Just read Josh Marshall. I add very little.  But that won’t stop me from doing some addition.  Josh has a good post of the state of the race.  Link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-great-is-it-close-debate

Nate Silver’s model has the Clinton likelihood of victory back below 60 percent.  His model uses a combination of state and national polling.  It’s quite sensitive to the latest polling.  Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium uses state polls only.  His model is less sensitive, and he gives Clinton a 73 to 82 percent chance of winning.  I tend to be more with Sam but not necessarily for the same reasons. My reasons for thinking Clinton will win are:

1. Trump never quite pulls ahead; he just gets close. Clinton tends to move back to a lead of about 4 percent.

2. Usually the candidate who has generally led the race most of the time post convention, even if the margin is modest, is the winner.

3. Clinton’s ground game should add a point or two.

4.A majority believes Trump is unfit and unqualified to be President regardless of policy.  Trump’s only chance is to win with a plurality.  I think Clinton has more room to gain from undecided voters or those voting for the third party candidates.  Ed Kilgore has a nice piece noting that many millennials think Clinton may be inevitable, thus comfortable making a 3rd party protest vote. On election eve, voters will know what is at stake.  While some may choose a protest vote, very few voters will do that under the illusion that his or her vote doesn’t  matter.

5. As I have said before, the electorate will get it right one more time.

I agree with Josh Marshall’s closing thought: “My own hunch is that that line separating the two candidates is likely more durable than some suspect. But that’s just my own hunch.”

I am very interested in the debate tomorrow.  I expect that Trump will try to play it conservative by not attacking and just appearing “Presidential” on the same stage.  I don’t think he can do it.  It’s just not his nature.  We shall see.  Oh and Josh Marshall has it all for you at:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-few-thoughts-on-the-debate

 

 

Polls show a tightening race for President. The Nate Silver model has her chances down to 60 percent. Readers, friends, and family members (pretending there is a difference) ask me if I am worried. Well, even a small chance of a very bad thing can be something to worry about. But no, I remain confident the Clinton will win.

The primary reason I believe Clinton will win is that the American electorate has made a rational choice in every election since WWII. I may not agree with the choice, but for each election the electorate made a sensible choice about whether it was time to change or maintain the status quo. (I voted for Carter in 1980, but with unemployment and inflation high and hostages in Iran, the electorate chose change in a former conservative governor from California.  That’s a rational decision.)

So was Bush defeating Gore rational in 2000?  Can’t the electorate be manipulated by campaign gurus like Carl Rove, with amplification by Fox News? Well,  2000 was a close call.  The economy was still okay, but the stock market had dropped a lot in early 2000. (The  Dot-com bust, remember.). Bush was in his second term as Governor of TX.  As the son of the former President, voters could expect reasonable appointments and governance. Cheney was thought of as competent moderate at that time.  (He had been Ford’s chief of staff.) While the Lewinsky scandal did not destroy President Clinton’s popularity, you can understand why some voters wanted to make a change.  A credible, though very modest case for change, a credible candidate, and a good campaign still needed a flawed ballot design in FL to win the election.  And Bush did not win the popular vote.

Trump is no Bush.  Rove/ Ailes/ whoever are working with a toxic substance. The electorate understands Trump is not qualified to be President.  Moreover, the commerce department reported median income growth in 2015 of over 5%, the best figure in decades.  The case for change is not there.

So why isn’t Clinton further ahead? She is very unpopular too.  Some (most?) of the criticism of her is unfair.  Regardless, the baggage is there.  When busy voters are deciding whether to answer the phone during a bad week or two for her while the campaign focus has been away from Trump, you can see why her numbers might fade a bit.  The real key is shifting the focus back to Trump.

Whenever Trump is the focus, his numbers drop.  The debates will put focus back on Trump.  Some new stories about his business dealings abroad and his foundation are likely to get more attention.  The media likes a close race.  My hunch is coverage will move back toward Trump with the polls so close.  Plus the Clinton campaign can help themselves by baiting him into spouting off.

My hunch is that Clinton will slightly out preform her polls.(1-2 percent better).  She has a ground game designed to find and get her marginal voters to the polls (or vote by mail).  Trump does not have this.  I still believe the actual voters will make the right call that the case for change is weak and Trump is unqualified and dangerous.  I think the 3rd party candidate vote will fade some, raising Clinton’s margin.

Could I be wrong?  Could voters decide to take their anti-Trump vote to 3rd party candidates, allowing Trump to win with just a plurality?  Yes I could be wrong.  However,  I trust the voters to get this right.  They always have.  I will be very surprised if they don’t get it right one more time with so much on the line.