Not necessarily, according to your boy, Nate Silver.JohnStOnge wrote:I've written it before and I'll write it again:
Had the Republicans nominated a decent candidate, Hillary would have no shot. But the Republicans didn't do that. So, as of now, she's still the favorite. In fact, in spite of everything that's happened, the current betting odds are about 3:1 in her favor (76:24).
Of course, as I also wrote, there is supposed to be more to come. Julian Assange says he's got more stuff.
The point, though, is that the Republicans really screwed up in nominating Trump. If he does win it'll just be because they got a gift from Heaven by virtue of the fact that the Democrats were stupid enough to nominate Hillary.
At this point, while I'm somewhat concerned, I'm optimistic about Hillary winning. The electoral college picture is tilted in her favor to a much greater extent than the popular vote picture is and Trump is just SO unacceptable.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... e-clinton/But what if the race continues to tighten? I’ve often heard Democrats express a belief that Clinton’s position in the swing states will protect her in the Electoral College even if the race draws to a dead heat overall. But this is potentially mistaken. Although it’s plausible that Clinton’s superior field operation will eventually pay dividends, so far her swing state results have ebbed and flowed with her national numbers.
Take Wisconsin, for example. At her peak, Clinton had a double-digit lead there, according to our polls-only forecast. By Wednesday morning, it had declined to an estimated 7 points, as a result of our model’s trend line adjustment — which adjusts polls in all states based on shifts it detects in the race overall — along with data from the Ipsos 50-state tracking poll.
We know that some readers don’t like the trend line adjustment. But if anything, the model hadn’t been aggressive enough. Two highly rated, traditional telephone polls of Wisconsin came out Wednesday, and they showed Clinton up by just 3 points and 5 points. The 3-point lead was in a poll from Marquette University, which had Clinton up by 13 points just after the Democratic National Convention. (As of Thursday morning, Clinton is projected to win by 5 points in Wisconsin, according to the polls-only model.)
Usually, the trend line adjustment helps the model peg what forthcoming polls will look like in a state even if there haven’t been many of them recently. When Clinton established a roughly 8-point lead nationally in August, for example, it figured we’d see polls showing her with leads of 10 to 12 percentage points in some of her better swing states, such as Michigan and Colorado, along with leads of 5 to 6 percentage points in swing states that are just slightly redder than the country as a whole, such as Ohio and Florida. And that’s pretty much what we saw, at least on average. Now that the race has tightened to 4 or 5 points nationally, the model expects to see narrower leads — along with some polls showing a tie or Trump slightly ahead in the more red-leaning swing states
