Real Clear Politics has Clinton ahead in Colorado. So does Nate Silver. So does the Washington Post.
I dove into the real story, and I conclude otherwise.
First, let’s take a look at how they see things.
- Real Clear Politics: Clinton +3.7
- Nate Silver: Clinton 64.5% Chance of Winning
- Washington Post: Clinton +3.7 (Citing RCP)
On September 19, Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza proclaimed Map is Moving Toward Trump. But Not Enough. Not Yet.
Two things are now true about the 2016 political map:
- Donald Trump is making polling gains in key swing states.
- Hillary Clinton remains in the driver’s seat.
That analysis essentially concludes the shift in momentum doesn’t matter yet. Even worse, Cillizza accept a poll averages by RCP as representative of facts, without any investigation.
Meme of the Day
The meme of the day (campaign actually), espoused by Cillizza and many others, is that Trump needs to hold every state he has, then pick up more states in Hillary’s column.
What if that meme is ass backwards?
RCP Polls
How did RCP derive that +3.7 margin for Hillary?
RCP Colorado
Any poll from August is useless. The one and only poll in September shows Trump in the lead.
Nate Silver Colorado
How did Silver arrive at that magic number?
Nate Silver Colorado Polls
- Six of 10 polls considered by Silver are useless except for historical analysis.
- The most recent poll has Trump at +4 (+3 if you accept his revision, and I will).
- The unrevised September polls are +4, Tie, and +3 for Trump. One poll is +7 for Clinton.
- The revised September polls are +3, +2, and +4 for Trump. One poll is +7 for Clinton.
The single poll in favor of Clinton could easily be an outlier. Even if one concludes it is legitimate, Trump is in no worse shape than a tie.
Since the latest poll should carry the most weight, I suggest Trump is actually ahead in Colorado.
New Hampshire
Hmm. It appears there are only two polls that matter in New Hampshire.
Trump is ahead in the most recent poll. It’s also the poll in which Nate Silver has the largest weight.
Meme of the Campaign in Reverse
Mentally move Colorado into the Trump column where it belongs. Guess what happens?
The meme of the campaign becomes … Despite a huge momentum shift to Trump, Hillary has to hold on to every state she has, plus she needs to pick up at least one state in Trump’s column.
If Trump does well in the debates, he will win the election.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“If Trump does well in the debates, he will win the election.”
I’ll be very surprised if Hitlary can physically make it through the first debate.
If she doesn’t, there is only one and a half candidates left in the race. (the half is G. Johnson).
I have no idea the ground rules for the debate (but sure to favor HRC).
I only watched about 15 minutes of one Republican “debate” … more like gladiators in the coliseum.
It was one of the early ones with “lying Ted” and “little marco” sandwiched around DT. Megyn Kelly leading the attack (had a powerpoint on Trump U) … and arena full of Republican operatives (ie: very few Trump people). Considering the odds stacked against DT, I thought he did OK … shooting from the hip and wondering if things would come to blows. Sort of entertaining … but very much a stretch to say a debate occurred.
I, as well, wonder if HRC can handle the stress – if things get heated – without folks thinking something wrong. Will she be heavily medicated?
We need drug testing prior to the debate as we do in sports!
Great idea, Pi! Donald would be totally in favor; the Hitlary fans totally against it.
Would Trump clear a drug test?
How about strapping both candidates to a lie detector instead?
You hope! I understand the FBI email ‘chat’ was not under oath.
Hillary has actually looked fairly healthy these last few days. As long as she is on a slow schedule and drugged out of her mind when she needs to appear on stage she is fine.
I live in Boulder, Colorado, ground zero for Obama lovers. When Obama ran for president (both elections) you cannot believe how many street signs and bumper stickers there were for him. Thousands upon thousands. Guess how many Hillary signs and bumper stickers I have seen here in liberal Boulder. ZERO. Not one. This shows just how unmotivated democrats are this year. And why wouldn’t they be? The nomination was stolen from Bernie and even democrats know Hillary is a lying, thieving crook. The polls are biased towards Hillary because they are not picking up the lack of enthusiasm for her, and on the reverse side, the huge enthusiasm from Trump’s supporters who will vote even in a hurricane.
I lived all over CO for 10 years b4 heading back to NJ…Crooked Hillary will take Denver and Boulder and many of the wayward towns in between (Lyons, Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland — um what’s with all the “L” towns) along the front range and up to Ft Collins. But I would venture to say that Trump has the rest of the state 100% locked. For example, Colorado Springs area probably one of the most conservative in the country…if not the most. Granted, parts of the rest of the state has less human life than the Moon….but I would put the end result as close to a dead heat.
I have a similar observation about Ohio. Election signs are few and far between in general and what are there most are for Trump. Of the remaining there are more Johnson signs than Hillary. I have seen several homemade “Hillary for Prison 2016”
I’m seeing more Trump signs than Hillary signs in CT and Western Mass. There are even more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. Gary Johnson has aired a radio ad with the basic statement, “I’m Not Them!”
Hi Mish, I have never really followed your political poll analysis. I’m curios how accurate you have been in the past? I will say your train of thought on this one seems accurate. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. As I think they could swing a few percent of voters either way. If Trump, can keep it going his way during the coming debate. Things will look really interesting.
In 2000 I called the every state but one in the election, before Obama even won the nomination. Missouri showed me up.
At the time I was called an Obama lover for making the prediction. I had Brexit right until the final poll. At that time I suspected Brexit would lose by a hair.
I have been chasting Nate Silver and everyone else since last December about Trump’s election odds. I challenged Nate Silver accurately on numerous occasions, notably Indiana.
https://mishtalk.com/2016/04/24/another-indiana-poll-goes-trumps-way/?iframe=true&preview=true
https://mishtalk.com/2016/04/30/indiana-hail-mary-pass-coming-up/
https://mishtalk.com/2016/05/01/silver-flushes-secret-sauce-down-toilet-now-projects-trump-has-69-chance/
When will betting odds flip? Or will it favor Clinton all the way as it did Brexit? LOL.
What you are seeing, Mish, is a changing methodology to goal-seek the result. For example, Reuters changed its methodology immediately after Trump caught and passed Clinton after the RNC- that change put Clinton back into the lead going into the DNC. However, even the changed methodology is failing to hold now as Clinton sinks. So, you will see more changes, and I would bet what Silver is or soon starts doing unless Clinton turns it around, will begin weighting the polls in the past more heavily and the ones in the present less so. Also, expect his method to become more obscure. He has done this in the past vs Trump, especially the polls prior to the Indiana primary. Silver has some sort of grudge against Trump that he hasn’t disclosed is my guess as to why he tried so mightily in the primaries to diminish Trump’s odds of winning. Of course, now for the general, his biases are more understandable.
Mish,
IMHO, Trump’s fate in CO is ultimately tied to (I’m not kidding about the name) “Amendment 69”.
If the opposition fails to turn out the vote to defeat the universal healthcare mess, Hillary wins the state.
If the prospect of $25 billion+ annually in new taxation motivates voters to the polls, Trump can carry the state.
That would be 2008
It’s not methodology change, it’s a lie
The Washington Post should rename themselves the ‘DNC post’. They are comically backing Clinton and Bashing Trump. They create columns that are goal seeked to make Trump look bad. They also seem to have many paid posters who go to every article and post anti-Trump messages. I’m not sure if Bezos loves Clinton or they are just pandering to all the gov’t employees who’s worst fear is having to get a job in the private sector.
Bezos loves owning the government. His purchase of WAPO is designed to make him a player in decision making. And he loves globalism. HRC is his pick, no doubt.
Isn’t Melinda Gates still a member of the board of directors at the Post?
She has always been useful to carry water in the tech industry’s never ending crusade for more H1-B visas. As a medium for national news, the Washington Post is a newspaper in the same way Captain Kangaroo is some sort of maritime captain. Still, it ‘s fun to pretend, for those with the mind of a kindergartener.
Trump supporters are laying low, not answering polls, waiting to vote. How many bumper stickers have you seen for EITHER candidate? Nate Silver better be right, or he is toast after this election – just another ‘forecaster’ who rolls dice or worse, is bought off or espousing his personal agenda.
WaPo, NYT, etc… See ya! Wouldn’t want to be ya! Newspapers in general are following the ‘NEWS-ADE’ meme. ADE standing for agenda driven entertainment
I know several voters who are voting Trump and just keeping it to themselves. Several have said they are note even going to watch the debate as they know it is structured against Trump and they have already made up their minds. In Ohio over a half million absentee ballots have been mailed to registered voters. The debates mean nothing to me as I have already voted Trump.
“That analysis essentially concludes the shift in momentum doesn’t matter yet. Even worse, Cillizza accept a poll averages by RCP as representative of facts, without any investigation.”
Even worse, the Washington Post is not a news organization. The Washington Post is deliberately anti Trump, thus is not being objective.
Those with common sense expected media propaganda and data manipulation to favor Hillary before the primaries were finalized. We live in a very dishonest nation. The fact that the propaganda and dishonesty to bring Trump down are allowed is direct evidence of that. How are we really different from the Communist system (re: news reporting) that we spent trillions of tax dollars to dismantle?
This is my guess. 2-4 weeks prior to the election someone will drop a news blitzkrieg bombshell on Hillary that she won’t be able to refute (w/ a straight face). I have no idea where it will come from. Whether Assange or a foreign government will launch it….I don’t know.
But we all know there is a TREMENDOUS amount of devastating and damning news out there in the world about Hillary that has not been exposed.
I suspect there are deals being negotiated behind closed doors over what information will get released and when.
We live in interesting times.
The major media outlets are all owned by very powerful interests. Trump threatens those interests. They will use their free speech rights to keep him out of power.
Is there devastating and damning news out there for Trump?
Trump WILL do well in the debate…
While the media essentially serves as a propaganda tool for the current administration, Trump knows how to manipulate them. Case in point, the recent 40 minute Live “Breaking News” Broadcast dedicated to the Birther reversal. Surprise: 38 minutes of self-promotion, followed by a couple of minutes for his flip flop, crowned with an accusation that his opponent, Hillary, started it all.
But most important is Trump’s ability lie without consequence. Something Hillary cannot do.
His lies come so fast and furious that we are accustomed to it.
I dub thee “asbestos pants”.
You must be watching a completely different Presidential campaign season than me.
It’s laughable to believe that the media is in Trump’s back pocket and is protecting his interests. ha..
I can only assume that you are using satire in your communication.
Obviously CzarChasm is joking. You cannot turn reality on it’s head and be serious. Not unless, that is……….(I won’t go there).
Yeah, okay. Hillary Clinton “cannot” get away with lying. Got it!
Thanks again for posting. It’s that kind of hard hitting analysis buttressed by incontrovertible fact finding that makes this blog site a special place to visit.
Wisconsin may be in a similar situation. The two most recent polls on RCP are from the end of August and average out to a +4 Clinton lead. If Wisconsin follows a trend similar to the rest of the nation, that 4 point advantage could have easily fallen to a tie or slight Trump lead.
Yes precisely
Many of the assumed Hillary states have few recent polls
I drove across 250 miles of Wisconsin yesterday. I saw many Trump & Pence signs; NONE for Hitlary.
CzarChasm said Trump is skilled at manipulating the media, not that they are supporting him. Its pretty sad that some members of the media seemed more upset that they endured 38 minutes of a Trump hotel promotion than listening to the birther lie for eight years. I guess that gets clicks. Its amazing that nobody asked him that question during the RNC debates.
Trump needs to hammer at a few key points:
1. Cutting taxes on rich people did not “lift all boats”.
2. Illegal immigration and off-shoring has decimated good middle-class jobs.
3. The U.S. military, for all its trillions, can’t even decisively defeat a bunch of rag tag Afghans.
4. The “War on Terror” is what created terrorism in the first place.
5. The “War on Drugs” just serves to create junkies and fill prisons, and destroy African-American’s lives and livelihoods.
6. The government should save the hard-working middle-class, not the rich bankers.
Hit those points over and over and he will crush Hillary in any debate and easily win the election. Hillary doesn’t have an answer for any of those issues.
Absolutely, I stand corrected. It is NOT so much a contest of WHO the BETTER LIAR is, it IS:
Hillary in one corner, defending the government she is a part of, and the status quo…
and Trump in the other, promising big, huge, great, change.
1. At what percentile does rich start?
2. Would zero offshoring and zero immigration save jobs from automation?
3. Could the U.S. military depopulate Afghanistan using conventional weapons?
4. Does the “War on Terror” predate the 1972 summer Olympics?
5. Would readily available drugs promote African-American livelyhood?
6. Can the government save anybody?
Seriously.
What if one mentally moves North Carolina to HRC? Seems as likely as the shifts above, if we apply the same discount of the past, and with heavy weighting of trends, and heavy weighting of attitude, it’s not just the pale blues that are shifting; some of the pale reds are too. The attitude among blacks seems to be hardening against Trump, as Trump flounders with the birther issue. Trump’s “What do you have to lose?” initiative (the answer, by the way, is the same as for every voter: “your freedom”) seems to have failed, and with it Silver’s projection in favor of Trump seems shaky, unless one credits the reversion-to-historic baseline that Mish has been challenging.
What if one mentally moves North Carolina to HRC? Seems as likely as the shifts above, if we apply the same discount of the past, and with heavy weighting of trends, and heavy weighting of attitude. So, it’s not just the pale blues that are shifting; some of the pale reds are too. The attitude among black voters seems to be hardening against Trump, as Trump flounders with the birther issue. Trump’s “What do you have to lose?” initiative (the answer, by the way, is the same as for every voter: “my freedom”) seems to have failed, and with the decline in already-slim black voter support, Silver’s projection in favor of Trump seems shaky, unless one credits Silver’s great weighting of reversion-to-historic baseline, which factor Mish has been challenging.
Why would NC go to Hillary?
She had a lead for a long time.
Slowly but surely, and as I predicted all along, that lead dwindled and dwindled until it vanished.
Now it is growing in favor of trump.
The trend in all the alleged “tossup” states has been like that.
It makes no sense to shift states to Hillary!
Perhaps it will after the debates. Not Now
Silver (“polls plus”) has NC 63.5% to 36.5%, in favor of Trump. Yet RCP reports four distinct, recent polls as two ties, and two in favor of Trump. Given this, Silver apparently is weighing NC’s recent presidential outcomes, a string of Republicans. It’s a reversion to the past election historical mean that Mish says is inapplicable or at least less applicable to this election.
But if Silver is wrong about Colorado, as argued in the original post, then he should be equally wrong about NC. Colorado is now blue under Silver (“polls plus” 57.1%) is not primarily a product of polls — recent or more remote — but more significantly because of the past two elections in which it went for Obama.
If Silver is overweighing the outcome of previous elections, then he is over-favoring Trump in NC. Trend in polling there seems to be flat, and certainly indicates a closer race than Silver predicts.
Silver (“polls plus”) has NC 63.5% to 36.5%, in favor of Trump. Yet RCP reports four distinct, recent polls as two ties, and two narrowly in favor of Trump. There is has been no radical change of trend. Given this, in so strongly favoring Trump, Silver apparently is weighing NC’s recent presidential outcomes, a string of Republicans. It’s a reversion to the past election historical pattern, a factor that Mish says is inapplicable or at least less applicable to this election.
Now, if Silver is inaccurate about Colorado, as argued in the original post, above, then he should be equally inaccurate about NC. Colorado is now blue under Silver (“polls plus” is 57.1%). Mish questions that assignment, mostly on the basis of polling trend. Silver’s prediction, however, is not apparently primarily a product of polls, recent or more remote, or of their trend. Rather, Silver seems to be factoring election history — that Colorado went twice for Obama.
So, if Silver is over-weighting the outcome of previous elections, then he is over-favoring Trump in NC. In fact, NC is much closer than forecast by Silver.
This is why I suggested mentally moving NC to HRC. Its electoral college votes would more than offset Colorado.
It is incorrect to say that “Any poll from August is useless” unless events in the present are such that prior results are unreliable or that it can be shown that those results are unduly biased. It is somewhat correct to say that “Any poll from September carries more weight” – but there’s still the risk that results from most recent polls are being influenced by events that may not be expected to persist. Simply picking and choosing which polls are “correct” and which ones aren’t is exactly what led the GOP to erroneously conclude that it was really going to win in 2012.
If polls are consistently showing nearly the same result, there’s less chance that they’re all incorrect. Any result that deviates from the apparent average – even if it’s a more recent result – should be considered an outlier *unless* (a) more polls come in that confirm the apparent outlier, or (b) it can be demonstrated that the other polls are biased in some fashion and thus erroneous. If the results of polls looks more like birdshot at a target from 50 yards, then at best the estimate is the average of all polls but confidence in that figure is still low.
My guess: Trump probably trails in Colorado but only by a couple points – but more polling is needed to get a more accurate picture of things. He definitely trails in New Hampshire, probably around 5-6 points, especially since the latest Monmouth poll has Clinton +9 and that makes the NBC/Marist poll of 9/6-9/8 look like an outlier.