Wednesday, November 02, 2016

Good news from North Carolina

A SurveyUSA poll has Trump up by seven in the tar heel state. The poll contains a few potentially huge indicators of a Trump winning the presidency if they scale nationally.

- Among blacks, Hillary's lead is only 84%-14%, and 72% of Trump's blacks supporters say they are voting for him "enthusiastically"; 65% of Hillary's blacks say the same about her.

Even if we discount those who indicate they'll vote for him "with reservations" and who are "not sure" about their level of enthusiasm entirely, that's still Trump getting 10%. When Romney won the state in 2012, exit polling showed him getting just 4% of blacks.

- Trump is outperforming the Republican senatorial candidate by 2 points, the Republican gubernatorial candidate by 4 points, and the Republican attorney general candidate by 8 points. All of these Republican candidates are incumbents.

Many a spineless cuck has shed crocodile tears over Trump putatively hurting down-ballot Republicans. To the contrary, it looks as though Republicans in tight races who let go of Trump's coattails when their paymasters swore for the 13th time that Trump's campaign was moribund are the ones who are going to crash and burn [Edit: I likely overstated this: See Jeffery's comment].

The GOPe just doesn't understand how unpopular it is. As has been said here before, the Republican party is undeservedly fortunate to attach it's name to Trump, not the other way around.

- Among those aged 18-34, Hillary leads 45%-42%. That marginal advantage is dwarfed by Obama's performance in 2012 when he got over 60% of the under-35 vote in North Carolina.

Blacks and younger--two of Obama's electoral pillars--are going to turn out at lower rates than they did in '08 and '12. Among those who do, support for Hillary is going to be weaker than it was for Obama.

Tangentially, among those aged 18-34, 55% suspect that voter fraud occurs either "often" or "sometimes". That's higher than among any other age group. For all other age groups the figure is less than 50%.

The well has been poisoned. Democracy is in trouble.

20 comments:

Dan said...

Dan H here. Been making 500 calls to NC. I am hopeful.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The GOP will change after November 8, whether the GOPe likes it or not. Same goes for America as well, to be honest. There are too many genies that can't be stuffed back into their bottles, people know too much about the corruption that is rife among both parties. If more and more people see the powers that be as illegitimate and if people just refuse to acknowledge Hillary as the legitimate leader (if she happens to win, which I find very unlikely at this point even with the inevitable voter fraud), then we're going down an interesting path.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

Your analysis fits what I've been seeing elsewhere.

After a media narrative of Texas as "toss up' polls showing Trump up by 12-15% are now appearing.

There is also other supporting data in terms of a Hillary campaign associated Malware attacking users of Anti-Trump and ALT-Right political web sites.

See:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/03/important-note-clear-your-cookies-and-browser-cache-frequently/comment-page-1/#comment-3179193

Effectively, this "Malversising" software was built to get around ad-blocker or anti-malware protective software and destroy the ability to view places like the Drudge Report, The Last Refuge, Gatewaypundit, and Chateau Heartiste.

You need to see Sundance's comments on it at the above link.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The narrative that Texas, Arizona, and Georgia being tossups was never realistic fortunately although if Hillary wins, I'd say by 2024 or 2028 they will be Virginia-like states that got diversified to the point of being reliable Democrat states for the presidential election although with a powerful state and local Republican party where they still stand a good chance of having a Republican mayor, Republican congresspeople, etc.

Everyone needs to do what they can to make sure their Trump supporting friends and family go vote. Nobody should sit back and think that Trump has it in the bag therefore it doesn't matter if they actually go bother voting. Even if you all live in a deep blue state, vote anyway so the margins are uncomfortably close. Imagine how triggered refugee importing Lutherans are blue Minnesotans will be if they find that Hillary only won by 1-2%, a state where people are proud that they were the only state to not vote for Reagan for either term.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Great. No reason for complacency.

Homer: Mr Burns, you're the richest man I know. Way richer than Lennie.

Burns: Ah yes, but I'd give it all for a little more.

There's no margin of victory that a larger margin of victory isn't better than.

Random Dude,

It'd be great if we were able to point definitively to data showing Trump outperforming Congressional Republicans nationwide. That makes it harder to spin a Trump win as a freak accidental victory against the wicked witch. Instead, a Trump win looks like what it is--a populist win.

Mil-Tech,

Yes, the Texas inflation looks a lot like the other national polls overselling Hillary's support. The most recent poll out of Texas has Trump +13. It's not even close and it probably never was. At current rates we're still another 10-15 years away from Texas becoming electorally purple.

I've started noticing Clinton ads that are clearly targeted (on Facebook, etc), something that makes no sense in my case.

Dan said...

Trump cannot rest. Remember that a lot of early voting took place before the FBI made its announcement, and before the FBI announcement he was trailing considerably.

Nationally, what fraction of votes already took place before the FBI announcement?


The Z Blog said...

The latest ABC and CBS polls have Clinton back in the lead. The worst week any candidate has had in the history of politics turns out to be a good thing. Who knew?

I'm not a skewed polls guy, but I see why people wonder. There's simply no way bad news is good news in a world tethered to reality.

As I mentioned in another post, I'm struggling to make the internals of these polls match the top line. If Hillary is down in all the sub categories compared to Obama 2012, how is she winning by bigger margins than Obama 2012?

The one answer is that both sides are depressed so turnout will be lower for both, but all indications thus far suggest turnout will be higher. Trump is drawing in lots of new voters. Maybe there is another explanation, but I'm at a loss to think of one.

Cicatrizatic said...

Note that in 2012, the major media polls were off by 3-4 points. The RCP average missed by 3.2 points, which was outside the margin of error for most of its polls. Further, for 6 of the battleground states, the RCP average was off by 2-5 points. Obama had an enthusiasm edge on Romney that resulted in him outperforming the polls. I think a similar dynamic is at play here, as evidenced by the fact that Trump leads the LA Times (RAND) poll by about the same margin as Obama did at this time. My guess is that the final RCP average settles in around Clinton +2, and the actual result of the election will be Trump +3 or so.

ARG has Trump +5 in its final poll of New Hampshire. ARG was very accurate in its poll of the NH primary this year.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> The latest ABC and CBS polls have Clinton back in the lead. The worst week any candidate has had in the history of politics turns out to be a good thing. Who knew?

I am a skewed polls guy, there is no choice, I've seen too much poll fuckery to believe otherwise. The leadership of these polling agencies still want to get invited to the right cocktail parties, they still probably have friends and family well entrenched into political organizations, etc. It is unrealistic to say that Trump would be losing outside the margin of error but if Trump were winning outside the margin of error, the Democrats begin panicking. They've long since written off the LA Times/USC poll so that doesn't count in their mind even though they relied heavily on them in 2012.

The narrative will be that millions of secret racist, sexist whites told pollsters that they were for Hillary or Gary Johnson and then voted for Trump. That way they can protect their reputations when they are inevitably off by 6-8 points on election day. They also may have been banking on the Lisa Bloom's press conference doing a lot of damage and with it being cancelled, they look ridiculous. Sounds like tinfoil hat stuff but it's more realistic than Donald Trump gaining ten points in the span of one week.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

About 40% is the figure I'm seeing. Some media outlets are trying to spin it positively for the witch but the results so far don't bode well for her compared to what Obama managed in 2012.

Z,

College-educated whites is the only demographic where it looks like Hillary might improve on Obama's performance. That comprises over one-third of the electorate, so to give these polling operations the benefit of the doubt (which I don't think they deserve), that negates all the other negative signs for her.

Cicatrizatic,

Latest Gravis has Hillary up by a single point in PA. That's not generally a favorable Trump poll, either. Most recent MI poll has her up by just 3.

Even without PA or MI, if Trump gets Nevada, New Hampshire, and ME-2 he wins 270-268. Trump's path to victory is, as they say, wider now.

Random Dude,

If there has ever been an election where polling outfits would collude with Establishment organs and the political machine, this is that election. There have been too many irregularities to keep track of so far.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

S**t talks and money walks.

Hillary's campaign went up with 6-figure ad buys each in new ads in MI, NM, CO, VA, per ad campaign.

Hillary is spending 6 figures on ads in places that hasn’t gone red since --

2004: NM, CO, VA and
1988: MI

And they are negative attack ads, not positive closing ads.

Negative ads push down turn out.

Trump voters will crawl across broken glass for him. So Hillary is targeting Bernie voters in those states.

NB: This is loser presidential campaign behavior.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Via instapundit, Nate Silver is hedging his bets --


NATE SILVER: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s.

If Clinton lost New Hampshire but won her other firewall states, each candidate would finish with 269 electoral votes, taking the election to the House of Representatives. Or maybe not — if Clinton also lost the 2nd Congressional District of Maine, where polls show a tight race and where the demographics are unfavorable to her, Trump would win the Electoral College 270-268, probably despite losing the popular vote.

Couldn’t Clinton win Nevada to make up for the loss of New Hampshire? Or Florida? Or North Carolina? Well … of course she could. All those states remain highly competitive. The point, as we’ve said before, is just that Clinton’s so-called firewall is not very robust. If you’re only ahead in exactly enough states to win the Electoral College, and you’d lose if any one of them gets away, that’s less of a firewall and more of a rusting, chain-link fence.

To illustrate this, let’s compare Clinton’s current position in our polls-plus forecast1 — which gives her a 65 percent chance of winning the Electoral College — to FiveThirtyEight’s final election forecast in 2012, which gave President Obama a 91 percent chance. How could the model be so much more confident in Obama’s chances than in Clinton’s, even though we projected he’d win by 2.5 percentage points nationally and she’s ahead by 2.8? Part of it is because there are far more undecided and third-party voters this year, which could lead to a last-minute swing, or a polling error, and makes the model more cautious.

Cicatrizatic said...

It's telling that the Clinton campaign is holding its finally rally in Philadelphia, with the Obamas in attendance. That tells me that (1) based on their internal polling, PA is in play, and (2) their worried about black turnout, hence the need for Obama to be present every day for the final week of the campaign.

Jeffrey S. said...

"- Trump is outperforming the Republican senatorial candidate by 2 points, the Republican gubernatorial candidate by 4 points, and the Republican attorney general candidate by 8 points. All of these Republican candidates are incumbents.

Many a spineless cuck has shed crocodile tears over Trump putatively hurting down-ballot Republicans. To the contrary, it looks as though Republicans in tight races who let go of Trump's coattails when their paymasters swore for the 13th time that Trump's campaign was moribund are the ones who are going to crash and burn."

You are a numbers guy, so you should know better than to cheer Trump for one state victory at this point. Many races around the country Trump is being outperformed by his Senate counter-part, a couple by a wide margin:

Florida = Rubio up by 3.2 (average), Trump down by 1.2;

Ohio = Portman up by 15.6; Trump up by 3.3;

Arizona = McCain up by 10; Trump up by 4;

Wisconsin = Johnson down by 2.7; Trump down by 5.5;

New Hampshire = Ayotte up by 2.5; Trump up by 1.5;

Georgia = Isakson up by 11; Trump up by 4.5.

On the other hand, Trump is ahead of Senate candidates in Colorado, Nevada, and Missouri and Indiana.

So I'm not sure there is much of a Trump effect either way, but instead his impact depended on lots of local factors.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Cicatrizatic, Hillary has been spending a lot of time in Arizona as well even though she never had a shot there. I do agree that they are concerned about black turnout. If black turnout is low in Philadelphia, Trump wins Pennsylvania and with it the election. Fortunately Trump has multiple routes of victory and can withstand a PA loss. He definitely needs to win Florida though and I'm 98% confident he will get Florida as of today.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Right. Essentially what he's seeing is what we've talked about here--the polls are all over the place, far more variable than in 2012, so the target is wider. Hillary's marginal advantage over Obama in national polling average doesn't increase her odds when effective meta-MOE is twice as wide.

Jeffrey S,

Touche. Not a firmly buttressed conclusion on my part. Otoh, it's not obvious either that Trump is a down-ballot problem for the GOP, either. Will be one of many interesting things to see on November 9th.

I wasn't intentionally cherry-picking, I just haven't looked that closely at many down-ballot state polls. SurveyUSA results are my favorite because the cross-tabs are wide-ranging and easily accessible and also because they poll the same respondents on presidential and down-ballot candidates instead of using different samples for each.

Random Dude,

Hold everything Romney did, win OH and FL (both look likely), and then flip PA or MI or VA+NH/NV/CO or WI+NH/NV/CO.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jeffrey,

I'll have to go back and look at how many of these outperformers are challengers, too.

Incumbency advantage is important, and all of these NC people are up for re-election. In KS for example, there's somebody named Wiesner that no one has ever heard of (and I live in the state). He's polling at 13% against incumbent Jerry Moran.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jeffrey,

If Trump is losing to a Republican who is challenging a Democratic incumbent, that's bad. If he's losing to a Republican incumbent, that's situational and expected. If he's beating a Republican challenger, that's good. If he is beating a Republican incumbent (as in the case of NCx4), that's fantastic.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Honestly I think Trump will win well over 300 electoral votes, with over 320 if he can keep up this streak. Here's my optimistic guess with Trump getting 325 EVs and Clinton getting just 213: http://www.270towin.com/maps/vxAVo

If he continues to do well, I see him getting the Romney states + FL, IA, NV, CO, MI, OH, PA, WI, NH, and the second district of Maine. I will remain skeptical of Virginia if only because even Republican government employees will wonder if they will still have a job under a Trump administration. Think of all the defense contracts Trump won't be approving if we're no longer nation building in the Middle East or selling Saudi Arabia billions of dollars of weaponry.

It seems like a stretch that he would win Wisconsin but he is spending a lot of time there and seems to have the backing of the Wisconsin GOP machine. New Mexico, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Virginia will come uncomfortably close to a Trump victory (three points or less). No big deal, we can flip them for the 2020 election.

Jeffrey S. said...

"If Trump is losing to a Republican who is challenging a Democratic incumbent, that's bad. If he's losing to a Republican incumbent, that's situational and expected. If he's beating a Republican challenger, that's good. If he is beating a Republican incumbent (as in the case of NCx4), that's fantastic."

I think this is a good way of looking at the 'Trump effect' -- well said.

I think most the races he is ahead are the third scenario -- he's beating a Republican challenger, which is good (and still impressive.) We'll have to see what the final results show on November 9th.

For the record, I don't think he'll win, although he'll do slightly better than Romney (flipping OH, IA, NH and maybe if all the stars align, FL; but I also think he might lose NC.) It is amazing to me that he got this close.