Depending on which poll you look at, the race between Clinton and Sanders is a dead heat or blowout. Here’s Electoral-Vote:
A related category of bad political analysis is the search for a horse race that may not actually exist. The current Democratic contest in California is an excellent example of this. Because of a Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll released a few days ago, in which Hillary Clinton had a lead of only two points over Bernie Sanders, nearly all media outlets are now describing the race as a “dead heat.” If this was the only available poll of California, then that would be correct, but it is not. In fact, there have been four major polls of the Golden State in the last month, and they—in order, from oldest to newest—had Clinton +12, +2, +18, and +2. There’s nothing that tells us that the recent +2 result is any more or less valid than the recent +18 result and indeed, if one had to pick, the +2 came from a minor firm with limited presidential polling experience (PPIC), while the +18 came from well-known and battle-tested SurveyUSA. Further, a single +2 result is a statistical dead heat, but four positive results in a row effectively eliminate the margin of error, even if it had been +2, +2, +2, and +2 for Clinton. In short, while there is time for things to tighten up, and for us to get new and better information, the current evidence does not actually indicate California is a dead heat.
Sanders is out of money. He’s doing his best in California with earned media, but the facts are he’s at the end of a primary he can’t win, being badly outspent in a state that requires a lot of paid media, in a state where demographics are against him. He could theoretically overcome these obstacles, but right now, there’s no clear signal that he’s doing so.
Meanwhile, national polls indicating a close race between Clinton and Trump are at their least reliable, says Sam Wang, who crunches the numbers. Ornstein and Abramowitz, for the less numerate, offer an more accessible take:
In this highly charged election, it’s no surprise that the news media see every poll like an addict sees a new fix. That is especially true of polls that show large and unexpected changes. Those polls get intense coverage and analysis, adding to their presumed validity.
The problem is that the polls that make the news are also the ones most likely to be wrong. And to folks like us, who know the polling game and can sort out real trends from normal perturbations, too many of this year’s polls, and their coverage, have been cringeworthy.
Take the Reuters/Ipsos survey. It showed huge shifts during a time when there were no major events. There is a robust scholarship, using sophisticated panel surveys, that demonstrates remarkable stability in voter preferences, especially in times of intense partisan preferences and tribal political identities. The chances that the shifts seen in these polls are real and not artifacts of sample design and polling flaws? Close to zero.
At 538, Harry Enten thinks there’s a good chance of Clinton clinching the nomination before polls close in California. (Think New Jersey).
Unless Hillary Clinton starts killing puppies or Bernie Sanders sprouts wings and a halo and begins healing lepers and raising the dead, the probabilities remain the same: Clinton wins the nomination and the election.
…she is within 100 delegates of clinching the nomination, so even if the CA dead heat comes to pass, she has this.
But that’s it. She should have won this contest weeks ago against a “who is” 74 year old self described socialist, but she did not.
Now she takes on a reality TV celebrity who knows now to woo labor while she still doe not have a freakin’ clue.
The only consolation can take out of all of this is that even on the slight chance that she wins this, the next president serves one term and is OUT.
By then, it does not matter to me as much personally as I will be 65, on Medicare and one year & two months away from Social Security.
strongly in her favor to win the Presidency. It’s too early for polls to make accurate predictions, but people who actually know the game, not the pundits, but the party professionals are preparing for Trump’s loss.
Once Bernie gets the hell out of the way and things settle down, things will be clearer. Trump will still get free media, but the guy’s a complete fuck up whose schtick is wearing thin. He’s completely ignorant and shows no signs of learning. His campaign management is feuding. He says crazy shit like there is no drought in California. He’s on record contradicting anything he’s ever said. He’s on record defending Clinton. He just chickened out on debating Bernie. Latinos and Asians are registering to vote against him in droves. Once Bernie’s gone, and people start paying attention, Trump’s problems will come front and center. The guy’s a complete f(l)ake.
As far as Hillary goes, pour some sugar on it and make lemonade or let it go. It’s really getting tired.
This is from Krugman’s blogpost of 5/16:
1. Clinton can call out Trump’s racism. Republicans don’t call out one another on racism — not since Nixon made promises to Strom Thurmond in 1968 to wrest the Republican nomination from Reagan.
2. Trump’s policy positions frequently benefit the rich disproportionately, you know, the folks Republicans call “job creators”. Democrats can attack that; Republicans, even “moderate” ones, not so much.
3. Trump’s wealth is dubious, but the effect of his practices on workers more so. Republicans, with their free market fetish, could never attack that. To them, doing whatever the market will support is to do God’s work on Earth through his agent the Free Market. Democrats do not believe in this mythology. Nor really do most Americans. So Trump’s inducing people to leave rent-controlled housing by getting bums to pee in the halls is something Democrats can actually point to; Republicans like Rubio, Bush, and Kasich find rent-controlled housing more disgusting than urine. They’d never raise that.
I agree that she has won the nomination and Bernie should bow out gracefully after California. Jerry Brown, one of the most underrated progressive governors in America just endorsed Hillary-despite a longstanding animus towards the Clintons going back to their 1992 primary. He made a long praise of Sander’s and the movement to bring independence, transparency, and accountability back into politics and then pivoted into calling Hillary the most prepared and Trump the most dangerous. That’s the election to me.
It’s time Hillary moves into fighter mode and starts hitting Trump on how weak he is on national security. He’d negotiate with Pitin, cut a deal with Assad and is praised by North Korea’s ruler-praise he has reciprocated.
If we want an America where our military and diplomatic power remains a force for good rather than misused under the neocons or abandoned to other kleptocrats under Trump, we vote for Hillary.
On the social issues if you care about any of the civil rights for women, gays, and minorities we have achieved in the last 8 years vote for Hillary.
On regulating finance and protecting Obamacare, vote for Hillary who has been consistent in both of these objectives even if she has reservations about single payer or past conflicts of interest with Big Finance. The alternative is someone who used government bailouts and bankruptcy courts as a line of credit, who never paid his workers a living wage or provided them healthcare, and a hypocrite who relied on outsourcing and illegal labor for all of his products. Make the contrast and hit him hard. Apologize for emailgate and donate the Goldman money to charity and move on into combat mode.
I’m tired of seeing the Clintons and too many here on the defensive. She’s flawed, can’t wish those flaws away, but she is far better prepared to be President than any of the alternatives. And she has run a far more progressive campaign than either of her Democrartic predecessors or her own 2008 campaign, and we can thank Sanders and Warren for that.
…and Hillary and her supporters keep declaring that she’s already won, and yet…
“Hillary Clinton Cancels N.J. Event to Campaign in California“
please detail
Bernie loses. He needs 68% of delegates to win. Even if he wins, he loses the nomination. However, polls in California are ambiguous to say the least. Maybe they have internals that are scaring them. More likely,
Time will tell. Bernie won’t.
…538 gives Clinton a 97% chance of winning the CA primary, but she will probably have the nomination clinched once polls close in NJ. I’m all for Sanders staying in through June 7th because I believe voters in every state should have a choice, but the idea that he has any chance of snagging the nomination from Clinton is pure fantasy at this point.
it was over after Super Tuesday. Sanders knew, he even talked about doing well in a string of states afterwards, so they knew where they stood.
While Sanders had people, including myself, wondering if the polls were accurate just prior to the NY primary, all that was quickly vanquished. Also, it was the only time that Sanders actually had the press covering him in the way that Clinton has been accustom, and he failed miserably. It was the only time he was pushed to actually discuss policy instead of rhetoric.
Polls were right and it was all but over a very long time ago and both candidates knew it,