New Poll Shows Clinton Surging To 15-Point Lead Nationwide

[applegrove]

New Poll Shows Clinton Surging To 15-Point Lead Nationwide

By KRISTIN SALAKY at TPM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/clinton-leads-15-points-mcclatchy-marist-august

"SNIP...........

Hillary Clinton appears to still be benefitting from a post-convention bounce, as a new McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday showed her leading Donald Trump by 15 points nationwide among registered voters.

Not only did Clinton's numbers go up, but Trump's went down: she widened her lead to 48-33 this month from 42-39 in last month's iteration of the poll.

While those numbers may be due to a convention bounce for Clinton, they also come in the midst of a rough week for Trump, in which he earned bipartisan criticism by feuding with the parents of a fallen Muslim-American soldier. McClatchy noted that the Marist poll showed the widest lead for Clinton of any survey so far.

Clinton kept her lead even with four candidates in the race, polling at 45 percent to Trump’s 31 percent, Libertarian Gary Johnson's 10 percent and the Green Party’s Jill Stein at 6 percent.


.............SNIP"

[Ilsa]

1. Make it so!

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Dukakis had a 17 point lead. . . . nt

[applegrove]

3. Hillary is running against Trump though.

[MoonRiver]

4. You give no context and no link.

FAIL

[StevieM]

5. To be fair, it isn't too easy to get an article on-line from 1988.

Dukakis' lead came right after his convention. Then he took some time off, a mistake that Clinton/Gore remembered very well in 1992, which led them to hit the road right after the convention and never stop traveling.

The GOP Convention went exceptionally well for George HW Bush, Dan Quayle's problems not withstanding. He just took off from there and kept getting stronger--again, Dan Quayle not withstanding.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. The context is comparing the 15 pt to 17 pt. The link is 'history'. Well documented.

But it is okay, let me help you with a direct link and excerpt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis#1988_presidential_campaign

Dukakis himself blames his defeat on the time he spent doing gubernatorial work in Massachusetts during the few weeks following the Democratic Convention. Many believed he should have been campaigning across the country. During this time, his 17-point lead in opinion polls completely disappeared, as his lack of visibility allowed Bush to define the issues of the campaign. Dukakis has since stated that the main reason he lost was his decision "not to respond to the Bush attack campaign, and in retrospect it was a pretty dumb decision."

[NewJeffCT]

13. and, he ended up losing in an electoral landslide

"only" about an 8% loss overall, but Bush got over 400 electoral votes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Yes. Overconfidence in polls can lose the main race but also down-ticket for SCOTUS & state legisl.

[NewJeffCT]

18. yes

Dukakis taking several weeks off in August to govern Massachusetts while Bush & Rove slammed him with the Willie Horton ad basically destroyed him. Clinton won't be doing that. (She & her team have been defining Trump while he's been short of money...)

[Recursion]

12. Huh? The context is the OP. And that doesn't need a link

It's a very well-known bit of history.

[kcr]

24. But you can't just take something historical and remove it from its context

and claim it's exactly like today. There are aspects of historical events that make it differ. Just throwing it out by itself and claiming samesies isn't making a point.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. Not after the conventions

He had that lead in one poll a month before the conventions. Bush lead by 4 after the conventions and won by 8.

Whatever the polls are at the end of next week will be incredibly predictive of what happens in November. I think Hillary will still be up about 6-7 in the average of polls at the end of next week. What the polls are now should be very predictive too, although the Khan might fade in another week.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Yes, I agree with your post. And now we have 538 and PEC sites with their models.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. Demographic changes in voters in 30 years.

[RBInMaine]

19. And then Dukakis ran a SHITTY SHITTY SHITTY campaign. Hillary is running a GREAT campaign.

[Johnny2X2X]

23. Not after the conventions

Dukakis had a 17 point lead in July, and a 4 point lead in August, but the Rep convention was in late August and Bush came out of that with a 4 point lead and never looked back.

No candidate has been this far behind after the conventions and even made it a close election much less won.

[CobaltBlue]

10. +15 in percentage-points margin is +19.5 million raw votes

There were approximately 131 million votes cast for president of the United States in 2008. That came down to 129 million in 2012. The two elections averaged 130 million. To win nationally by +15 percentage points is to win by 19.5 million raw votes. That is 10 million more votes than Barack Obama in 2008. There would be a lot of 2012 Republican/Mitt Romney states flipped to 2016 Democratic/Hillary Clinton. I would say:

• North Carolina

• Georgia

• Arizona

• Missouri

• Indiana

— Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (Omaha)

• Montana

• South Carolina

• Texas

— Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (Lincoln)

Possibly more.

In 2012, Barack Obama was re-elected nationally by +4. He won by slightly under 5 million raw votes. So this would be one monumental 2012/2016 shift.

Do I believe it will happen?

I feel more time needs to pass.

[applegrove]

11. 19 million is huge. But we can't get complacent. We need to be in

fighting form all the way along.

[BainsBane]

16. Absolutely

It's all about voter turn out. Polls mean nothing if voters don't get to the polls.

[oberliner]

17. None of those states will flip

But they don't need to for a comfortable win.

[CobaltBlue]

20. If Obama’s +4 goes to at least Hillary +6 … there will be at least one pickup

So far, in Electoral College history, there has never been a given presidential election’s electoral map duplicated later. The 1928 map for Republican Herbert Hoover (40 of 48 states) had a close call for a 1952/1956 Republican Dwight Eisenhower (39 followed by 41 of 48 states)—but close is not exact.

The percentage-points margin—2012-to-2016—is highly unlikely to remain the same: +3.86. (Obama 51.02% • Romney 47.16%.)

If the national swing is +2 for Hillary, she will flip North Carolina. Based on some of these most recent polls, I’m seeing +5, in order for her to win nationally by +9, and that would mean pickups from North Carolina and quite possibly both Georgia and Arizona. (If not both…one of the two. But their margins spread, from 2012, was just 1.23 from each other—Romney carried Georgia at +7.80 and Arizona at +9.03.) Additional national shift—again, 2012-to-2016—will yield more pickup states. (Romney carried Missouri at +9.36 and won a Republican pickup of Indiana at +10.20.)

[oberliner]

21. Maybe NC

Montana, definitely not.

Texas, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina - no.

Georgia, Arizona - extremely doubtful.

It won't matter though as those states are not needed to win.

[CobaltBlue]

22. oberliner—Colorado was the tipping point state in both 2008 and 2012

Colorado—now a bellwether state—was the tipping point state of both 2008 and 2012.

This means, when ranking the states Barack Obama carried, according to their percentage-points margins, first in 2008 and then with re-election in 2012, it was Colorado which reached the 270 electoral votes.

Obama won 28 (2008) and 26 (2012) states—plus District of Columbia—and Colorado was his No. 23 in both cycles. Since 1992, with Bill Clinton’s unseating of George Bush, the average number of carried states has been 29. Historically, it’s 34. The Democrats, over these six cycles (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012) have averaged 12 electoral votes per carried state. (The Republicans are at 8. Meaning, the Democrats have a 50-percent advantage over the Republicans.) So, with Colorado at No. 23, that would be 23 x 12 = 276. It turns out carrying 23 states should be good enough for the Democrats. But, realistically, with bellwethers Virginia, Ohio, and Florida Obama’s Nos. 24, 25, and 26, with both 2008 and 2012, the Democrats are nowadays going to win not with a minimal level of electoral votes (as Republican George W. Bush’s 271 and 286 electoral votes demonstrated in 2000 and 2004) but with an electoral-vote score well in the 300s.

[NewJeffCT]

25. current polls have Clinton leading Trump in both Arizona and Georgia

so, I would not consider either extremely doubtful.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/state/

Clinton was in striking distance in TX (8 points) as well.