term loosening regulations on media ownership. Kerry spoke against loosening the media ownership rules.

Sad that some Dems are willing to play the revisionism card.

[Ken Burch]

14. It wasn't Kerry's own idea not to fight the smears...it was the former Dukakis people on his staff

who came up with that gem.

Moral: Never hire anyone who played any role in the Dukakis campaign if you want to be president...UNLESS you hire them specifically to remind you tactics you should NEVER use.

[blm]

15. Ken - he DID counter and every network refused to carry that speech to Firefighters.

What is with the revisionism here at DU? You all are carrying corpmedia's water and rewarding their lies by repeating them.

[Springslips]

16. interpretation is not revisionsm.

Obviously one speech didn't do it. He needed to hammer and hammer on it. He didn't. He cupped his balls and cowered in the corner.

[blm]

17. That's just not accurate. You'd know better if you understood the role the corpmedia played and WHY.

Dan Rather spoke to it after he left CBS. Media owners were promised a favorable ruling from FCC loosening the regulations on media ownership during a Bush second term - Kerry was their enemy.



June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval

Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:
"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.

[Springslips]

21. It is still interperation.

There is no connection, a proof I mean between the newscorp and lack of Kerry response to Swiftboating. Kerry still was covered; in my mind he bowed down; in yours he was media biased. Too good hypothesis that we could defend and attack for 20-post. But it is not REVISIONIST.

[blm]

27. Kerry responded and countered - media ignored it. You CHOOSE to adopt corpmedia view.

.

[Ken Burch]

18. He did that speech, but one speech wasn't going to be enough.

I get it that it was a great speech, but he knew there was a risk of media blackout. He needed to have the counters IN his ads...he needed to have ads with veterans who served with him backing him up on defending his character.

Mary Beth Cahill spent weeks arguing that he couldn't fight back, because fighting back would somehow harm him with women at the polls.

[karynnj]

22. The media had the full Navy records

They spoke of Kerry vs the SBVT, but it was the SBVT vs the Navy records. Not to mention, there was the 1971 comments on the Nixon tapes showing they investigated him - soon after the time he served - and they found he was a war hero and he was clean. They had all but one of the men on his boat- not just behind him, but emphatically behind him. They had John Warner, Republican who had been the Secretary of the Navy saying he was a war hero.

The media had this AND all the Democrats had this.

Kerry tersely stated the facts, but the party should have done better having his back. It is far more convincing when others praise you as a war hero. The one who gets special criticism is his vain, egotistical excuse of a VP.

The Democrats have had the backs of Democrats when they were accused of some sketchy things ... yet for some reason they did a terrible job defending a nominee who put his very privileged life at risk, showing integrity, intelligence and enormous courage.

[Ken Burch]

25. Absolutely.

You almost had the feeling a fair amount of the Demoklatura WANTED Kerry to lose.

[mylye2222]

28. Some of the nomenklatura wanted it.

So that they knew the WH win was easier in 2008.

Plus then-DLC wanted HRC as President in 2008 too.

[Ken Burch]

12. There was also the Bin Laden video released right before the election...

Last edited Tue Jul 19, 2016, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)

...that almost sounded like OBL was endorsing Kerry...

(I'm not saying it was in gratitude for Bush letting OBL'S relatives leave the States right after 9/11, but then again...)

[Blue_Tires]

19. Yeah, I remember that, too...

[vadermike]

3. And

If I remember correctly Bush led Kerry for most of the summer except going into the conventions . It was closer maybe with a small Kerry lead but bush led most of that time period and he won in the end even after the DNC bush still was tied or ahead I don't think Kerry got a bounce ..

[tonyt53]

4. You are correct, and the reason for no bounce was the false terrorism threat announcement.

[Nitram]

5. I remember being infuriated by the series of false warnings that were issued,

perfectly timed to slow down any momentum Kerry might be gaining.

[BigDemVoter]

6. Kerry ran a TERRIBLE campaign.

He was jet skiiing in Boston Harbor when he should have been campaigning, and he LOST.

[blm]

8. Baloney -JK took a few days to prepare for debate where he trounced Bush - BushInc had to steal Ohio

to stay in office.

Your revisionism about those days off while preparing for debate plays into the corporate media spin Rove used aimed at suckers, not smart Dem voters.

[BigDemVoter]

10. True. he had it stolen. . .

But he still should have been campaigning that last weekend before the election.

[blm]

11. He WAS campaigning - you mixed up a couple days he took off preparing for debate with the

weekend before election. You're not remembering 2004 with any accuracy. Too much revisionism has gone on by now and too many Dems have joined in to repeat what they don't know or can no longer remember.

[BigDemVoter]

24. What I DO remember is

that the Kerry campaign had no "rapid response team" like the Clinton's did in the 1990's. His campaign was not nearly aggressive enough. He was running against some ruthless FUCKS, and he was treating them as if they were civilized. This is what I mean when I say he ran a shitty campaign. He should have rammed it all right up their ass.

I know, I know. When you're running against somebody who has the entire MSM behind him makes it quite difficult, but Kerry COULD have and SHOULD have been more aggressive.

Whether or not his jet skiing (or whatever he was doing) off Nantucket during the Republican Convention REALLY took time away, it gave the wrong impression. Look-- these people are fucking stupid. But they (voters) got the impression (fed by the MSM) that Kerry was a whiny playboy (Ms. Heinz's toy) who whiled away his time playing with toys (jet skis, etc). The whole story is shit, of course, but Kerry played right into it.

[karynnj]

23. It was during the Republican convention

The norm is the other party does not campaign. He used the time mostly for debate practice.

Not to mention, it was Nantucket and media was with hom. In fact, it COULD have played in his favor. It was a gogeous day, he and Teresa were on the boat with them. It is crazy that clearing brush on his Crawford ranch in near 100 degree weather was glorified, but water sports off Cape Cod were treated as strange.

Not to mention, in the primary there was a whisper campaign against Kerry suggesting he had not really recovered from cancer treatment. Windsurfing requires skill and strength and he demonstrated both.

Years before he spoke of wind surfing as a way to clear his mind, allowing him to refocus better. He was fantastic in the first debate. If his few hours in the water and sun gave him the little break he needed, it was great.

[awoke_in_2003]

13. We cannot be complacent. nt

[heresAthingdotcom]

20. this is not 2004...

I like to look at demographics...

If Democrats are able to retain high levels of support among voters of color in 2016 as they did in 2012, then they will more easily win battleground states such as Virginia, where Democrats’ margin of victory would increase by more than one-third. More importantly, Democrats could win back some states they lost in 2012, including North Carolina.

Republicans will need to secure a rising level of support among voters of color in order to compete in key states in 2016. In some states, such as Florida, restoring party preferences to their 2004 levels would enable the GOP to narrowly win back states they lost in 2012 but had won in previous elections. However, in order to win back other key states that the GOP won in 2004, such as Ohio and Nevada, the GOP would need to exceed the share of support it received from voters of color in 2004.

From North Carolina to Arizona, populations of color are becoming a noticeably larger share of the electorate. In Arizona, voters of color made up 32.4 percent of all eligible voters in 2012. By 2016, this share will reach 35.6 percent, with Latinos making up 23 percent of the Arizona electorate alone. In other states, voters of color have not reached the point of being a significant share of the overall electorate, but they will still represent the majority of the net increase in eligible voters between 2012 and 2016. In Pennsylvania, for example, people of color made up 17 percent of the electorate in 2012 and will rise to 19.2 percent by 2016.The growth of this electorate represents 87 percent of the net increase in eligible voters in the state and therefore may prove to be influential in close presidential and U.S. Senate races in 2016.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2015/01/06/101605/the-changing-face-of-americas-electorate/

The electorate that voted for President Obama in 2012 looked significantly different from the one that elected George W. Bush for his first term at the beginning of the century. In 2012, the share of minorities among eligible voters was 29 percent, up from 23 percent in 2000 (above). If that doesn’t seem like a significant difference, consider this: In 2000, only eight states and the District of Columbia had higher than a 30 percent share of minority voters; In 2012, the number of such states grew to 17 (plus D.C.). With each election year, non-white political clout is strengthening, in some states more than others.

This election year, a complex set of demographic factors are at play. Latino voters, in particular, have reached record high numbers. Single women, too, may have considerable political sway this time around. On the flip side, the fact that many low-income Americans are not feeling the economic recovery could depress voter enthusiasm, as Anna Greenberg, a political consultant at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, noted.

These factors are important to keep in mind while looking at the six hypothetical scenarios below, which the researchers designed to estimate the direction of the popular and the electoral college votes in this election:

Scenarios A, B, and C assume that voters of each age group, race, and state will show roughly the same turnout rates and partisan preferences as they did in 2012, 2008, and 2004, respectively.
The next three are modifications of scenario A:

Scenario D, or the “maximum minority turnout” scenario assumes that Hispanics and Asians will turn out to vote at the same rate as their white counterparts did in 2012.
Scenario E assumes that a higher share of Hispanics, Asians, and other “new minorities” will support the GOP within all age groups and states than they did in 2012.
Scenario F is what Brookings’ Frey, who co-authored the report, calls the “Donald Trump Dream” scenario. In this one, a higher share of white voters will support the Republican candidate than they did in 2012.
The graph below shows the resulting differences in the share of popular votes between the two parties for each of the above scenarios in the 2016 presidential election. The “Donald Trump Dream”—scenario F— is the only one that would lead to a clear Republican win in 2016. Even scenario C, which mirrors the voting patterns of the 2004 election Bush won, doesn’t favor the GOP here. That said, Democrats would win the popular vote in this scenario by only a hair—the margin of victory here would be even lower than what it was for Bush in 2000.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/02/demography-favors-the-democrats/470937/

The only scenario out of the 6 that is beneficial to Mr. Trump is F..... where a higher number of white voters support Trump...

Hillary has 5 ways of winning and Trump only 1....

[TeddyR]

26. Hillary is ahead

But it is close and will likely stay close. Trump is going to turn out the evangelicals and hard-core right probably better than Romney did. And the fact that Hillary is so disliked by Republicans is probably going to drive Republican turnout. Hillary will win if Dems turn out. If they don't then she may be in trouble. I'm worried that Dems are so dismissive of Trump that they will be complacent and won't take him seriously (there certainly is some of that on DU) and that would be a mistake.