Krugman: Feel the Math

[Iamaartist]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/30/1532455/-Krugman-Feel-the-Math




This is my fifth presidential campaign as a New York Times columnist, so I’ve watched a lot of election coverage, and I came into this cycle prepared for the worst. Or so I thought.

I was wrong.

It is not just the focus on horse-race coverage, it has been that people, even relatively smart people have been given a fundamentally wrong impression of the current state of play

because people aren’t being properly informed about the basic arithmetic of the situation.

He writes this column not as either a poliical scientist nor a polling expert, but he does refer to the Nates, Cohn and and Silver.

He dismisses the idea of “momentum” except perhaps early in the race, when candidates might still be competing for “credibility” because eventually

it all becomes a simple, concrete matter of delegate counts.

We can apply this to both primaries. Trump has lead consistently since September. Granted, originally that was in a multi-candidate field, but as Krugman does NOT say, much of the bloviating was about how he had a “ceiling” and that those supporting other candidates who dropped out would consolidate around one opponent, except it does not work that way — he picked up some of their support. On our side, Krugman is more generous than most — he draws the line only at the Mid-Atlantic primaries the week after New York, while for many it was becoming clear on Super Tuesday, and it was obvious going into March 15.

But this is not just about the primaries. It is also about the misuse of polls. Krugman cites primary polling in CA to illustrate, noting the “hyperventilation” by some because one poll showed things very close. He rejects this cherry-picking, because he notes another poll taken at about the same time showed a wide margin, and if one were to average polls the race in CA has remained largely in Clinton’s favor (which I note we would probably expect given its large non-white population, even if in this case it is Latino and Asian rather than African-American).

But it is less about the primaries on either side, either past for the Republicans or for some still ongoing for the Democrats (and sorry, die-hard Sanders supporters, it will be over officially before CA closes, since with the totals through NJ Clinton will have clinched a majority of the pledged delegates).

Krugman applies his thinking to the general election:

Here’s what you should know, but may not be hearing clearly in the political reporting: Mrs. Clinton is clearly ahead, both in general election polls and in Electoral College projections based on state polls.

The first of those links takes you to Huffington Post Pollster, which while it has narrowed some since Republicans began coalescing around Trump, still shows Clinton leading by 4.3%, which is not an insignificant margin when translated to the state level. The second leads to Benchmark Politics, where in his latest iteration he has included leaners even if the margin is <3%, resulting in a Clinton lead of 343-195, with the Democratic picking up the close states of AZ (11), OH (18) and FL (29), without which I note she would still have 285 electoral votes only counting states with a lead of 3% or greater, this BEFORE Sanders supporters stop balking at supporting her — and he reminds us that Clinton supporters were more resistant to supporting Obama in 2008 than is indicated this cycle for Sanders supporters.

Krugman than offers a final paragraph, which I share in its entirety:

Now, obviously things can and will change over the course of the general election campaign. Every one of the presidential elections I’ve covered at The Times felt at some point like a nail-biter. But the current state of the race should not be a source of dispute or confusion. Barring the equivalent of a meteor strike, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; despite the reluctance of Sanders supporters to concede that reality, she’s currently ahead of Donald Trump. That’s what the math says, and anyone who says it doesn’t is misleading you.

Let me repeat: Every one of the presidential elections I’ve covered at The Times felt at some point like a nail-biter.

McCain got a brief bump after naming Palin. Romney was close in some national polls right up to the end. And yes, this current race SEEMS close in national polls: 4% is not a massive lead, although it traditionally would project out to the leader winning something over 300 electoral votes.

Barring the equivalent of a meteor strike — for those still hoping for SOMETHING, anything that at this point was such an equivalent would likely scramble the general election race in a way that would not be favorable to our side.

I thought Krugman’s observations were worthy of note. So I have shared them.

Now if you disagree, fire away. But please, stay in the real world of facts. You are entitled to your own opinions, but as Daniel Patrick Moynihan told a person, you are not entitled to your own facts. The state of the primary race and of the general election race is as of now quite clear — Clinton has for all practical purposes won the first some time ago, and despite the consolidation on the other side while our primary still continues a bit, continues to lead, adequately in national popular vote and substantially in electoral college projections.


?1462206168

She will win

[Koinos]

2. You have wandered into a protected group. Please delete your post. Bye.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. Hill, YEEEESSSSSSSSS!

"But the current state of the race should not be a source of dispute or confusion. Barring the equivalent of a meteor strike, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee..."

[Iamaartist]

4. Hill, YEEEESSSSSSSSS! is right......it will make us all happy here.......

[BootinUp]

5. KNR