538 - Election Update: Is The Presidential Race Tightening?

[TomCADem]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/

It seems like we’re overdue for another round of “is the presidential race tightening?” And the answer isn’t totally clear. Our model thinks Donald Trump has probably narrowed his deficit against Clinton slightly, but the difference is modest enough that we’ve wanted to change our answer with every new round of polls. And in general, we’re reluctant to proclaim any turnaround in the race while we still have to squint to see a shift.

But here’s what we think is a little clearer: Trump’s share of the vote has increased, as he’s picked up undecided and third-party voters, probably as the result of Republicans’ returning home after a disastrous series of weeks for Trump this month. Clinton, however, is at least holding steady and probably also improving her own numbers somewhat.

Consider one of the worst polls of the day for Clinton: Monmouth University’s poll of New Hampshire, which gave Clinton a 4-percentage-point lead, down from a 9-point lead in Monmouth’s previous poll of New Hampshire in mid-September. But the poll didn’t really show Clinton’s vote declining (she fell only from 47 percent of the vote to 46 percent). Instead, the shift was primarily because Trump increased his vote share from 39 percent to 43 percent, having taken his votes from Gary Johnson and the undecided column.

One of Trump’s worst polls, conversely, was a Suffolk University national poll that showed Clinton beating him by 10 points1 — up from a 7-point lead in Suffolk’s previous national poll in late August. And yet, Trump didn’t actually lose any ground in the Suffolk poll, improving to 38 percent of the vote from 35 percent before. It’s just that Clinton zoomed up further, improving to 47 percent from 42 percent.

[Awsi Dooger]

1. Don't assume a "new normal" after a candidate has several terrible weeks

That was the best point Nate made, IMO. I mentioned this article in a thread last night, although it was ignored on this site.

Overall foundational strength has more significance than short term variables. The public tends to look at it in reverse. When a new trend pops up they expect it to continue in the same direction. That is not logical. More often than not it drifts back toward the beginning. The same principal applies to the sports sites I post on. For example, the Miami Dolphins are a mediocre team. That's my hometown team. The past three seasons they have been 8-8, 8-8, 6-10 and now 3-4 this season. Fans on Dolphin sites go frantically overboard based on recent results. After a terrible stretch they'll project only 1 or 2 more victories all season, and during an uptick like now all of a sudden it's playoff projections and talk of greatness to follow. Meanwhile, I calmly project normalcy, the reversion to the mean that Nate talked about in the linked article, and it seldom lets me down.

I've always anticipated a reversion in this race, back toward Hillary's lead halfway between the conventions and debate one. That was a "normal" period after Hillary's bounce had peaked and before Trump nearly evened the race several weeks later.

[TomCADem]

2. If 2012 is the Normal, Should Hillary's Chance Just Be 75%?

Obama was leading Romney In Nate's forecast by this amount. Of course, with 3rd party candidates and undecideds, I would think there should be more uncertainty.