Back in September 2000, Will Saletan of Slate wrote that “Bush was toast” a little prematurely.  He later regretted using that word and instead used the term warm bread in his own self correcting piece.  So to not jinx things, I’ll say warm bread rather than something that rhymes with coast.   Up to now I’ve believed that Clinton would win and Trump would lose. Mentally, I had Clinton’s chances at about 80 percent. This morning it moves up to more like 98 percent. Let me explain first what I had been thinking, and then what changed this morning.

I believe that most elections are logical choices by the voters.  There is often a strong  case for continuation (1984, 1988, 1996), or a strong case for change (1980,1992, 2008), or a close call (2000, 2004, and 2012).  In the strong cases, things like campaign tactics don’t matter very much.  The underlying conditions of peace and prosperity (or their opposites) overdetermine the election.  In close calls where there is a weak but still plausible case for change, then tactics and campaigns matter.

The underlying conditions this year suggest a weak to modest case for continuation, that is a bit stronger than the case for change.  Unemployment, crime, and inflation are all low, the stock market is near it’s all time high, and the country is at peace. Yet income growth has been weak and terrorism abroad, and to a lesser extent at home, leaves folks feeling a little uneasy.  A weak case for continuation in my opinion, but an even weaker case for change.  So I would have expected a close election, especially with no incumbent President on the ballot.  Nate Silver’s polls plus model, which includes fundamentals, sees it similarly as a close election.  (In contrast the polls only model shows a commanding lead for Clinton).

So in a close election tactics and candidates matter. And Trump is a disastrous candidate.  No impulse control, easily bated, unable to focus, unable to stay on message, no effective campaign tactics, and unable to unite the party. So even if he could make the case for change, voters correctly perceive he does not have the temperament or judgment to be President. He cannot be the change agent even if the case for change could be made.

But all the above has been obvious for several weeks or even months. So what changed for me?  Why have I gone from Trump is likely to lose to almost certainly going to lose.  I’ve been a little slow to realize that Trump just can’t change his stripes.  I had always assumed that on some level his persona was an act, like being on the apprentice.  Trump values winning, and there would be many Republican campaign operatives and politicians offering advice on everything from policy, advertising, and ground game. But even Trump’s desire to win can’t overcome his narcissistic personality that makes him so undisciplined and unable to focus.  Mrs. Center Left realized this long ago.

So my belated realization that there will be no pivot is one reason, I am now even more bullish on Clinton’s prospects. The other is that that the media has turned against him in ways I didn’t realize till this morning.  Ezra Klein has a great piece on this today worth reading in it’s entirety.  Link:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/16/12484644/media-donald-trump

Most candidates can get away with exaggerations and even largely misleading statements. There only has to be some element of what Steven Colbert calls “truthiness” for the media to take a he said/ she said approach.   But Trump repeatedly can’t even do a little truthiness, so the media calls him on it.  From Klien quoting James Fallows:

“The things Trump says are demonstrably false in a way that’s abnormal for politicians,” says the Atlantic’s James Fallows, who wrote the book Why Americans Hate the Media. “When he says he got a letter from the NFL on the debates and then the NFL says, ‘no, he didn’t,’ it emboldens the media to treat him in a different way.”

But the capper for me was a screen shot from CNN.  With Trump in the center of the picture, the screen below reads:

Trump Calls Obama Founder of Isis (He’s not.) Fact check: al-Baghdadi founded Isis

I don’t watch cable news, but if the media is calling Trump out for his daily lies, there is no hope for him.  Klein’s piece explains in more detail why the media has turned on Trump (fear of restricting press if he became President and the way his racism offends their cosmopolitan sensibility).  I expect this will continue.  This for me is an unanticipated early benefit of what I called the “denunciation phase” of the campaign whereby newspapers would denounce Trump in unusually harsh terms, with echoes from some Republican commentators.  This instant fact check (Trump’s statement is false) is related to that same concept of denunciation.

I just don’t see how Trump can win.  External events such as terrorism and a market crash might open the door for voters to consider change. But Trump is to undisciplined and patently unqualified to take advantage. Republican elected officials and their institutional money will continue to move away from Trump and focus on down ballot races.  The only question for the Presidential race is the margin of victory.  I’m thinking an 8 to 10 point margin, but even bigger numbers are possible.  I just can’t see a final election closer than Obama’s 4 point win in 2012.

Hope I haven’t jinxed things by mentioning warm bread to soon, but wanted to state where I really think the election stands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some friends and family members know that estimating the electoral college is a hobby of mine.  In 1996, I correctly picked 49 states.  Or stated another way, I correctly picked all 50 and 200K voters in CO got it wrong ;). This was before the era of Nate Silver, but in fact anyone spending an hour looking at state polls could have gotten 45 states correct.  So my 49 in 1996 hardly makes me an expert.

First point, the electoral college only matters if the popular vote spread is less than 3 percent. A candidate winning the popular vote by 3 percent or more will surely win the electoral college, probably with a couple states to spare.

But in a close election it does matter. Although I don’t think the election will be decided by less than 3 percentage points, if it were, the key states are FL, OH, and PA.  The New York Times had an extensive article on this just as I was doing my own thinking last weekend.  If Clinton can win any one of these three states, she will almost certainly win the electoral college. However if Trump can sweep all three, he is likely to win the electoral college.  This is because sweeping all three probably means winning Iowa and New Hampshire as well.  With those additional wins, the only path I can see for Clinton would be to win Arizona or North Carolina. Again, this is unlikely if Trump has won the other states discussed.   Bottom line, Trump needs that clean sweep of all three to win and PA has not gone Republican since 1988 (though it has been close in several elections).

With the latest polling numbers now giving Clinton an average lead of about 8 percentage points, talk of the electoral college key states seems almost silly.  If Clinton wins by 8, her electoral college map would look better than Obama’s in 2008.  For a sneak peak at the potentially bluest map in about 20 years, go to Nate Silver’s model and set the forecast on “nowcast.” This maximizes the impact of the latest polling.  This morning the nowcast shows Clinton winning all the usual swing states plus GA and AZ.  What a pretty map!

While glimpsing that map is fun, I would urge readers not to get too caught up in day-to-day polling changes.  Response rates for polls are very low.  What a poll is really testing is the propensity for respondents to pick up the phone and take the time to share their views.  With the Dem convention featuring so many good speeches favoring Clinton and Trump idiotically confirming everyone’s worst impressions by attacking a gold star family, is it any wonder that Dems were happy to answer pollsters with better number for Hillary? And that Republicans were less likely to answer those phone calls if they were in the random survey?  Larry Sabato of UVA puts it well:

You might ask: What about the wild swings in polling we observe with regularity, most recently after each convention? Some persuasive research has argued that it is explained by variability in the survey response rates of Democrats and Republicans. (See Andrew Gelman, et al., “The Mythical Swing Voter”). That is, short-term swings in candidate preference are caused mainly if not exclusively by variability in partisan response rates. Even small changes in response rates among Democrats and Republicans can produce sizable shifts in candidate support, given the very low overall response rates in most polls.

Clinton is totally dominating the news cycles right now.  This may not always be the case, so I would not be surprised if her average lead drops back to 3 or 4 percent, or possibly even closer for a few days between now and November.  I always go back to 2012 election won by Obama by 4 percent.  Demographics alone suggest if folks voted the same way in 2016, the lead would expand to at least 5 percent.  Given Trump’s now obvious hair trigger temper and obvious unfitness for office, how many former Obama voters can really switch to Trump no matter how badly folks feel about Hillary and her emails?  I just don’t see Trump assembling a winning coalition unless more terrorism causes the electorate to conclude we must have change if we don’t trust the change agent.  Not impossible, but very unlikely.

On the flip side, Trump’s current polling and the fact that local Republican primary campaigns are coming toward the end make it more possible that Republican congressional and senate candidates may soon formally abandon Trump, rather than just “distance” themselves.  If this happens, Trump’s numbers will likely stay at their current terrible levels or get even worse, making a double digit Clinton win possible and maybe even likely.

Bottom line, I expect a Clinton win in the range of Obama’s numbers in 2012 or 2008, with 2008 being the better estimate.  A double digit Clinton win is much more likely than a super close race that Trump manages two win.

Like most all pundits and observers, I believe the Democrats had a much better convention that will allow Hillary to shore up and expand her support.  Trump and the Republicans made several mistakes.  By turning so negative on the state of the country and the world, they forgot to say that they love America.  Moreover, their dark vision of the country is just not consistent with the latest data on crime and the economy.  Finally, Trump saying “I alone” can fix things was big mistake.  An old boss of mine (who worked in politics) used to say there are times for “we” messages and times for “I” messages. But politicians need to be very careful with the “I” messages.  Trump doesn’t know the meaning of careful.

After the Republican convention ended, I believed the Democrats were in a very good position to rebut much of  what had been said.  And indeed they did, with speaker after speaker.  Trump’s focus on “I” left the door open for Hillary to stress the “we” (think it takes a village).  I watched the speeches of both Obama’s, Tim Kaine, and Hillary.  The Obamas were outstanding.  Tim and Hillary were fine.  Hillary did better than I expected.

Perhaps the defining moment may turn out to be the very moving speech of Khazir Khan recounting his muslim son giving his life in service of his men and his country. During his 6 minute speech, Mr. Khan then pressed Trump on his knowledge of the constitution (which of course provides for freedom of religion) and noted that Trump had sacrificed nothing. Trump, unable to control himself, has attacked Khazir and his wife Ghazala.

This is a revealing mistake on so many levels.  It reveals that Trump has no empathy.  It reveals that Trump has no impulse control–he must fight back regardless of who attacked him.  It reveals that he cannot work with political professionals (or advisors of any kind) who would have advised him to either say nothing, or honor the Khan’s sacrifice while softly defending his policies.  It reveals the political stupidity of “all publicity is good publicity.”  Remember, Mr. Khan’s speech was not in prime time.  Not that many Republicans were even aware of the speech.  It was not shown live on FOX.  Now it’s being replayed in both regular and social media. For all these reasons, it reveals why Trump cannot be trusted with the control of nuclear weapons.  Josh Marshall has a complete explanation of Trump’s self-inflicted disaster:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-the-trump-khan-war

Early post convention polls are moving toward HRC.  I’d wait at least another week or two to draw firm conclusions about exactly where the race stands.  My expectation is that Clinton will move back toward that 4-6 point lead and hold that with some ups and downs over the coming 100 days or so.  But nothing is certain.  In a normal political world, Trump would have now come close to committing political suicide.  But is this a normal world?  Here’s David Brooks with a scary thought:

The Democrats had by far the better of the conventions. But the final and shocking possibility is this: In immediate political terms it may not make a difference.  The Democratic speakers hit doubles, triples and home runs. But the normal rules may no longer apply. The Democrats may have just dominated a game we are no longer playing.

Both conventions featured one grieving parent after another. The fear of violent death is on everybody’s mind — from ISIS, cops, lone sociopaths. The essential contract of society — that if you behave responsibly things will work out — has been severed for many people.

It could be that in this moment of fear, cynicism, anxiety and extreme pessimism, many voters may have decided that civility is a surrender to a rigged system, that optimism is the opiate of the idiots and that humility and gentleness are simply surrendering to the butchers of ISIS. If that’s the case then the throes of a completely new birth are upon us and Trump is a man from the future. If that’s true it’s not just politics that has changed, but the country.

I don’t believe things have changed as much as Mr. Brooks fears.  But probably the only way Trump could win would be if Brooks’ fears turn out to be true.