2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumReminder: 92% of Candidates Behind At This Point in August Lost the General Election
I like to bring this up from time to time. In the past 82 years, only 2 candidates that was behind at this point in the polling (papa bush and truman) came back to win. All others ended up losing. And if we go just 2 more weeks and Trump is still behind,he will be in a position that that only 1 candidate ended up winning has ever been in. Every candidate for the past 82 years that has been consistently ahead by August 21st has ended up winning, except in 1948.
And based on our current polling, I would say trump making up a near double digit deficit and actually pulling ahead in a week or two is about as close to 0% as you can get.
Keep in mind, his position right now is already extremely dismal. History says he only has an 8% chance of winning right now. In 2 weeks, it drops to 4%. His position is quickly leaving "virtually no chance of winning" to "complete catastrophe".
Edit: Updated the information based on the 1948 election. I blame the person that made the cart for using nearly identical colors for Truman and Dewey.
andym
(5,441 posts)It would be quite interesting. What about 1948? I thought Dewey was outpolling Truman by a lot?
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)The colors on the graph are so close for Dewey and Truman that I got the two confused. Ok, so 4% of candidates have come back from being behind in the fall to win.
Keep in mind, there were 2 elections, 1980 and 1960, where there was some back and forth in the fall but A. the candidate that was usually ahead ended up wining and B. any election where the lead was consistent by now was over and done by this point. Most elections are consistent by now with no real back and forth.
Here are some random elections showing this point
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trial-heat-trends.aspx
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Polls in the 1940's were still lacking in any sophistication but lets lump them into the overall picture because it helps Trump's numbers, and we can see the absolute worst case scenario for our side. 1948 probably doesn't mean shit for this argument and Trump is likely much weaker than the 4% chance of winning that including that election would give him. However, I am the type of person that likes to see just how weak our position could possibly be to get an idea how good it actually is. And at a 96% chance including fudging the numbers a bit for Trump still means he is as close to hopeless as he can get.
I don't think that Clinton should be measuring the drapes in the oval office yet but maybe she should at least go out and buy a tape measurer.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)However, he likely won any way. But the official result was that Bush won, so take it as you will.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Gallup had Truman 17 points behind in late September and its final pre election poll had Truman losing 50-45. In fact Truman won 50-45 so Gallups final poll was off by 10%. Other polling agencies had similar issues see http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/data/1948Election.html .
So was Truman behind by a lot in August and September? As the above link indicates there was a now known problem with sampling issues in those polls. For all we know Truman was never behind because if your samples are screwed up, you really can't draw any conclusions from the result of your poll.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)The Republican Convention concluded on August 18th.
Another way to think about conventions is that they help reset the race to equilibrium. In 1988, for example, George H.W. Bush headed into the conventions trailing Michael Dukakis despite conditions that seemed relatively favorable for Bush: The outgoing Republican president, Ronald Reagan, was fairly popular, and the American economy was in good shape. The conventions produced a big swing in the polls toward Bush, and he never looked back
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)In most elections, the conventions wouldn't take place until mid to late august. They were really early this year. That makes comparisons a bit difficult when matching up specific dates. Our place in the election right now is probably closer to early September in most years, at least in terms of polling.
As I said in another post, I want to base this on our worst case scenario, which is Trump still having a small chance of pulling a George HW Bush and pulling ahead by mid-August (despite the differences in convention dates) and including 1948 which had a lot of polling problems. Odds are, Trump is much worse off than the 4-8% chance I said in the original polls but at his very best, his situation is extremely dismal.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)I'm not too worried about them staying on top of everything. Really though, what we see on the public stage is only a small fraction of the campaign. The behind the scenes work is what will win the election. Clinton's team is more experienced and much larger than even Obama's 2008 or 2012 operations. Trumps, on the other hand, doesn't even exist.
Clinton's campaign is playing 3D chess while Trump's is sitting in the corner eating paste. I'm not too concerned that her campaign is going to make a serious of fatal mistakes.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... but is the most likely to build more tracks.
She said in an interview that the DNC gets are asses handed to us in off years, hopefully they're already implementing their off year strategy.
Few would be shocked if tRump comes out of this whole thing with more money than he went into it with... and the GOP is sunk
Jon Fogerty
(45 posts)because it will reduce voter turnout (heck, she's going to win anyway so why should I bother), encourage "protest" voting (well, she's going to win anyway so I will vote for Trump to send a message) and it hides what many have noted: the "stealth" Trump supporters who publicly denounce him, but privately love and vote for him.
Brexit, anyone?
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)As the polls got closer to the actual vote, it showed a dead heat and it barely passed. It wasn't far off at all. However, polling in Britain isn't really relevant to the U.S.. British polls tend to be far more inaccurate than those in the U.S.
As for the "secret trump voter", they say that about the losing party every year and it never comes to pass. In 2008, there was a lot of speculation about a massive number people saying they would vote for Obama but would actually vote for McCain because they were afraid of looking racist. That group of people didn't end of existing .
If anything, Trump tends to underperform his polls. It happened all of the time in the primaries, where he would be polling at something like 36% but only get 31% when the state actually voted.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Whites voted 53% to 47% to exit the EU. Britain is 90% white. If, in the election in the United States in November, Hillary gets 47% of the white vote, she will win by 12 points.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)it still wouldn't help, but it would be funny to see.